Has WikiLeaks Morphed Into A Malware Hub? (backchannel.com)

Slashdot reader mirandakatz writes: In releasing an unredacted database of emails from the Turkish party AKP, WikiLeaks exposed the public to a collection of malware -- and even after a Bulgarian security expert pointed this out publicly, the organization only removed the select pieces of malware that he identified, leaving well over a thousand malicious files on the site.

That AKP leak also included the addresses and other personal details of millions of Turkish women, not unlike the recent DNC leak, which included the personal data of many private individuals. WikiLeaks says this is all in the name of its "accuracy policy," but the organization seems to be increasingly putting the public at risk.
The article opens with the question, "What the hell happened to WikiLeaks?" then argues that "Once an inspiring effort at transparency, WikiLeaks now seems more driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."

Comments

No.

[quenda]

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the principle is much older.
Betteridge's law of headlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: No.

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

You can answer with no, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer.

Being obtuse about a humorous law is not the right answer either.

Nonetheless, all the below silly headlines on Slashdot's front page can be answered "no":

Has WikiLeaks Morphed Into A Malware Hub?

No.

Ask Slashdot: Is KDE Dying?

No.

Can Cow Backpacks Reduce Global Methane Emissions?

No.

What the hell happened to Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once an inspiring effort at tech news, Slashdot now seems more driven by marketing and reckless government propaganda...

Good grief

[Anonymous Coward]

I've really been trying to avoid adding to the growing cries of "Slashdot has turned into a dirty mouthpiece for the FBI/NSA/name-your-TLA," but the stream of agenda-laden hit pieces littering up the front page doesn't seem to be slowing. -PCP

Re:Good grief

[AmiMoJo]

This is the result of those (in)security services leaning on journalists and researchers who work with Wikileaks. By depriving them of the manpower to go through the leaked material and sanitize it, they have left Wikileaks with only two choices: publish or don't publish.

And now they get to push stories like this, that deflect attention away from the content of the leaks.

What grudge? The editor's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which personal grudge does Wikileaks represent?

Should Wikileaks not release information given to it because it belongs to someone that it opposes?

If Wikileaks removed malware from email then it would be editing the raw information given to it. Wikileaks's goal is to provide raw information, unlike that of mainstream journalism.

It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses or prevent us from getting the raw data given to it.

Wikileaks doesn't represent any political position aside from the push for the freedom of information. It doesn't choose what information is given to it and information given to it is released once verified to be authentic.

The question you should be asking is of the people that supply and have the potential to supply information to Wikileaks, what grudges do those people have?

If they had a grudge against you and sent information to Wikileaks, would it be Wikileaks that has the grudge or the people that send the information?

Re:What grudge? The editor's?

[DRJlaw]

It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses...

Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut? Now we could get into reasons why one would argue for either position so that this could actually qualify as a discussion rather than a diatribe. Some reasons for it being Wikileak's role: distributing information that actively attacks the recipient, like a smallpox-ridden blanket, and without even warning the recipient of that fact, is counterproductive and morally dishonest. Damaging your audience under the banner of "raw information" while failing to openly disclose one of the more significant aspects of the information... really?

Wikileaks's goal is to provide raw information, unlike that of mainstream journalism.

Well that's a bit of revisionist history, isn't it? I mean, first they redacted information, then they stopped. Yet they still redact source information, because, otherwise, you might be able to determine a source, and that would be bad for Wikileaks.

Wikileak's stated goals vary depending upon the side of Assange's very tiny bed that he woke up on that morning. However, their actions most assuredly represents the personal grudges of Assange himself. Wikileaks does not provide raw information, it provides information curated by Assange for Assange's personal purposes, and you'd do well to remember that.

Re:What grudge? The editor's?

[davmoo]

Good does come out of Wikileaks. But Assange's primary purpose is to make Assange feel important and keep him in the news.

Re:What grudge? The editor's?

[neilo_1701D]

It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses...

Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut?

That's not a rebuttal; that's taking an opposing position with no argument (or evidence) to back up your position.

A rebuttal might look like:

It may not be the job of WikiLeaks to scan emails for malware, but it can be argued that it should be. Their goal is to release information into the hands of people who can do something with it. Those people are mostly journalists with limited computer security knowledge, compared to, say, most of us here on Slashdot, and it is in the best interests of WikiLeaks to ensure that we can trust the information coming from them.

Although Wikileaks tries to release information as raw as possible, they do have a legitimate reason to alter it; namely the protection of sources and protection of people not directly targeted by the leak. Since they are already altering the information to protect sources, it is surely no great ethical stretch to protect recipients as well.

See? No only did I rebut his position, I acknowledged his arguments and demonstrated that they actually supported my case better than his case.

Re:What grudge? The editor's?

[Lakitu]

If being on a "to disappear" list means you get to live in a mansion in the English countryside practically free of worry, then it's no wonder so many people are desperately trying to get on it.

Plants made to ruin credability

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't care.

Wikileaks is the only place around that still fights against corporations and governments. No one else does, and its always going to be lined up and screwed with to try and stop this from happening.

What happened? No security.

[Chas]

Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.

So, as a result, it basically becomes a dumping ground for all this crap.

Thus, when examples are pointed out to them, all they can do is nix the examples.

It depends only on where you stand

[argStyopa]

When they leak shit about people you don't like: "...an inspiring effort at transparency..."

When they leak shit about people you support: "...driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."

So easy to corrupt

[PopeRatzo]

It's been a long while since Wikileaks was a scruffy little band of freedom fighters. Unfortunately, they've become an outfit used by oligarchs, intelligence services and dictators to settle scores, gain advantage and destroy enemies. And this happened partially because Julian Assange understandably developed something of a martyrdom complex while he was hiding from rape charges and allowed his self-regard to run out of control and is now easily manipulated. It's all pretty predictable if you look at the dramatic arc of the story.

Wikileaks changed the world, and changed along with it, trivializing their mission and becoming what they were trying to defeat. They've been co-opted and are now they're a joke that posts online polls of the US presidential race. They've become Breitbart. They've become Gawker without the accountability. They're just another organization of online trolls.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...