Slashdot Mirror


In a 'Plot Twist', Wikileaks Releases Documents It Claims Detail Russia Mass Surveillance Apparatus (techcrunch.com)

WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front, surprised some observers Tuesday morning (Snowden called it a "plot twist") when it released documents linking a Russian tech company with access to thousands of citizens' telephone and internet communications with Moscow. From a report: Writing a summary of the cache of mostly Russian-language documents, Wikileaks claims they show how a long-established Russian company which supplies software to telcos is also installing infrastructure, under state mandate, that enables Russian state agencies to tap into, search and spy on citizens' digital activity -- suggesting a similar state-funded mass surveillance program to the one utilized by the U.S.'s NSA or by GCHQ in the U.K. (both of which were detailed in the 2013 Snowden disclosures). The documents which Wikileaks has published (there are just 34 "base documents" in this leak) relate to a St. Petersburg-based company, called Peter-Service, which it claims is a contractor for Russian state surveillance. The company was set up in 1992 to provide billing solutions before going on to become a major supplier of software to the mobile telecoms industry.

168 comments

  1. politicians don't recognize integrity by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For politicians, revealing their misdeeds means you're an agent of their enemy. Not having any honesty or integrity themselves, they don't entertain the thought someone's agenda might be something else than supporting a particular political party.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heheh... Peter Service.

    2. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to remind/clarify: WikiLeaks just publishes everything they get. That's their stated mission. The politically biased agents are the people that give the information to WikiLeaks, not the organization itself. Assange is not the whole organization or its head, he's just a spokesperson. The organization seems to be structured in a way that it will go on if Assange goes missing.

    3. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. That's why they release info that is politically expedient for them and hold back info that is not.

    4. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, like releasing Hillary's emails to the media, not in one shot but rather a bit at a time like once a week for the two months before the election.

    5. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by sound+vision · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Calling it a "Kremlin front" is pretty ridiculous. While they did probably get played by Russians... Assange is an asshole, but he is a principled asshole.

    6. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Psion · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure! That would have been helpful to Hillary, wouldn't it? That would have made it so easy to lump it all together and white-wash the whole sordid affair with one neat lie instead of having to change her story every time a new leak came out. She got what she deserved. It's a shame Podesta et al thought Trump would be the easiest one to beat.

    7. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Ijoit, you do not get played when you release the truth, the truth is the truth. The only arseholes are the ones in charge of government who keep secrets to hide their crimes. So smart arse, why the fuck didn't every country use Wikileaks to expose every other country, you claim it. By law you are required to report the crimes of the US government in your country regardless of the bullshit laws in the US to claim it is illegal to do so. I look forward to all countries using wikileaks to expose the criminal activities of all other countries, the more the fucking merrier but I expect all non-corrupt countries to start prosecuting the crimes that have been exposed. The only ones being played are the US public by the US government in the most publicly blatantly exposed act of corruption for failure to prosecute a whole host of crimes by screaming Russia, Russia, Russia, you people are fucking morons.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ijoit, you do not get played when you release the truth, the truth is the truth.

      Sure you can.

      In the election of ljoit versus rtb61, I, as a nefarious agent, start leaking damaging information on rtb61 to ersatzleaks. The damaging information on ljoit, I keep to myself.

      Even if ersatzleaks has a full disclosure police and releases all leaks ASAP, I can continue to damage rtb61 by dribbling information to ersatzleaks slowly, so it always remains in the news. I can even pick and choose information I release to paint a more damaging picture - e.g. an email worded in an ambiguous way, but not a followup email that clarifies the situation and shows that it is completely innocent.

      It's like those reality TV shows that are edited so that we like some players and hate other players.

    9. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ijoit, you do not get played when you release the truth, the truth is the truth.

      if you believe that you are either gullible, stupid or trying to push an agenda - you can get played and play people with the truth all the time - when, how and how much of the truth is released is as manipulative as telling a lie and often has the same effect.

    10. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that what Wikileaks did was motivated by trying to harm Clinton. You're just anti-Clinton so it doesn't look like political manipulation to you.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, you approve of the political purposes behind leaks, and have no frickin' idea how international politics works.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wait, didn't Hillary WIN THE PEOPLE'S VOTE? By like 2.86 million? I guess that means that Wikileaks can foresee the future of crooked state weighted voting, right? Alt-right is always Alt-wrong

    13. Re: politicians don't recognize integrity by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Political manipulation, no.
      Making sure the crime isn't forgotten by giving something for the press to digest each week, yes.

      It doesn't matter who released the emails. The fact that they existed and contained classified information after Hillary Clinton had told Congress they didn't exist and didn't violate security regulations is the problem.

      Hillary Clinton performed an act that would have had someone who wasn't part of the political elite arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. Her husband was impeached for the very thing Hillary Clinton did in lying to Congress about her emails.

      The source of exposure of poor ethical decisions is irrelevant to the poor ethical decisions being made.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
  2. Damage Control? by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Is there a forthcoming article by a western new source about to pop? Get the spin out early and make it look like it is OK because "everyone is doing it." Just read Wikileaks's editorial comments: "suggesting a similar state-funded mass surveillance program to the one utilized by the U.S.'s NSA or by GCHQ in the U.K"

    1. Re: Damage Control? by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      Well, nobody can credibly deny that all those mass surveillance systems were made to look inward and spy after country's own citizenry.

      Ever seen spies sending messages to their governments on Facebook?

  3. Too late, Julian by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess he's getting tired of living in his Ecuadorian mom's basement and his 15 minutes of fame are over about an hour ago. Let that co-opted weasel dangle.

    From the article:

    "So it’s entirely possible Wikileaks/Assange is here trying to deflect from such charges by finally dumping something on Russia."

    Gee, ya think? They've now released thirty-four whole documents and they're looking for a pat on the back.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Too late, Julian by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Maybe, just maybe, docs don't get leaked from Russia as often? I'm guessing this has to do with the reputation Russian leadership has for brutally killing those that cross them...

    2. Re:Too late, Julian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Julian's been spending far too long masturbating into a crusty sock. He's not the clever whip he thinks if this is his best effort to dodge the heat.

    3. Re: Too late, Julian by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      He's a white male so therefore literally Hitler amirite?

    4. Re:Too late, Julian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PopeRatzo is a troll. Don't comment or mod.

    5. Re:Too late, Julian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an impressive retard, quoting a materially wrong sentence. They didn't finally leak something on Russia. For years they have been pointing to their leaks about Russia, it's mostly bad and have been used in court to sue the Russian government.

    6. Re: Too late, Julian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up crybaby snowflake

    7. Re: Too late, Julian by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Ooh good comeback. I bet you're a terror at the high school debating society.

    8. Re: Too late, Julian by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. As far as I've been able to tell, he's a real jerk in his own right, regardless of race, sex, national origin, and other such things. He's done some good things in his time, but a lot of not so good things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re: Too late, Julian by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      His personality was irrelevant when he was embarrassing GWB and his merry band of scumbags but because he embarrassed Hillary when it was HER TURN and maybe contributed to her losing he's now the enemy and clearly a Russian operative blah blah blah.

    10. Re: Too late, Julian by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I didn't know much about him at that time. The Clinton releases I would feel better about if he'd done one large dump rather than spacing things out for increased political effect.

      He is a foreigner who deliberately influenced a US election in ways other than just infodumping.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re: Too late, Julian by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention what is damaging to western democracies isn't damaging to the Kremlin. The Kremlin wants its citizens to know they are monitored. They don't care if WikiLeaks leaks details of their enforce mechanisms for publicly touted surveillance powers.

      Now if they published corruption details that would be a different story.

    12. Re: Too late, Julian by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The contents of the emails are what matter, not the personality or nationality of the messenger. Like I said before, it was fine for him to embarrass the âoeother sideâ but when he proved himself to be not be a left wing partisan then he became the demonic Russian puppet who ruined everything. Heâ(TM)s anti-establishment as far as I can tell and the DNCâ(TM)s disgraceful treatment of Bernie Sanders is more likely to have influenced the way he handled things than Vladimir Putin.

  4. at this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kremlin Julez has less credibility than I do posting this spitball as an AC.

  5. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "believed by many to be a Kremlin front"

    Who believes that?

    1. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "believed by many to be a Kremlin front"

      Who believes that?

      Those that believe the Democratic political narrative in general, including many /. editors.

    2. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a convenient fiction used to prop up deranged Trump-Russian Collusion Truthers.

    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      show us the tax returns

    4. Re:Who? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We'll see how you feel when you Flynn and Manafort start singing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans in denial, I suppose.

    6. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks and anyone who reads the documents. Do try to keep up, Ivan. Yes, Putin's been spying on you too, making sure you write enough posts each day, checking you don't say anything unauthorized. Surely you're not surprised?

    7. Re:Who? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      He sure seemed interested in getting Trump elected. (It wasn't that he just released dirt on CLinton, but the way he dribbled it out for maximum political effect). I don't know if he's a Kremlin front, but he's not an impartial publisher.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Selective releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this everything or just a selected release? Sometimes i wonder if we are getting everything or is there info held back.

  7. Seems consistent to me by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They found the US government was spying on its citizens and released proof. Now they've discovered that Russia is spying on its citizens and released proof. Seems consistent.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Seems consistent to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the proof they "released" was all stuff that was already publicly known. Look at what @the_grugg has to say, for instance.

    2. Re:Seems consistent to me by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes but it's a steady trend.

      Yesterday: Revelation: US government is spying on its citizens
      Today: Err you probably know this: Russia is spying on its citizens.
      Tomorrow: Guys, China has a firewall.
      Saturday: WATER IS WET! AHHHH

  8. Surpised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it turns out to be true, how many people would really be surprised by learning that Russia's government is doing what many other governments do with their distinctive surveillance programs?
    But well, at least one less thing that the trolls can use for their whataboutisms.

  9. "WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The headlines on Slashdot sure have changed over the years. You guys used to (figuratively) fellate Assange in the comments here, but one election cycle of punching your candidate for a change, and Wikileaks is a Russian front? That's some thin skin.

  10. Wikileaks docs about Russia in 2015 by arnott · · Score: 4, Informative

    WL had documents about Russia before. Here is an article regarding it.

  11. Fuck Off by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front,

    List 5 such people who are not absolute retards. I'll wait.

    1. Re:Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front,

      List 5 such people who are not absolute retards. I'll wait.

      If it was a kremlin front, at least it would be better than just some annoying attention whore.

    2. Re: Fuck Off by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're right! Fine. Let's throw out the no-retards rule.

      List 5 people who have the belief, preferably with a link or quotation for each one where they explain how they became aware of the sinister Kremlin-Wikileaks connection. And if all 5 say "I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love," I swear none of us will giggle or smirk or anything like that!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    3. Re:Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Pompeo
      Clapper
      Michael Hayden
      Comey
      --
      any other US intelligence agency that signed off on the January and April reports
      any high ranking US Republican in intelligence not named Nunez
      any high ranking US Democrat
      --
      Hillary
      Donna Brazile
      John Podesta
      --
      Putin (indirectly)
      Trump (by denying it and believing a 14yo might have done it)

      Your fault for saying *absolute*...

      Now, prove to me that you're are not part of the Russian troll machine that is still so pervasive albeit increasingly transparent. Or that you didn't get your information from Fox or Breightbart or some evangelical source.

    4. Re:Fuck Off by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Your fault for saying *absolute*...

      Nah, it's your fault for coming up with a list of "absolute retards" after the PP said "no absolute retards". Quotes used because I know a couple of disabled people, so I prefer the term "fuckwits", myself.

    5. Re:Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll find many such opinions expressed on pretty much every slashdot article about Wikileaks or Assange in the past few years.

      It's apparently because they "do not hack into Russian databases" but only release US hacks. Or something.

      I've been trying to tell them that 'hacking' is not what Wikileaks does...

    6. Re: Fuck Off by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How far slashdot has fallen when comments like this are modded 5 insightful.

      Why? Because people actually write what everyone would think? Maybe we should return to the Slashdot of old, and just be polite with our questions and then label the people in our minds and then reply saying how retarded they are and ask for a true Scotsman.

      Slashdot is full of coders, we simply applied a standard optimisation algorithm to eliminate the worthless inefficiencies of the discussion. Given that you and I typed this I think the algorithm has some bugs that need to be ironed out.

  12. If its REAL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its REAL, peopel at WikiLeaks will start mysteriously DYING by the half dozen. If its not real, nothing will happen to mysteriously kill WikiLeaks personnel.

  13. "believed by many to be a Russian front" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why anyone trusts the MSM, if a foreign country is influencing our politics it isn't Russia - it's Israel. I'm not aware of many politicians with citizenship to both the US and Russia.

    1. Re:"believed by many to be a Russian front" by pastafazou · · Score: 2

      Ya, what kind of moron would think Russia could influence US politics...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

    2. Re: "believed by many to be a Russian front" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be, you know, both Russia and Israel. They don't have to queue.

      Also it's "citizenship of both" not "citizenship to both". Back to your English grammar or you'll end up in the Gulag.

    3. Re:"believed by many to be a Russian front" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That video link proves the entire Left (Democrats) are under Russian influence, have always been and continue to be.

      Half of this country has been saying this for a long time.

    4. Re:"believed by many to be a Russian front" by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Wow. I hope more people watch this.

    5. Re:"believed by many to be a Russian front" by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Ya, what kind of moron would think Russia could influence US politics.

      Moronic ones, that's who. Or Swiftoating ratfuckers. Messing with other countries is what you do.

    6. Re: "believed by many to be a Russian front" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a known Kremlin troll, Uberbah, and your adherence to the Russian state orthodoxy is obvious from your post history.

    7. Re: "believed by many to be a Russian front" by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You fuckheads said the same thing about anyone who questioned the Iraq war, smearing them as Saddam supporters. You were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.

  14. Peter Service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peter Service? Please.. . :-)

  15. I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front

    Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.

    When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      | Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.

      Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community, rumored that NSA/GCHQ has intercepts of Assange talking to Russians about this stuff and the election hacking.

    2. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by Pascoea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community...

      You mean that the people that wikileaks is trying to expose would want to tie them to the latest boogeyman in order to discredit them? Say it ain't so!

    3. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.

      You must be new here. I've seen this accusation made here frequently.

      When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.

      Your lack of experience with the material is immaterial. It is a fact that many people have accused Wikileaks of Russian influence, especially over the last year and change.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community

      Handpicked spooks chosen by a professional liar who committed perjury does not mean "widely believed".

    5. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been pretty obvious and well-known since around 2010 that he was omitting much to save face for Russia.

    6. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community

      So this is like when Erdogan throws journalists in jail as PKK terrorists (*and* Gulenists, at the same time) just because they made an interview with someone believed to be Kurd?

      Like that's a journalist's fucking job, man!

    7. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community,

      Where can I find this intelligent community?

    8. Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. by coofercat · · Score: 1

      You'd think, if you were trying to set up a 'front' that you'd find someone 'better' than Assange to lead it ;-)

  16. Too late, Hillary by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let that co-opted weasel dangle.

    In 2010 you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":

    One must be careful not to dismiss the truth because it's delivered by an "ass".

    But now that your precious Hillary has blamed him, you are not only call him names yourself, but do dismiss the truth he delivers... Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Too late, Hillary by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?

      Jumping in... I'd just like to remind everyone that weasels have asses.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol still obsessed with Hillary, so sad. I bet you have some great thoughts on her recent book you didn't read and just read someone else tell you what was in it and why you should be hysterically angry at it.

    3. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whaaaat

      she lost, pretty much the entire left is "over it"

      but ya'll still got this Hillary waifu you keep wavering around like it's relevant. it's time to move on.... that was 2016.

      there's a russian asset in the white house now. and there's one sitting in the ecuadorian embassy as well

    4. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck there's russian hackers in my bushes!

    5. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sauce or it didn't happen.

    6. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol still obsessed with Hillary, so sad. I bet you have some great thoughts on her recent book you didn't read and just read someone else tell you what was in it and why you should be hysterically angry at it.

      Cunts like you had plenty to say about Hillary all these years and couldn't stop shouting "Benghazi" as she endured more than a 1/2 dozen investigations over it.
      Trump, Kushner et al will fold like the cheap suits Mango Mussolini wears when it's their turn to be held accountable.

    7. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to consult a dictionary as to the word "co-opted."

      I myself applauded a lot of the early Wikileaks work, and I still think the molestation charges against Assange are bogus, but his meddling in the 2016 elections clearly demonstrate that he's a lot more interested these days in the axe he has to grind with the Clintons than in pursuing the original mission of his organization, a reality Putin and his crew have been more than happy to capitalize on.

      If someone changes, there is nothing wrong with changing your own opinions about him.

    8. Re:Too late, Hillary by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      ...but his meddling in the 2016 elections clearly demonstrate that he's a lot more interested these days in the axe he has to grind with the Clintons than in pursuing the original mission of his organization...

      His mission was to publish dirt on powerful people. The Clintons are powerful people and have tons of dirt. It's not surprising that he dribbled out lots of info about them because there is a lot to dribble out. More dirty laundry of the rich and powerful getting exposed is always good. I'm not clear why people have flopped on him, as if Clintons' misdeeds remaining hidden were somehow a good thing.

    9. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will someone show this guy a weasel's ass?

    10. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but do dismiss the truth he delivers."

      Truth is almost always incomplete. But the point before when WikiLeaks was more novel was to show what was hidden by those in power coming from a person who released it all with no agenda. Now, years later, the person who continues to run WikiLeaks has become that power, and he's now hidden his underpinnings, even releasing partial data loads in separation after supposedly filtering.

      Hes now directing the story, not releasing the data as truth with no agenda but with purpose he wants to be pursued. That's different than the sheer data dumps in the past that made the names of Wikileaks and its leader.

      This is why many will look at these current revelations now with a huge grain of salt. He released information seemingly specious to Hillary who he stated he despises on a legal and near personal level. He's been heavily criticized since for being a tool, a mere proxy if not the agent of the Russians (with good reason given he allegedly had other access to conservative data he didn't bother to release in as urgent, timely, or directed fashion). A critic would now look at this release more as a PR stunt or like a shill that lobs low density criticism at his current/former handler to try to sell that he's not really bought off...

      Really, the Russians have a monitoring program of this level? No f n way. Who would have thunk it.

      He wanted to be the center of the story during the US election. He wanted fame and power. He got his wish. So I don't mind him being attacked because of it. He's naive handling and selective involvement has backfired tremendously regarding the spread of truth in truthful societies, as he's aided the rise of authoritarianism, and now he pretends this bit is going to freaking matter. Truth doesn't matter if there isn't a truth system to accept it. He aided in the Russian propaganda machine, helped the rise of pro-Russian groups in Britain that aided in some ways to Brexit, the domination of conservative abuses in Eastern Europe, and a pro-Russian US President, all which in turn have shifted the axis away from the "truth.". Again, the Russians have a spy network? Pfft, that's not news. No one's surprised at this revelation or the extent. Other Russian associated regimes in Russian back countries used similar systems extensively to monitor their populations. And no one's in position to stop it then or now either, thanks to him and his past resultant pro-Putin moves.

    11. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In 2010 [slashdot.org] you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":"

      Ya think in, oh, 7 years since then, maybe something, like, CHANGED?

      I mean, just because you refused to change for 7 years and determined to live under a fock doesn't mean everyone and everything else didn't change either. I mean, f, it's not as if /. is even owned by the same freaking people or the majority of their news stories pushed by the same editors in all that time too.

      iow, damn, you're stupid.

    12. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, PopeNazi gets his ass owned and suddenly there's an army of Anons here to attack the person who schooled him.

    13. Re:Too late, Hillary by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "Will someone show this guy a weasel's ass?"

      If you so insist.....

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDDzrqZU0AAYQuV.jpg

      To show my humanitarian side, and soothe the bleeding eyes.....

      http://www.eyebleach.me/babes/

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    14. Re:Too late, Hillary by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      In 2010 [slashdot.org] you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard

      In 2010, I held Jay Cutler in higher regard too. But since then he's also turned out to be a phony and a waste of space. 2010 was the year the rape allegations came out and Assange chose to run into hiding rather than fight them. 2010 was also the year he chose to make Wikileaks a tool of his personal agenda.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re: Too late, Hillary by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm getting triggered here.

    16. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You didn't answer the guys point though. Your original thought was "you shouldn't dismiss the truth because it's delievered by an ass."

      Now you think Assange is an ass you seem pretty willing to dismiss the truth simply because he tells you it.

      We aren't wondering why you think Assange is an ass, we're wondering why you have changed the amount of value you place on being told the truth. I'm willing to be that you only want the truth as long as it's convenient and easy to slot into what you allready believe...

    17. Re:Too late, Hillary by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Russian hackers among the bushes, please.

    18. Re:Too late, Hillary by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The timing seemed to imply it wasn't released because it had to be released, but because if it was released then, it would change something, namely the outcome of the election. It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.

    19. Re:Too late, Hillary by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.

      So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people? I find that info on a candidate before an election is helpful - much more useful than after an election. Yes the timing looks bad but I'm sure that he was fed the information in such a way as to maximize the damage. Remember that he's only a messenger, the actual info comes from other sources - as might the timing.

    20. Re:Too late, Hillary by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people?

      The dirt was definitely released when it was convenient for a number of very corrupt people.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    21. Re:Too late, Hillary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If someone digs for the truth and gets general truth out, that's good. If someone publishes some truths, that's less good. When someone publishes truths in ways designed to help or hurt a political candidate, rather than as a dump, that person is a politician and should be judged accordingly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:Too late, Hillary by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Oh, he's an ass, helping an enemy of press freedom instead of an inadequate friend of same.

    23. Re:Too late, Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would, in addition, remind everyone that there are more assholes in the world than there are asses.

    24. Re:Too late, Hillary by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people?

      The dirt was definitely released when it was convenient for a number of very corrupt people.

      This would be true no matter how or when it was released since they are all very corrupt.

  17. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    This REALLY PISSES ME OFF.

    SINCE F****N WHEN does publishing leaks about the surveillance apparatus make you a front for kremlin?

  18. Kremlin front? by ichthus · · Score: 0

    WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front

    Read: butt-hurt Hillary supporters.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Kremlin front? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the majority of everyone?

    2. Re:Kremlin front? by ichthus · · Score: 0

      Are all Hillary supporters butt-hurt? Do all of you believe she lost because of the Russkies?

      --
      sig: sauer
    3. Re: Kremlin front? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immense trolling effort including millions of posts on social media > Trump's 75,000 vote majority?

      Hell yes.

  19. "Peter-Service" leak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so I'm clear: this would be a "Peter-Service leak"?

  20. Does this actually matter? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess he's getting tired of living in his Ecuadorian mom's basement and his 15 minutes of fame are over about an hour ago. Let that co-opted weasel dangle.

    Does this actually matter?

    I've often wondered why people keep trotting out these sorts of attacks. It's saying, literally, "this is not a good thing, because the person is somehow bad".

    Firstly, it's only your opinion.

    Secondly, Julian does not seem to have a lot of conceit, pompousness, or self-importance in other matters - including interviews. He's certainly confident and well-informed, but I haven't seen anything particularly negative about his demeanour.

    Attention whore is an explanation of this one action, but with no other corroborating evidence do you think the explanation is likely? Are other explanations more likely than this one?

    Thirdly, and most importantly, is this in any way relevant? Is there some reason we can't say "good job, Julian!" and think that maybe his actions are doing some good for the world?

    Must we discount this achievement because he's not your model of perfection?

    1. Re:Does this actually matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Must we discount this achievement because he's not your model of perfection?

      Yes, because IT WAS HER TURN!

      That's all this boils down to. Remember: these fuckos were singing Assange's praises and nominating him for all the Nobel Prizes (even Chemistry!) when he was revealing shit about Bush.

    2. Re:Does this actually matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is perfect, H.P. Lovecraft was a very racist douchebag, yet I like his books.
      The people he have moved through his stories makes him a great writer.

    3. Re:Does this actually matter? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Is there some reason we can't say "good job, Julian!" and think that maybe his actions are doing some good for the world?

      Probably because this is the internet. Everyone on the internet hates everyone.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Does this actually matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Julian does not seem to have a lot of conceit, pompousness, or self-importance in other matters - including interviews.

      What parallel universe are you posting from?

      Posting as AC because I've dealt with him in the past and I don't want to attract his monomaniacal ire again.

    5. Re:Does this actually matter? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree, but the point stands. Whether or not Assange is a pompous conceited ass has no bearing on his opinions or actions.

      What we're looking like is a reflection of a fundamental problem with democracy. Democracy depends on an electorate that is educated on and involved in the issues. The problem is that issues are hard. They're full of gray areas and squirrelly corner cases.

      But you know what's very easy? Deciding whether you like someone or not. Then if you conflate that with them being a good or bad person, and further decide that you'll trust all the "good" people completely and distrust all "bad" ones completely... Well then you'll never have to deal with difficult thinking ever again.

      How do you know that you're one of those people? Well, if you can find a group of people somewhere whom you agree with pretty much all the time, that's a reliable sign that you don't really think for yourself. On the other hand, let's say you don't really fit in anywhere; you have some strong disagreements with the people you agree with most, and sometimes think people you dislike probably have a point... Congratulations then, that means you think for yourself. The fundamental philosophy of our government, of our very society was built around people like you. Kind of sad, when you think about it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Does this actually matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Kyber it WAS her turn. You're a cheating bastard!

    7. Re:Does this actually matter? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure, the electorate should be informed of the issues. However, one-sided information has some seriously bad effects. If someone were to truthfully describe all of your bad points to someone else, that person would almost certainly form an unjustly negative opinion of you. It's possible to lie while telling the truth.

      If Wikileaks had wanted to inform people about Clinton's emails, Wikileaks would have dumped all the information on the net at once. Leaking it out slowly is a political act, and I will judge it like any other political act. Assange knowlingly helped Trump get elected.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. So, not China then? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Now that would have been interesting.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  22. Plot twist? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no plot twist, there's just a final revelation which will be largely unknown among the Russians because most media outlets are controlled by the Kremlin, as well as the largest social network in Russia.

    Everyone with a brain perfectly understands that Putin has always been lying about the state of surveillance and privacy in Russia. Largely there's none, because there's no law when it concerns the men in power. They do as they please.

    1. Re:Plot twist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no plot twist, there's just a final revelation which will be largely unknown among the Russians

      "Largely unknown"?

      I would think most Russians have already known for a long time their government spy and tracks them, much like most Chinese have known and expected the same from theirs. The only thing they don't have is solid evidence, but that doesn't really matter.

    2. Re:Plot twist? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Like most people knew that western governments were doing some spying on their own people too. However, seeing the actual documents, the details of how and when and what for - that's what's interesting.

  23. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But...but...but... it was HER TIME!

  24. believed by many to be a Kremlin front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    [by whom?] [citation needed]

  25. Suggesting Something Else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suggesting a similar state-funded mass surveillance program to the one utilized by the U.S.'s NSA or by GCHQ in the U.K.

    No, it suggests that Russia might have similar telecommunication laws to some of its neighbors where there is a legal requirement for the telecommunication actors to provide the facility for search and surveillance to the officials. The expression mass surveillance has a different meaning.

  26. Nothingburger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SORM has been widely known for many years. Google it.

  27. Illegal? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know weather or not there is any law that would lead lead people to believe they have a right to privacy in Russia? in the united states we have laws against illegal search? Does the same concept even exist in Russia?

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy laws don't work that way in Russia. They are on same level as laws stating that all network operators must provide data to government in real time.

      Also, this is nothing new, most people already knew that this is happening - there were articles at least 5 years ago, ofcourse not in that deep technical documentation.
      Also, there always has been about 20-40ms delay for all TCP/IP traffic to Russia :)

    2. Re:Illegal? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      There are a few things in the constitution and in labor law it appears: https://iclg.com/practice-area... . But how strong these are I have no idea.

  28. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    msmash is a well-known troll.
    it's the key to "modern journalism" - inflate, conflate, suppose, provoke, irritate
    do anything to get the clicks
    be "edgy"

    yeah, slashdot sadly has changed editorially since Dice turned up ... :(

  29. What a Russian takes away from this by mbkennel · · Score: 2

    Don't you fucking dare oppose Putin ever. We know everything.

    Most likely, the details are all falsified by the FSB (so NSA/GCHQ/BND doesn't get in), but the scope is authentic.

  30. Believed by Many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe anyone would give credence to the Russian Front conspiracy theory.

    Then I watch TV - and you can tell who is making this shit up.

  31. The funny thing is we saw them INVENT it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's funny because they talked about creating that narrative in the very emails! Pity most people never actually read them and instead trusted people like CNN, who lied about them being altered when they're DKIM verified, had Chris Cuomo, who is an attorney who should know better, lie about it being illegal to read them, and who also helped rig the debates? Or maybe Bezos' WaPo, which was passing the DNC articles to review, working with Podesta, and running secret fundraisers with the DNC after the DNC's own lawyers said not to?

    I don't believe anyone who doesn't have verifiable sources any more.

  32. This isn't news in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russian expat I just discussed it with yawned and changed the subject. Assange gets played a lot but that's cool. The rape allegations make him sound like a bit of a scumbag, and no that's not a plant you clowns, and wikileaks has gotten innocent people killed with their religion of data dumping. Those people weren't in the US or EU so much cheaper kills. I sure wish the Hillary emails had been crazier. It would be so entertaining if even one of the further out conspiracies was true. I'm quite sure Bernie knew he was being sandbagged long before any data dump and the only people really shocked, SHOCKED really should pay attention to more than Obama, college and Cosmo.

  33. You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fame" by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    ... regarding assange, for years leading up to the 2016 election, in amongst your bleating yelps of "rapist! " . Someone needs to get you a new script.

  34. kremlin front by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    my ass. Stop repeating liberal propaganda bullshit.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:kremlin front by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      Annnnd the liberal McCarthyites have mod points, it seems. There's just as much evidence to support Obama having a fake birth certificate as there is that the Russians had anything to do with anything last year. They've become what they hated.

  35. Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Disinformation: Vlad is throwing Peter Services under the bus while leaving the other sources of spying in the clear.

    1. Re:Disinformation by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of the movie "North by Northwest" where characters played by Martin Landau "shoots" James Mason. Referring to earlier where they witnessed when Eve shot Roger in the Mt Rushmore cafe. "She used blanks. It's an old Gestapo trick. Shoot one of your own to not let them get suspicious. They just made it cleaner by using blanks."

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  36. Re:You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fame by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    He's hiding out, but nobody wants him. As a purveyor of information, he's damaged goods, desperately trying to stay relevant. You'll notice how the anti-US docs have dried up now that Putin's boy has become president.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  37. Woodward and Bernstein were an FBI front by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    That some of the leaks are believed to have come from Russia wasn't the thing I hadn't heard of. The thing I hadn't heard of was that some people believe Wikileaks is a Russian front.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  38. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Wikileaks has been releasing material on the CIA for months. Way to not respond to me at all though.

  39. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "but one election cycle of punching your candidate for a change, and Wikileaks is a Russian front?"

    Sorry, but a guy who injected himself in the election specifically because he personally didn't like a candidate deserves that title. When you selectively data dump what you have, vocally timing it up to drip to influence the US election, both practices that were different from past releases of simply dumping everything he had in troves as fast as he properly process it, you've become a tool, esp when it's clear he also knew the nature of the source itself that was releasing the data to him to control the narrative and he continued to participate.

    It's not /. that changed. It's the standards and behavior of the person running Wikileaks that did.

  40. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wikileaks has been releasing material on the CIA for months. Way to not respond to me at all though.

    And despite the fact that the Trump administration has been leaking like a sieve, Wikileaks has released nothing on them. When you're an organization that prides itself on integrity, choosing sides politically is not a good look.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  41. It's never Lupus... or RICO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you expect successful RICO charges is how I know the reports you rely upon are the ignorant ravings of the clueless:

    https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

  42. Assange by dohzer · · Score: 1

    In other news, Assange's hair and teeth have started falling out after latest balcony appearance.

  43. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It WAS her time. You guys cheated as we keep finding more and more corroborating evidence to support that. This story being one of those pieces. Don't worry, we'll get that ass. Maybe y'all should think about running off to Ecuador.

  44. Long Live Julian Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Gee, ya think? They've now released thirty-four whole documents and they're looking for a pat on the back."

    It's not a hard concept to grasp really. Offer a wiki where any leaker and post. I think you underestimate the dynamics of human beings and leaking things, in the U.S. and in Russia. Go read the wikipedia page on widely believed sequences of journalist murders attributed to the Russian government. Then do the research to realize this was not conspiracy theory, but exactly what the U.S. government believed of Russia's government, and then look at the relationship between the two governments over the past 20/50 years.

    It's not hard at all for me to believe that amongst the chaos of existence, we would see these sorts of relative statistics. People who don't fear Putin are stupid, nature selects against that trait.

    Likewise, the role of wikileaks after exposing many tens of thousands of covered up (never published) civilian deaths in the afghan/iraq w/cheney war era, followed by the suspicious sexual crime story (go back, read the details, the timelines, the government official reactions, the slashdot summaries, the slashdot comments).

    Then read the first bit of this summary that gives flashbacks to Trump's many "many people are saying" talking points that led up to his being elected *cough* 'leader of the free world' *cough*.

    No, you have it wrong. Sometimes statistical discrepencies have explanations other than the ones that fit the narrative you are pushing. This is one of those times.

    1. Re:Long Live Julian Assange by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Offer a wiki where any leaker and post.

      As long as it's not a leak about the Trump administration, right?

      Likewise, the role of wikileaks after exposing many tens of thousands of covered up (never published) civilian deaths in the afghan/iraq w/cheney war era

      Chelsea Manning did that, not Julian Assange. All Assange did was take the credit and do interviews.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  45. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If Trump is already leaking like a sieve. Whats the point in leaking more? Is it even possible to leak more?

  46. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, but a guy who injected himself in the election specifically because he personally didn't like a candidate deserves that title.

    A corrupt, incompetent candidate who allegedly said "can't we just drone this guy"? Golly Gee, I wonder why Assange might not like her. Were you whining, though, that Assange "just didn't like Bush" when he was publishing information about that president's war crimes?

  47. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but a guy who injected himself in the election specifically because he personally didn't like a candidate deserves that title.

    A corrupt, incompetent candidate who allegedly said "can't we just drone this guy"? Golly Gee, I wonder why Assange might not like her. Were you whining, though, that Assange "just didn't like Bush" when he was publishing information about that president's war crimes?

    You and I have rarely agreed on political/ideological topics, but I will step up and say we are in agreement regarding the hypocrisy shown here regarding Wikileaks/Assange. You nailed it quite well. Thank you.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  48. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The headlines on Slashdot sure have changed over the years. You guys used to (figuratively) fellate Assange in the comments here, but one election cycle of punching your candidate for a change, and Wikileaks is a Russian front? That's some thin skin.

    Slashdot is run by limp-wristed gay boys.

    Did you REALLY expect them to act like men ?

  49. Spy Master Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Russia, first come spy, then come bribe, then come hitman. So take bribe, eh? da good!

  50. WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front by khz6955 · · Score: 1

    It's sad seeing a once respectable technology site reduced to being the Faux News of the technology media.

  51. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    punching your candidate

    Well he would have punched both candidates, but one of them was standing in the corner beating on himself. For some reason voters considered that more trustworthy and he "won" by a photo finish.

  52. Secret LOL no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These a 4 year old public documents folks. You have been hoodwinked.

  53. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

    If you know anything about how wilileaks works, you'll know that they don't do sieve type leaks. The leaks they publish are ones that have been given to them directly and they don't go around re-publishing stuff that's already been leaked to mainstream media.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  54. Re:You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High level ignorance posting. He's publishing CIA docs and the US president, that applauded him during the election, already said he doesn't care that he will be prosecuted by the DOJ.
    They are declaring them a "non-state intelligence agency", trying to add that term on US law and go after him.
    As a purveyor of information, someone from Russia just chose him. OTOH, it seems you are damaged goods as a receiver of information.
    I wonder what kind of retard upvotes you. Must be multiple accounts.

  55. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Well, it is believed by many to be a Kremlin front.

    They're all stupid fuckwits, but they still believe it.

  56. Title source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Plot twist: @Wikileaks publishes details on Russia's increasingly oppressive internet surveillance industry." - Edward Snowden tweet. Not very accurate in both cases.

  57. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by coofercat · · Score: 1

    What if the Trump-leakers decided to contact Fox or WSJ instead of Wikileaks? How would Wikileaks be able to publish that information? It's not like they magically get a copy of every document accidentally left on a train, or quietly spoken to a contact on while hiding in a cupboard at work.

  58. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you blame Assange and not Hillary for the crap that Hillary did that cost her the election? That is some hard-core position bias right there. If he had other dirt that he could position to get the maximum exposure he would have. That's how he releases what he has.
    Unbelievable, you are mad at the guy for not assisting Hillary in keeping voters ignorant of her corruption. What you are asking for is the exact opposite of Wikileaks mission.
    If Assange sat on dirt on Trump until after the election, like you wanted he to do for your corrupt politician, you would have come unglued. How do you live in a head so full of hypocrisy and hate?

  59. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but a guy who injected himself in the election specifically because he personally didn't like a candidate deserves that title.

    A corrupt, incompetent candidate who allegedly said "can't we just drone this guy"? Golly Gee, I wonder why Assange might not like her. Were you whining, though, that Assange "just didn't like Bush" when he was publishing information about that president's war crimes?

    You and I have rarely agreed on political/ideological topics, but I will step up and say we are in agreement regarding the hypocrisy shown here regarding Wikileaks/Assange. You nailed it quite well. Thank you.

    Wait, I agree with a '+5 Insightful' post, even thank him when we usually disagree on many if not most topics, and I get modded 'Troll'?

    LOL!

    I'm not sure if it's the actual content of the post or the fact that I dared to exhibit consistency in my principles even with someone with whom I usually disagree with that triggered the snowflake with mod-points.

    Either way it's pretty damned hilarious, and very telling!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  60. SORM by ppii · · Score: 1

    What a sensation. Check wikipedia for SORM. The system is being built from 1995. The system itself is a requirement for law enforcement. Sure can be misused but is it what documents are about?

  61. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Start with some extremely suspicious behavior, compounded with obvious lies, around the rape allegations. I got really annoyed by people who swallowed whatever he said, no matter how implausible, no matter how wrong. His political campaigning against Clinton showed that he isn't an impartial truth dumper.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  62. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Right. Reread what you wrote. You're agreeing that Assange was doing his best to stop Clinton from being elected, and you're making excuses for why.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  63. Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Are you a bot or do you just copypaste shit? Are you capable of actually responding to anything that is said to you?

  64. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Right. Reread what you wrote.

    Uh, you first, Slick. Hillary Clinton was a complete and utter trainwreck of corrupt warmongering incompetence. Anyone with two neurons to rub together would want her as faaaaar from any position of power as possible. Now you take that, plus an alleged crack about getting someone murdered - it wouldn't be the first time - and you think said person wouldn't have a perfectly valid self-interest in seeing that person lose an election?

    And that's assuming his decision was in any way influenced by threatened by a drone. Most of the commentary on Assange's character and motivations is mindless, drooling character assassination. This is not an exception.

  65. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Wait, I agree with a '+5 Insightful' post, even thank him when we usually disagree on many if not most topics, and I get modded 'Troll'?

    Well, I would say it was a butthurt Hillbot with modpoints, but I'm still sitting at a +2, so who knows. But it sounds like we can agree on her being a loathsome person, so I will raise a glass and toast to her sharing Kristian Saucier's fine accommodations, and for the same reasons he did.

  66. Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Right. Reread what you wrote. You're agreeing that Assange was doing his best to stop Clinton from being elected, and you're making excuses for why.

    As Uberbah pointed out already, Wikileaks published dirt on the Bush Jr. administration as well as HRC.

    Maybe he smiled a bit when WL published the Clinton/DNC emails after having his life threatened by HRC, but seeing as how WL has published dirt from *both sides*, I don't see any other reason than DNC/Clinton butthurt as a reason to accuse Assange/WL of plotting specifically against HRC.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.