Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:WikiLeaks

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Troll house cookies[edit]

Has Wikileaks become just another Russian troll house[1]? Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That's Clinton machine disinformation to cover their ass on the murder od Seth Rich.nobs 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Assange won't rest until James McDougal's body is found in Benghazi wrapped in printouts of the missing emails. Bongolian (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I think they're more interested in determining the cause of death of Prof. Gavin Macfayden; he was 76 yrs old after all. nobs 02:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Doxing Turkish women[edit]

Apparently, it was Michael Best, and not WikiLeaks, the files with personal information; he received the info from Phineas Fisher.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Off the rails[edit]

WikiLeaks' fixation with Clinton & descent into rabid crankery to the point where it's now openly courting the alt-right should be documented. Cf many of their recent tweets, such as this one denying Trump's links with Russia & this one citing the Trumpist subreddit. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure wikileaks ever had much rails to begin with. Edward Snowden had a crisis of conscience and released materials he thought people ought to know about through a reporter. Wikileaks got famous for dumping a whole bunch of private government communications without much thought to their content. It helped that there was some serious questions raised by it, but they didn't proceed to make a platform that helped leak things much, but instead just kinda sat around until assange flipped his lid. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That is a massive misconception about Cablegate that smears both Assange and Manning and downplays the importance of their contributions; WikiLeaks offered the Department of Defense to review the War Logs but it was denied and handled her leaks with great care.. Snowden's leaks were classified higher that Chelsea's leaks and Chelsea had multiple journalists while Snowden just had Greenwald who slowly dripped the leaks out. Also, do you really read all 1.7 million documents he leaked, because if he didn't that would make him the irresponsible data dumper.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Assange is friendly with Roger Stone. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have heard that they have retweeted Paul Joseph Watson who is a massive reactionary but I can't find the tweets rn.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That's one word for him, I can think of a few others. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 14:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Vault 7 CIA files[edit]

It's been days now and nobody has mentioned it on RW at all, not even in WIGO:World, so I thought I would. The media seems to have been very quiet on the subject too, a handfull of initial reports then nothing, nada, zilch, not a sausage. What's up with that? not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 06:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

For those into technology, this is pretty much known/assumed already just like the stuff Snowden revealed. This situation shows there's truth to the mainstream media idea and the lack of government transparency. I honestly think Vault 7 is more important that Russian hacker story.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr all the headlines are wrong and the interesting bit is that the apps that claim serious security, like Signal, really are secure enough that the CIA needs to hack the physical device to break into them - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's one way of putting it. I would more say Vault 7 detailed targeted surveillance techniques, many of which are already known. As for Signal, the CIA exploits don't try decrypting the cipher text but instead grab the plain text before it's sent out. Unless a program is using it's own faulty encryption scheme or a dangerously outdated one, targeted surveillance yields the best and relatively easy results. Of course, with certain encryption schemes there's still some attacks things you can do like resend a message or guess what the plain text is from the cipher text (the word yes and no have different lengths for example). The definition of security really depends on how the mathematician who created the scheme defines it.
As Nathan White has argued, the CIA is more concerned with collected exploits rather than helping companies fix them, which is an extremely important issue here.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks and conspiracy theories[edit]

To what extent can 'nothing has been dumped on Wikileaks and its equivalents' be used as a retort to conspiracy theorists? (As leaking such things would be a mega-coup). 86.146.100.119 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Funding[edit]

Maybe hate on their site, suggest not to fund it, and save putting your own hand out for a separate section\page? kinda brings you down a couple levels