Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Threatens To Publish Twitter Users' Personal Info (usatoday.com)
WikiLeaks said on Twitter earlier today that it wants to publish the private information of hundreds of thousands of verified Twitter users. The group said an online database would include such sensitive details as family relationships and finances. USA Today reports: "We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts [and] their family/job/financial/housing relationships," the WikiLeaks Task Force account tweeted Friday. The account then tweeted: "We are looking for clear discrete (father/shareholding/party membership) variables that can be put into our AI software. Other suggestions?" Wikileaks told journalist Kevin Collier on Twitter that the organization wants to "develop a metric to understand influence networks based on proximity graphs." Twitter bans the use of Twitter data for "surveillance purposes." In a statement, Twitter said: "Posting another person's private and confidential information is a violation of the Twitter rules." Twitter declined to say how many of its users have verified accounts but the Verified Twitter account which follows verified accounts currently follows 237,000. Verified accounts confirm the identity of the person tweeting by displaying a blue check mark. Twitter says it verifies an account when "it is determined to be an account of public interest." Twitter launched the feature in 2009 after celebrities complained about people impersonating them on the social media service.
I get dumping documents from government agencies. Though, their motives are a bit bizarre at times. Disclosing hundreds of thousands of addresses of private citizens? What does that help? When will Wikipedia disclose those types of details on everyone within Wikipedia? Oh that is right, Wikipedia believes they can be opaque in operation, not transparent like they expect everyone else to be.
I don't think Wikileaks is related to Wikipedia. The term "Wiki" predates Wikipedia and isn't any sort of trademark of theirs.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
This would put many people in danger if they did this. I wont elaborate.
You think Julian Asshat cares? He blew the cover of people who worked with us against Al Queda in Afghanistan, and when questioned about it, said that anyone who worked with the United States deserved to die, so ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh do please tell us, all you Wikileaks supporters, just how wonderful an organization it is, as it begins the process of trying to fuck over hundreds of thousands of people whose only crime was verifying their account.
Sure. Let me just start this with something important.
The article is false. Wikileaks does not wish to dox anyone. They wish to create a database of influence. Politician X votes a certain way, you can check and see he was paid off by Corporation Y. Journalist A working for Publication B is owned by Corporation C, which has connections to X, Y, Z, W.
For example, here's a list of reporters who were outed as colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign via the email leaks.
http://imgur.com/a/oO3FS
Here's a second, more exhaustive list: https://i.redd.it/ol970kkt2nyx...
And Breitbart has more details: http://www.breitbart.com/wikil...
(Remember kids, the Genetic Fallacy -- "Herp Derp BREITBART FAKE NEWS" -- means your argument is invalid and I win!)
So. How many of those reporters had disclaimers mentioning that they were actively working with HRC's campaign on their articles talking about HRC, Bernie, or Trump?
Basically, Wikileaks is talking about taking the GamerGate corruption and conflict of interest database, http://deepfreeze.it/ , and port the idea to the mainstream.
Now, having put the above information forward -- the example of the kind of collusion and influence that Wikileaks is wanting to create a map of, can you see why the people at CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News would be a liiiitle upset that someone might want to make a database following their biases, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and the like?
How did that comment rate an "insightful" moderation? The "funny" reply was much more insightful, but rather funny, too, so I guess that's a fair cop of sorts...
The ideal of WikiLeaks is that there is too much abuse of secrecy by powerful people and more of those secrets should be revealed. There is a real problem there, because in many cases the powerful people are doing terrible, even criminal, things because they think they can keep them secret.
The implementation is fundamentally broken, but I'm not sure how much credit or blame you can assign to Assange. "The system" of corruption, the oligarchy or kleptocracy, if you prefer, is already so well established and powerful that you have to be insane to go against it in the first place. Only someone with personality problems along Assange's lines could have created a WikiLeaks-type organization of any visible significance. Did you even know there are several similar organizations with sane leadership?
Another pathology was the financial model, or rather the lack of any. In chasing the money they wound up producing disaster porn, sort of like a low-budget CNN. Actually, insofar as WikiLeaks had smaller expenses, you could argue the RoI was higher. However it led them to focus on controlled timing for maximum market value of their "news" (AKA disaster porn) and also made them too subject to manipulation.
Just reading the official report now https://www.dni.gov/files/docu... but it was already obvious to me that WikiLeaks was used as part of a propaganda and disinformation campaign. WikiLeaks never had the resources to actually check the validity (or even the potentially harmful consequences) of the data they were publishing. Yet it was the drive to maximize the impact and market value that made WikiLeaks such a useful tool last October.
I'm suffering a bit of a recall gap here. What's the expression for a naive fool manipulated by someone of great cunning (such as Putin)? Oh yeah. It's "useful idiot". Not sure where he started, but Assange ended as a useful idiot.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Look, I've read the actual report. It's garbage. Utter garbage. The FBI relied on the CrowdStrike reports without actually getting to look at the servers themselves. CS was paid by the DNC. You guys keep recycling the same crappy "evidence" and trying to find ways to rack up a higher number of organizations to whitewash it.
This report doesn't have new evidence of any kind, they have unsupported conclusions. The few technical details they offer are so bad as to be laughable. Russian "trolls"? How does that influence an election? People were convinced but unrebutted facts. We know that Donna Brazille gave away the debate questions. Russia didn't do that. We know that she went on the news and lied to us about "modifications" to the emails. I have, in my Slashdot history, gone into incredible detail on that point, even showing you where to get the DKIM keys from Hillary's own damned DNS server. And the other key from Google's DNS server. Both of which validate the body and the body hash of the emails. We know what Zulema Rodriguez did. I've discussed that in great detail here on Slashdot as well, I can find multiple independent videos, payroll records where MoveOn pays for her travel, photo credits for her in the "Trump Ducks" campaign that Hillary wanted, etc. At this point, the "PACs aren't allowed to collude with candidates" thing is a complete and utter joke on both sides.
I saw the NYT, WaPo, etc. stories. They did not present any facts, but simple bare conclusions of nameless insiders. I saw the ODNI report where the directors of the group that oversees the Coast Guard & co. said this was something Russia would like to kinda maybe do I guess. I saw all the crappy fake news here on Slashdot. Ooh! Someone is making DNS queries that might have something to do with a website Trump had made by a 3rd party and a Russian bank! Alert the press! Sorry, but that kinda proves that there is a media campaign to sling mud that only the truly gullible will ever fall for.
I also saw the completely unreported Todd & Claire scam site trying to frame Julian Assange. But I wonder how many of you know what that even is? How it enrolled in a crazy UN program to present itself as a "UN partner" (anyone can enroll, it gives no meaningful "partnership" and they were ejected from it). How many of you know that it was a complete scam site and all the profiles were using fake, mirrored images (they were trying to stop reverse image searches, but they chose some photos that were a bit too famous, as well as some where the mirroring was obvious).
I read the CrowdStrike reports. This is the best of the lot, but it's a sad lot. I don't need more secret evidence and unsupported conclusions. The techniques are not advanced and do not impress anyone who has even glimpsed at the NSA's TAO catalog. You have crap like an ancient version of P.A.S. that's freely available online, simple phishing attacks and a list of Tor exit node IPs.
For anyone who knows about security that isn't a partisan hack, this is a complete and utter joke. I paid attention when Clapper lied to Congress, I'm sure as hell not going to believe him based on secret evidence now. Willing to start a war over nonsense? We already did that. Oh, but there was more push-back then?
There is now, too, you just won't find it being reported by the same people at CNN who gave Donna those questions in the first place. You won't find it reported by the people at the Washington Post who helped the DNC unofficially add their party to the DNC's price sheet (who cares what the lawyers say?).
Everyone crying about foreign influence doesn't give a damn how much Saudi Arabia paid to the Clinton Foundation (it probably went to Diane Reynolds', err, CVC, err, Chelsea's wedding), nor Qatar (guess who runs Al Jazeera?). Don't care that they're a leading state sponsor of terrorism... but that's okay when they're an "ally" right? Just like our "allies" in Pakistan where Osama was somehow hiding right outside a big
No. The original tweet says nothing about politicians or anything related to sphere's of influence. The tweet, apparently now deleted, read:
This is what the article you're reading is about. After there was outrage, Wikileaks (or specifically https://twitter.com/WLTaskForc...) started back peddling, and then claimed everyone who interpreted the above as being a threat to dox as being liars.
Your spin doesn't match what WLTaskForce actually said, and neither does their spin. They said NOTHING about politicians. The vast majority of "verified" Twitter users aren't political at all, they're mostly actors, comedians, authors, and business people.
This was unambiguously a proposal to create a doxxing database. In an era in which Wikileaks is allied with a President-elect who ran a fascist campaign, that's terrifying.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.