Slashdot Mirror
Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com)
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
also, look at watergate. Journalists both used that content.
If it is the bad guy instead, go for it, expose them! But it seems we already do this.
Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?
that truth is truth, even if it's discovered by Russians.
These was none of this navel gazing when Sarah Palin's emails were stolen. In fact, the press crowdsourced reading them in their search for dirt on her. Why would this be any different for Hillary Clint..... Oh, party affiliation. Forgot. Carry on, then.
As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.
Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.
And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.
The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.
^This. I mean we would only have suspicions and not proof of Hillary's corruption, incompetence and neocon war plans, rather than hard proof. We should all be thankful.
...beside showing a smug academic that the Democrats actually hate him? That's a public good in and of itself.
A lot of academia needs a hard slap in the face to show them just how disposable they are to the people they keep following.
Dumber than dumber is dumb. All of this plarp is making us all barf.
And who does Lessig think should be the judge of this public good through which facts will be filtered? Just publish them and let the voters decide.
Have gnu, will travel.
Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.
At this point in time I'm pretty sure all my emails are in the hands of many entities besides my provider, all of which are thieves by definition. The NSA, foriegn governments, hackers, etc. In fact it's a safe bet that the majority of all emails ever sent are already stolen.
The last people I'm concerned about are CEOs and elected officials. I'm pretty tired of the back door dealings and making them viewable for all to see is not only making things more transparent it's making these people think twice about communicating thier corrupt and self dealing practices effectively restricting them and helping to shut it down.
It's pretty funny now as entities always have had this info and it was always used in closed door shady dealings. Now with the Information Age really under way it's kind of refreshing how all this goes public and makes them stew in their own juices. Finally the shoe is on the other foot with the whole "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" meme.
you're suppose to give it to a Journalist who scrubs it of the personal and private stuff and just leaves the stuff of public interest. That's what you do if you have a code of ethics and such. That's what's leaving a bad taste in the month from what Assange is doing. He's not cleaning it up before he releases it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's funny that I said this generically, yet everyone will be able to fill in the names, no matter the affiliation or level of government.
There surely are a lot of people determined to pin this stuff on Russia and claim interference, but the newest would suggest it was our own guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
"The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
I love how you accept the Russians are responsible.
After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.
Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The US needs to see some of Clinton's recipes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem is you can't trust digital evidence at all unless you can verify the full custody chain back to source files.
So reader beware on "leaked emails" they may not be what they seem.
The problem such as it is, is that based on what they want to see, a fair percentage of US citizens don't care if the emails are altered. Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds. If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery ran the underground Railroad and violated the Fugitive Slave treaty, then by Gad Hellery violated the Fugitive Slave Act in 1845
Fact Check tells us that there was no e-mail in 1845, Mrs Clinton wasn't born yet, and the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't in place until 1850.
Too bad - that's what she did!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Emails of a personal nature, not relevant to public work should be ignored of course.
Matters of a private sexual nature included. Unless perhaps the emails are invoice from an escort service while the married politician is actively campaigning on "family values".
How does anyone know that they aren't being selective in what they release? For that matter, how does anyone know that the data has not been manipulated or even fabricated? It can't even be proved who did the hacking or what the motive is.
Media will all report it as gospel truth because they can't be seen as missing out on a big story. But nobody knows shit no matter what they spew on about it.
It could have been Marla that leaked them. Her name was on the returns as well, so if she chose to leak them then no laws were broken.
And you can notice this all over Slashdot anymore. "It's gotta be Russia!" and "We can't talk about the Project Veritas videos!" I guess we'd rather argue about the color of the drapes while the house is on fire. Otherwise Hillary might look bad, and we can't have that.
And yet, for all of that, not a single person in the Wikileaks e-mails has denied the content of the e-mails. There's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the release - but not a single denial of the accuracy and veracity of what's contained therein.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually you CAN CHECK that they are UNALTERED. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
So Clinton's conspiracy theories are now accepted facts? And how exactly do these leaks "undermine our democracy"?
Heck, when it comes to "undermining our democracy", you should be much more concerned about the billions of donations flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the hundred million dollars the Clintons have amassed from hobnobbing with billionaires and dictators.
Clinton and Podesta are welcome to clarify which of those E-mails are accurate and which ones have been altered. They are also welcome to provide access to any other E-mails that might provide any other necessary "context".
Suppose you had 30,000 purloined emails, and access to the resources of a major state. A simple disinformation move would be to have minions read them all, and select and modify a tiny number (say, 5 or 10) to become explosive (add a racial slur, a phrase about keeping ill gotten gains, etc.). Make those changes, and then release the whole mess*. Wait for the press to find your land mines, enjoy. Yes, these changes could probably be disproved in court, but that's not the goal of a disinformation campaign.
In this scenario, the press will inevitably become collateral damage, but the perpetrators are not likely to care (and may even view that as a side-benefit).
* If there are integrity checks, such as MD5 sums, either hack them or remove them. I don't think that will hinder anyone with an intelligence agency behind them.
Yeah, the Clinton's News Network is already doing that. Oh we lost the satellite feed...
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
The press can (and has) suppressed stories in the past about presidential affairs, among other things, but that is a bad thing for the American people. I see no reason to publish steamy emails between husband and wife or other legitimate but embarrassing messages. However, if you are talking about sexual harassment (CEO Bill Clinton banging an intern in the board room (white house) would have gotten anyone else fired from their job immediately) or affairs where the president or politician could be blackmailed about the affair or pretty much any other underhanded, illegal activity should be published.
One of the key functions of the press is to be constantly investigating politicians for corruption and other criminal or undesirable activity. The reason that the Democratic party was hacked is the stench of corruption and illegality were pervasive and why the Dems are freaking out is that it turns out that the progressive Democrats are basically going down the fascist, Nazi path, and the media has been largely complicit in not doing their job of asking the tough questions and digging in to politicians and their actions in search of real news. Just look at Hillary, she has already been the least available to the press of any modern candidate, and the media says nothing. When she is interviewed, she gets softballs, and now due to the leaks we learn that even these are apparently at least sometimes given to her ahead of time so she can prepare a response. Our only hope is the serious, investigative journalists online.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Evidence can only thrown out if the GOVERNMENT ILLEGALLY obtain it DIRECTLY. If a 3rd party did the illegal deed it is fair game.
Example some guy steals a camera. Thief is caught with camera. Camera shows original owner murdering someone. Tape is fair game.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert. You go a long way toward proving my point.
You don't care what the truth is.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The old story is, "should we journalists tell the truth even when it harms our own political prejudices?" And sadly, the answer is typically "no". Just like here. If the leaked emails had been damaging to Trump, Democrats everywhere would be cheering the hero Wikileaks again, and toasting with the most expensive Russian vodka they could get their hands on. But that didn't happen. What happened?
The Establishment's chosen candidate (Democrat voters certainly didn't choose her, if you voted in the primaries it was an utter waste of your time) was exposed as the lying sack of shit that she is. Not once have the Democrats denied any of the emails. NOT ONCE. So, naturally, journalists are coming up with all sorts of rationalizations not to publish these, because otherwise the American people might make the wrong choice and choose the candidate who won't put the Establishment's needs first. It's an old story that's been repeated and We The People get fucked every time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy.
The American elite has done more to undermine our democracy than Russia ever could. If a colleague of Podesta's dumped the same files onto Wikileaks the effect would be the same. If Podesta's files contained some secret dirt on Trump that he was going to reveal at a later date, I wonder who would be accused of the 'leak' if that were to happen. The leaker withholding such dirt might be considered slant, but that's improbable (and the dirt would be revealed by Podesta eventually anyway.)
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature
The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I'm not "diverting". We're talking about the veracity of the leaked E-mails. Hillary's and Podesta's leaked E-mails are consistent with what we know about her and her campaign. And if they have been manipulated in some way, Hillary and Podesta are free to correct the record any time they like.
What points? Your fabrications like "If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery"? You haven't made any points. All you have spewed forth is bullshit.
> Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things? ...
> If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?
Certainly some conservatives have done, and admitted some bad things. Former Democrat turned reality show clown Donald Trump certainly has. But you may have a point. The worst thing Mitt Romney said was that 47% of voters had already decided to vote for Obama, 47% had decided to vote Romney, and he was now focused on the 6% undecided. They had to try really to make that bad.
Perhaps a difference is that a significant portion of liberals believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no good and bad. Many others don't go quite that far, but halfway at least. It's not wrong for them to do anything if they decide it's okay this time (aka if they feel like it). On the other hand, the majority of conservatives can point to the same list of 10 right and wrong ways to act, and most agree on which of those is most important. It's probably easy to do "pretty bad things" when you've decided it's not bad, if you decide so. If there is no right and wrong, only preference, anybody can justify to themselves all sorts of "pretty bad things". In general, conservatives have a steady, objective standard they *try* to live up to. There's little wiggle room in "thou shalt not bear false witness." You can't justify why it's subjectively okay this time.
If the hacks were sponsored by Russia, and occured on Russian soil, then how is it illegal?
Wikileaks has a stellar 100% on the spot record. A journalist verifies (neither DNC nor Clintons campaign did ever deny the authenticity of a single mail) and publish the story. A "journalist" wouldn't do this as another one would get his job if doing so. If a journalist can not publish any secret anymore, everything is going to be secret. Its like those homeland security letters... 9/11 wasn't a second Peal Harbour. It was the USAs Reichstags fire. Stand up for your rights or live without them. Simple as that.
They are private emails within a private corporation between private citizens. Published in an effort to manipulate free elections.
Doesn't matter if it was easy or not.
GOOD point! And it could have been John Podesta that leaked his own emails. His name was on them so if he chose to leak them then no laws were broken!
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
...a very large sum of money that everyone complaining is going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure that's just coincidence.
-Styopa
Any Clinton staffer calling you smug is like Michael Moore calling you a fat-ass.
Lessig has already accomplished more than any hundred Clinton minions put together ever will in their entire careers of public disservice.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The context that surrounds some potentially informative information might not be worthy of leaking by itself, but it provides background information to frame other comments.
e.g. perhaps Lawrence Lessig's alleged 'smugness' says more about the people pointing the finger than it does about Lessig.
That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.
This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.
I see. However, to use the analogy, there's no camera. There was no innocent acquisition of the material. The tape is stolen with the express intent of using its contents. Tape is given to someone else - who uses its contents. More so, the secondary person (in this case, WikiLeaks), *knows* the tape is stolen, as there is no other way to obtain it. In this case, WikiLeaks isn't an innocent 3rd party - they are an accessory to theft. The only thing preventing them from being treated as such is that they aren't in the U.S.
We can argue the value of the material being leaked, but I think there's much less of a case to say that WikiLeaks is a "3rd party". They knew exactly what they were being handed, and why.
Given a choice between the Rich White Guys' party and the Dems... who can blame them?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I thought everybody know emails can be forged.
Given the current state of journalism, if a mail, forged or not, makes noise, makes people angry or afraid or sad, thus making their brain more receptive towards advertising, the content will be published and deontology be damned.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment
Poor guy. Who the hell calls their kid "Tuesday"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Four years ago it was perfectly okay to report a prank that a bunch of high schoolers played on one of their friends as proof that Romney was unfit to be President.
I think it's difficult to lay a blanket statement of whether journalist should/should not use such emails.
For example, performing a data dump isn't journalism, and whoever does it should be held liable for damages,
However, a journalist that takes the time to confirm content, establish the context of emails, and their relevance to the larger story, is doing a service. That should be fine.
Good Journalism always means:
* look at the source available to you
* decide which facts you can show by these
* decide which of these facts are of public interest
* summarize these facts
* decide which of your original sources you want to show along with the facts
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.
Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.
ProTip: It's one step towards connecting the inner and outer worlds of those in the email thread.
Where is the public good in being two-faced? The sooner the two faces are united, the better for everyone.
Requiem for the American Dream
Q) What is your favorite color?
A) Trmp is an idiot. Warmongering is good for the economy.
Requiem for the American Dream
With your unclickable three-pixel close bar over the ads. Also the ad bar re-appears after every HTTP post which multiplies the fake clicks. Really? What's the value in that scenario to the advertisers or the users?
Requiem for the American Dream
If you read this comment, you've made it past all the posts by shills which are intended to distract from the underlying discussion.
Requiem for the American Dream
It appears that most of the comments here are coming from people who are heavily invested in one political party or another. If your answer is yes, because Hillary is corrupt or no because Trump is so bad, you are missing the important part of the question.
It's not ideal to have a foreign power or other non-altruistic entity manipulating media for political purposes. There's nothing stopping such a group from cherry picking which "truths" to publish in order to further an agenda. The timing of these releases, which appear to be attempting maximum impact, and our inability to view the entire source material supports those fears and in my view implicate wikileaks as a partisan entity rather than an altruistic whistleblower tool.
In many ways I support these hacked / stolen electronic documents, however, they are not hard evidence. The data can easily be manipulated, even just a bit, to give whatever slant is desired. In concert with other evidence, hacked documents can be persuasive, but by themselves, not much above hearsay.
So, the press is justified in (and proud of, even!) presenting a 'hot-mike' conversation between two people in a van, that occurred ten years prior, _a recording without either parties knowledge_, which in many states would be _illegal wiretap_, but emails by public figures which are electronically hacked are considered off limits (becuase of the person being hacked?) The hypocrisy implies that there is in fact no genuine outrage - only what is convenient for the moment.
Any recent Wikileaks hurt the Trump campaign?
There might be a reason for that.
I would rather foreign governments not throw our elections.
But, hey, karma.
I wonder if Lessig would be singing the same tune if it was the GOP being embarrassed by leaks instead of his friends.
If you'll notice, no one has disputed the veracity of the emails. If the emails were faked or altered, the DNC and Clinton campaign would be all over the place driving that home. Instead they're making nebulous statements about how we shouldn't trust them because of the source, suggesting there may be forgeries or alterations but without ever saying so outright. Which is as far as they can go if they know the emails are all legit.
When the East Anglia Institute refuses to respond to FOIA requests because they couldn't hide the decline in temperatures it is de facto / de jure legit for hackers to extract whatever they can get their hands on.
In the same way if a subpeona is issued for Hillary to hand something over and she lies and says she gave it all over, then let the hackers go at it.
42% of voters say their biggest issue of concern is federal corruption!
So.. Lets assume for a second the whole Putin angle is true.
Thing is... how is he "undermining" our "democracy" by showing us the.....truth? Isn't it the politicans being exposed as liars who have undermined our democracy?
Seems to me Putin is doing us a favor, if anything at all.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Okay, you make a fair point in the first half of your post. It had been a long time since I read exactly what he said. I'm assuming that your is accurate.
Quoting you, quoting him:
---
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him
Then you say:
> He says 48-49% of American voters are going to vote for Barrack Obama, no matter what Romney does.
Well no, according to you, he said TWICE 47%. Assuming your numbers for undecided, 5%-6%, that would mean they were neck-and-neck.
It's likely to be Russia, and Vladimir Putin would be proud of you anyway. Project Veritas is known for fraudulent videos that are set up to "prove" things that are false. I assume you place implicit faith in Michael Moore, if you believe PV. He's more truthful.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes