Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange: All That Malware On Wikileaks Isn't a Big Deal (vice.com)
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.
Hillary's campaign would love it if everyone is too afraid to read Wikileaks.
Don't put words in his mouth. He didn't say 'no big deal'. The gist of what he said was more that, for security researchers and people interested in this sort of thing, having the malware available for analysis within document dumps can prove a fruitful line of enquiry, and people downloading and extracting these dumps are unlikely to be the mouthbreathing 'hurr durr an exe gotta run it see what it does' idiots.
Doc files, I can see some merit in providing two dumps, one with any autoplay macros neutered. Or at least, putting a massive great warning reminding researchers to take care.
Julian Assange is a KGB agent, on a mission to elect Donald Trump.
This Malware helps the Kremlin conduct surveillance with with the to aid in their efforts to undermine our democracy.
Vladamir Putin sees Donald Trump as a useful idiot, and an ally in Russias second cold war on the United States.
Trump backers realize they've been played as WikiLeaks fails to deliver October surprise
Best Slashdot Co
So I shouldn't hang around the web, because I might stumble across a site with malware in some ad, flash code or whatever. I shouldn't connect my "things" to the web because they might become part of a botnet, quite easily apparently.
Can we get some sense in here and agree that Assange is in his right to tell you to disregard obvious attempts to discredit wikileaks before an important leak??
I blame Obama for everything good, or bad.
We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors. It should come as a surprise to no one that the mail spools of gov't officials would contain malware, because they're just bound to be targets for spearphishers. To people who can manage to examine files without uncontrollably clicking on them until they execute, this malware poses *zero* threat. ...and yet here this headline and article is, trying to make it sound like WikiLeaks has been in some way *infected* with malware that is a danger to visitors of the site, and that Assange is improperly and unprofessionally downplaying that threat.
Whatever Clinton is paying you, it's not worth it. Your integrity is worth more than money.
They've really gone downhill. Editorial review would go a long way. Release only what needs to be known. Releasing it in a sea of noise and irrelevant details that make victims of innocent people is not journalism or even responsible activism.
No, editorial review is what would inttoduce bias. They're not journalists, and they're not really activists, except in the narrow realm of information trandparency - they're a data source. Sure, there's a lot of noise with the signal, but thats why other organisations that *are* journalists filter through it and provide editorialised opinions on it.
Don't make wikileaks into something its not - we need an open data dump more than we need someone selectively picking the facts that support their position and rolling them up into an article. We've already got plenty of those.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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
So Wikilinks is under a malware attack when they release files and documents that were already infected? That's like saying you got beat up by your own fist punching yourself.
The idea that he doesn't care for either side and only cares about his own well being is impossible? Really?
Personally, that's what I'd assume first.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No. For an obvious reason. If he could somehow even remotely prove he is, the whole charade about him hiding in that embassy would be over and he could travel about and be the flamboyant self-promoting narcissist that he is.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not disclosing information irrelevant information that harms innocent people who are only tangentially related to the leak is not bias, it's responsible and ethical
Indeed. It's a sad state of the world when Russia is the only country willing to shelter people who expose the lawlessness of the US government.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
"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.
Russia isn't sheltering Snowden out of the goodness of their heart. It's a deliberate kick in the face.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This Twitter post gave me a chuckle
If you're mad about not getting an #OctoberSurprise from @wikileaks today, consider the psychological effect waiting has on Hillary.
Yes, it is a vast conspiracy. The New York Ties in particularly loves Hillary. The thousands of federal agents who pored over Clintons emails were each one pinkie-sworn to secrecy too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"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."
A-men. That's it in a nutshell.
"Shall we play a game?" -W.O.P.R.
Here in America we have a value: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Except with Hillary. She's guilty until PROVEN innocent, right? All the conspiracy theories and lies pumped out daily by Breitbart and Fox are true! Heck, even after they're PROVEN false they're still true!
If Assange's goal is to damage Clinton, then this faux-press release only helps her by discrediting Assange and Wikileaks. Since his previous "killer revelation" turned out to be some emails bad mouthing Sanders, it really was a "and...?" kind of moment. When you consider what Ted Cruz did DURING the RNC, it really came off as an example of hyperbole which only served to make Wikileaks look foolish.
Maybe Assange is finally cracking, maybe he has become yet another tired celebrity trying desperately to manufacture another 15 minutes, I have no idea. What I do know is that an organization that once revealed corruption in places like Turks and Caicos now seems hellbent on ruining itself with overhyped claims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Assange lost all credibility when he played his partisan hand this session. He is no longer democratizing information, he is selectively choosing information to further his "side" because he has a grudge. He blew it. Someone else needs to take the helm.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
How is the timing specifically geared to harm Hillary? Surely any period in the year-long shitstorm that is the American electoral process would be equally harmful, except possibly directly before the election, such that there isn't time to run damage control if it proves necessary.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The term "October Surprise" exists for a reason. If I were Assange, I would leak in the 24 hours before a debate, or in the 72 hours before the election. We'll see what he does.
To be honest, as a non-American, this was the first time I'd heard that phrase.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face