Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Julian Assange: All That Malware On Wikileaks Isn't a Big Deal (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the it's-all-cool dept.

WikiLeaks celebrates its 10th anniversary today. At a press conference, its editor Julian Assange hinted that Wikileaks could soon disclose more things about the U.S. election. Making use of the occasion, Motherboard asked Assange about the malware that Wikileaks website contains. To which, Assange responded (via Motherboard): âoeThe [Hillary] Clinton campaign has been going around saying 'don't read Wikileaks, because there's malware,'" Assange said in response to a general question about malware on the site from Motherboard. Talking specifically about malicious files that were included within a recent dump of emails from Turkey, Assange emphasised that there wasn't an issue for users who just visited the site, and that people needed to download the files themselves. "However this same risk exists for most '.exe' or '.doc' files downloaded elsewhere from the internet or received by email. As time goes by we flag documents to alert readers," a print-out given to journalists at the press conference reads. Assange even thought that the presence of malware itself was noteworthy. "There was malware sent to [the ruling Turkish party] AKP, either from criminals or from state attacks on the AKP. That's extremely interesting," he said.

7 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling. by wiredog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Trump backers realize they've been played as WikiLeaks fails to deliver October surprise

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
    1. Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling. by Minupla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "OK, I admit I rickrolled you this time, but click on my link NEXT time, because I'd never rickroll you again, honest!"

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    2. Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly. Assange has turned the organization into his personal podium, and much more dire, into his own tool of revenge. There was a time when it truly had few if any biases, but now that Assange wants to eke out his vengeance on enemies real and imagined, it's simply become a tool of one political faction in the US, or possibly even a tool of Russia, if some conspiracy theories are to be believed. But whatever Wikileaks could be, Assange's actions and his general persona have discredited it. The organization would be well placed to dump him, but the organization is now little more than Assange and his supplicants, most of the people who believed in its original cause are long gone.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Whose side is he on? by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's definitely biased, but i'm not quite sure yet if he's anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, or just pro-watching-the-world-burn.

    Unless they just came into the info in the last couple months they should have released any damning revelations they had about Clinton during the primaries when it might have helped Sanders win.

    At this point however the only realistic options are Trump and Clinton. And honestly even if wikileaks did have proof that the Clintons make a habit of murdering their political opponents (citation needed oh so very much) i'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump doesn't know what an act of war is, he doesn't know how treaties and alliances work, he thinks nuclear weapons were made to be used, and he has a propensity for letting his temper get the better of him at 3am and lashing out. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.

    From a pure game theory standpoint in this situation i'd far rather hold my nose and vote for a known murderer who also happened to be skilled at international politics.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Whose side is he on? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump [.. is basically Hitler]. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.

      Which is exactly what the Left said about Reagan, Bush, and Bush (and probably more before I was born). Very tired old propaganda. I'm sure he's also racist, sexist, transphobic, Isamaphobic, and all the new bad things that, well, are also too played out for anyone serious to care about.

      Trump has been a moderate Democrat most of his life, and most of his positions are still the same. His only real talking point is immigration, and he doesn't seem too firm on that. In short, nothing worth worrying about.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Whose side is he on? by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was in my teens for Reagan and the start of the first Bush administration, so my memory of what was said about them is pretty fuzzy. But i don't recall a big deal being made about nuclear war being made, and that certainly wasn't my biggest concern during either the election for Bush 1's 2nd term or either of Bush 2's terms.

      But Trump has said that he's okay with using nuclear weapons offensively:
      https://thinkprogress.org/9-te...

      Trump has also said that he won't guarantee defending our allies, which is potentially a very destabilizing action:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      He said during the first debate that attacking an Iranian ship would not start a war. (To be fair, doing so wouldn't _definitely_ start a war, but almost identical actions have been considered acts of war in the past and could easily be considered so again, so saying that it definitely wouldn't is 100% wrong.)
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      And i can find any number of references for the off the wall stuff Trump has posted on twitter at 3am, in fact there has been analysis presented here on slashdot about the emotional tones of his tweets then vs when his staff is in charge:
      https://politics.slashdot.org/...

      Now normally i wouldn't say "this person acts unhinged on twitter, therefore they'll end civilization." However he has stated himself that he's willing to cause turmoil among our allies, which will lead to politically unstable situations, he's said himself that he's willing to preemptively use nuclear weapons, and he's said things that seem to indicate he doesn't know what is and is not an act of war.

      If you combine that with the kind of temper and tendency to get unhinged when he feels he's been attacked or insulted that he's demonstrated both in real life and in his late night twitter sessions, i feel that it's reasonable to be very concerned.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  3. Re: Too much bias ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    "Editorial review" is not just redacting or withholding of certain documents, it is also choosing the time and context of the release. I'll also point out the obvious:that they almost certainly withhold documents harmful to Wikileaks

    Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign.

    This. Absolutely. Nailed. It.

    It amazes me that partisan (alt-right, libertarian, republican -- if there's even a difference anymore) idjits cheer a foreign power using an accused rapist to target our electoral process in a one-sided manner designed to disrupt and undermine our democracy. If Hillary were the beneficiary, and were the one calling for Russia to hack her oppoents, I would come down on her like a ton of bricks. How interesting it is that the other side lacks the same common sense.