Slashdot Mirror
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..."
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..."
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/...
Once an inspiring effort at tech news, Slashdot now seems more driven by marketing and reckless government propaganda...
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
Yes. Let's shut it down. And ban encryption.
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?
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.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Once an inspiring effort at transparency, WikiLeaks now seems more driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."
Wikileaks was always about embarrassing people.
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..."
-Styopa
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.
Wikileaks has withstood countless efforts to get their site offline, sometime by dedicated groups and/or state sponsored actors. You may remember how all hell broke loose with cablegate, including DDOS and Senator Lieberman's call to Amazon. Calling Wikileaks incompetent at security is completely ridiculous.
I bet that the whole thing went down like this: author of this backchannel article wanted to rag on Wikileaks for their dissemination of personal details, and wanted to bring up email #117 as prime example (medical bill!!) and got infected herself for lack of security competence. Author then contacted some security outfit to perform a security evaluation, security outfit performed a simple virus scan. Author then cooked up a click bait article, how Wikileaks is out there to recklessly infect everyone with malware.
Let's face it: Wikileaks is plenty competent securitywise, as evidenced by their very presence for so many years. They expect their readers, especially professional journalists scouring their site to bring at least a moderate skill set to the table, and Mrs. Upson apparently failed miserably.
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/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Don't worry, the public is fine - this is just another CIA hit piece.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Good does come out of Wikileaks. But Assange's primary purpose is to make Assange feel important and keep him in the news.
Is that something we care about?
You could say that about anyone doing good or trying to change the world. Hell, you could say that about Jesus.
The implication is that "he's not all that great", when in fact he's changed the political landscape a little, and for the better.
Yeah, right. He's not all that great, let's pick any complicated edifice anywhere and consider it from any one of myriad points of view and we'll come up with at least one thing that paints it in a negative light.
You weigh the good with the bad and if things come out overall good you say it's an improvement, not point out how it misses some sublime point of perfection.