Wikileaks unravels

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, January 8th, 2017 - 222 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, internet, Media, Politics, social media lolz, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, twitter, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

There was some unusual activity yesterday day from the Wikileaks Twitter account.

In the space of a day it managed to insert both feet into its mouth and trash its reputation.

First it complained about the US Government leaking information.

https://www.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/817415931899035648

Strange thing for an entity founded on leaking to complain when another entity does the same.

Then it threatened to dox individuals and their families.

There was a massive outcry.

https://www.twitter.com/tdverstynen/status/817505702872776704

Even Anonymous was pissed off.

https://www.twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/status/817448582190137344

After this massive outcry it deleted the tweet.

https://www.twitter.com/Green_Footballs/status/817534929890222080

And after this it started to sound like Donald Trump.

https://www.twitter.com/crehage/status/817601648583446529

222 comments on “Wikileaks unravels ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    8 January 2017 at 9:17 am

    Pretty damn stupid of wikileaks. Just about as ridiculous as Assange’s gormless comment that they didn’t get the DNC leaks directly from the Russians – I guess he never did anything paranoid to separate himself from sources.

    Hopefully wikileaks as an organisation will start to think a bit more about where they want to be in the world, otherwise they’re likely to wind up as being irrelevant wack-jobs rather than an useful adjunct to transparency.

  2. tinfoilhat 2
    8 January 2017 at 9:28 am

    “… otherwise they’re likely to wind up as being irrelevant wack-jobs rather than an useful adjunct to transparency.”

    ..and the world has quite enough of them to last us many many lifetimes.

  3. Wainwright 3
    8 January 2017 at 9:32 am

    Whatever good Wikileaks might have done in the past, its slavish adoration of Trump and Putin means it’s useless. Can’t really be a handbrake on power while you’re blowing the guys in the driver’s seat.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      8 January 2017 at 9:53 am

      Helped stop the Clinton dynasty though, as well as putting a damper on the US neocon’s Russophobic campaign. And that’s what all this bitterness is really about.

      • Wainwright 3.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 10:03 am

        No fan of Clinton me. But it’s very convenient for you to assume anyone questioning your senpai is just bitter because they lost. Means you can avoid all these pesky questions like “why is Wikileaks sucking up to the most powerful man in the world”?>

    • Morrissey 3.2
      8 January 2017 at 11:01 am

      “slavish adoration of Trump and Putin”.

      ??? Because WikiLeaks has embarrassed the Clinton wing of the Democrats does not mean it adores Trump or Putin. Your statement is pure fantasy.

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    8 January 2017 at 9:39 am

    Fuck CIA psyops are excellent. Here we have it, the “left wing” (whoever the fuck they think they are) instantly swinging in behind attacks on wikileaks.

    Wikileaks are the leading transparency organisation. Quite a few people around this post have shown that they have ZERO understanding of what that means (it’s not brain science): to reveal what those who have their hands on the levers of power and position are thinking and doing to the rest of us.

    Wikileaks noting that the elite Deep State is actively working against Trump by leaking WHAT THE SECURITY STATE WANT LEAKED is a) not a real leak. The Deep State WANT this information out there used against Trump and to deligitimise his incoming Administration (this remains a a primary goal of theirs). b) still demonstrates a huge power differential: Trump is not President yet, and has zero of his own officials in power within the security and intelligence apparatus. Further his Transition Team only knows what the intelligence apparatus wants them to know. Right now, that seems like extremely politically compromised, politically curated briefings.

    It’s hilarious that the brain dead “Left” (whoever they are) think that it is not suitable for wikileaks to point this out, simply because the word “LEAKS.”

    To repeat: the power and elite putting out exactly what they want the plebs and the suckers to know is not a LEAK; at best it is a limited hangout or some other deliberate CIA psyops disinformation/misinformation ploy to weaken the party that they are attacking (apparently PEOTUS and his Transition Team in this case, as well as Wikileaks indirectly).

    Only suckers would fall for easy to spot shit like that.

    Also, wikileaks as an organisation is apparently suffering from the inevitable results of quite deliberate and prolonged leadership decapitation. So pile on you fuckers without considering the context of what is happening and why wikileaks performance has not been as sharp as it should be.

    • Wainwright 4.1
      8 January 2017 at 9:44 am

      How did it “reveal what those who have their hands on the levers of power are thinking and doing” when Wikileaks doxed nearly every woman in Turkey, or outed gay men in Saudi Arabia who might face the death penalty?

      You can cry “CIA psyops!!!” all you like but Wikileaks’ slavish parrotting of Trump’s lines are quite clearly the opposite of what you claim they’re meant to do.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 9:49 am

        when Wikileaks doxed nearly every woman in Turkey, or outed gay men in Saudi Arabia who might face the death penalty?

        Please list the gay men in Saudi Arabia that were persecuted as a result of wikileaks.

        • Wainwright 4.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 9:53 am

          There we go. No concern at all for at-risk people whose lives are at risk from an authoritarian government because they’re not serving your idol’s agenda.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 9:54 am

            You made a claim that gay men in Saudi Arabia were put at risk, so give us the names of those who ended up facing the death penalty because of wikileaks.

            I’ll make it easier for you: last year Saudi Arabia executed over 150 people. How many of them were gay men that wikileaks had doxed. Any?

            • Wainwright 4.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 10:05 am

              So corrupt power doesn’t matter as long as it isn’t used? Your principles get weirder by the day.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 January 2017 at 10:09 am

                Come now, you repeated the establishment smear that gay men in Saudi Arabia were put at real risk of execution by Wikileaks.

                Now back it up.

                Out of the more than 150 executions in Saudi Arabia carried out last year, how many of them were due to wikileaks exposure of gay men. Any?

                • Wainwright …
                  8 January 2017 at 10:27 am

                  “Establishment smear”?

                  Simple question, CV. Did Wikileaks reveal individuals’ personal information which outed them as gay?

                  If yes: they put gay men at risk in one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.

                  Open your eyes and have the courage to admit your idols fucked up.

                  • weka …
                    8 January 2017 at 12:36 pm

                    I’m pretty sure we are well past the point where CV cares about gay people unless it suits his personal agenda.

                    Good to see your arguments btw, a relief in fact. Keeping to the point, nice and tight and hard to talk back to meaningfully.

                  • McFlock …
                    8 January 2017 at 7:49 pm

                    What weka said.

                    I keep getting gobsmacked by the jerk’s unmitigated gall, which stops me keeping the conversation as tight as you’ve maintained it.

                    You maintain the focus well 🙂

                  • Cemetery Jones …
                    10 January 2017 at 5:05 pm

                    And which candidate’s foundation did that oppressive, gay-slaying regime donate lots of money to?

        • Aotearoean 4.1.1.2
          8 January 2017 at 9:53 am

          That would be a stupid thing to do wouldn’t it?

          But don’t you agree Wikileaks blew it. Processing information is one thing. Being clearly pro Trump is something else entirely. I used to think they performed a service. Now I think they are just another propaganda weapon being used against ordinary people.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2017 at 9:57 am

            Your claim that they were pro-Trump has already been addressed by Assange.

            An internal leaker – not a foreign hacker – gave Wikileaks excellent materials. They used it.

            As a result we learnt about how the billion dollar Clinton political machine really worked. The Clinton’s are not “ordinary people”.

            • Aotearoean 4.1.1.2.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 10:09 am

              Im supposed to take Assange’s word for it? Have a look at those tweets and tell me how they are not pro Trump.

              Be good to know about the billion dollar Trump machine. I hear he has $1.5 billion in debt and god knows how much in assets and business dealings. He should have released his tax records in the interests of transparency. If the Clintons are bad for this sort of behaviour then Trump is even worse. At least she disclosed her tax records.

              • Macro …
                8 January 2017 at 11:43 am

                ” I hear he has $1.5 billion in debt and god knows how much in assets and business dealings.”
                Exactly…
                And from what I have garnered much of it from RUSSIA.
                Wonder why he is so enamored of Putin??

                So, yes, it’s true that Trump has failed to land a business venture inside Russia. But the real truth is that, as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians.

                “The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”

                http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

                • Clump_AKA Sam …
                  8 January 2017 at 2:10 pm

                  This is lies. Trump borrows from Deutcha bank.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 January 2017 at 6:43 pm

                    Deutsche Bank? Let’s say that’s true.

                    Have you never met anyone who has several lines of credit?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      Im not sure when it happened but deutcha is the only one willing to give trump credit, because of his past. I don’t want to get to deep into it because I’m not comfortable writing a how to guide to avoide taxes. But if any one wants links I’m happy to provide upon request

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 7:18 pm

                      the only one willing to give trump [sic] credit, because of his past

                      Oh sure. Deutsche Bank has the monopoly on the international loan-shark business. Why didn’t I think of that? 🙄

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 7:35 pm

                      S&P ratings officer is the only one left willing to rubber stamp aaa rated subprime dog shit.

                      Lay with dogs you get fleas

                    • Macro …
                      8 January 2017 at 9:51 pm

                      Yes you are correct that the loans comes via Deutsche Bank.
                      Laundering money is so easy if you know how.

              • garibaldi …
                8 January 2017 at 1:47 pm

                Here we go again with this ‘lesser of two evils ‘.
                We have a huge problem on our hands if people can’t accept that the beloved Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. The propaganda coming out of both sides is getting beyond a joke.

                • Wainwright …
                  8 January 2017 at 6:38 pm

                  No one said “lesser of two evils”. The point is Clinton DOES have problems, but Trumps are WORSE. The problem is people like CV keep acting like ONLY Clinton has problems.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 January 2017 at 6:44 pm

                    Clinton DOES have problems, but Trumps are WORSE

                    To be fair, that is the actual definition of “lesser of two evils”.

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.2.1.2
              8 January 2017 at 10:46 am

              An internal leaker – not a foreign hacker – gave Wikileaks excellent materials.

              Here we go again with the highly contentious claims asserted as though they were agreed-on commonplaces. More accurately: “Julian Assange, who isn’t in a position to know, claims that an internal leaker – not a foreign hacker – gave Wikileaks excellent materials.”

              • Aotearoean …
                8 January 2017 at 12:01 pm

                So let me get this straight, Assange has no idea who actually supplied the information to Wikileaks but can categorically state it was not the russians?

                • mauī …
                  8 January 2017 at 12:25 pm

                  Isn’t that a tad disingenuous? Assange runs wikileaks so of course he’s likely to have an idea of who the leaker is.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  8 January 2017 at 12:34 pm

                  I think he can honestly state that the info wasn’t directly handed to him by a Russian intelligence service. But that doesn’t mean much, because they’d deliver it via multiple intermediaries. All Assange can tell us is who the person who gave it to Wikileaks said they were and how they said they obtained it, and we can be pretty sure the person wouldn’t say “Oh hi, I’m from the GRU and we got all these emails from the DNC by compromising Podesta’s account.”

    • Aotearoean 4.2
      8 January 2017 at 9:44 am

      Do you approve of mass doxing of reporters?

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1
        8 January 2017 at 9:51 am

        That’s a hypothetical. What would definitely be useful would be understanding major reporters personal links to major politicians and CIA controlled media programmes.

        You know, like how Donna Brazille was feeding debate questions to the Clinton Camp, or how Politico’s chief political reporter acknowledged in an email that he had become a Clinton Camp hack.

        • Aotearoean 4.2.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 9:54 am

          What is hypothetical? It is what they proposed.

          EDIT: Clinton does it too, whatever it is that she does, is not an excuse. If you attack her behaviour you should attack the behaviour no matter who does it.

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 9:58 am

            Clinton does what too? Doxx reporters? Proof please.

            The WL idea is just a tweet. Hence a hypothetical – at this point.

            • Aotearoean 4.2.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 10:02 am

              It is in your last comment. You say:

              You know, like how Donna Brazille was feeding debate questions to the Clinton Camp, or how Politico’s chief political reporter acknowledged in an email that he had become a Clinton Camp hack.

              We are arguing about whether or not mass doxing of reporters is a good or bad thing. You bringing up supposed wrongs that Clinton committed, and they look pretty trivial to be frank, is a distraction.

              And answer the question, do you approve of the mass doxing of reporters?

        • joe90 4.2.1.2
          8 January 2017 at 10:27 am

          Donna Brazille, you say.
          //

          In her book, Settle for More, Kelly writes that she learned Trump had inside information from Fox about the question she would ask him at the first Republican primary debate. She confirms that during the campaign, former network chairman Roger Ailes was shilling for more positive coverage of the now president-elect. She reports that she was “offered gifts” by Trump “clearly meant to shape coverage,” and details numerous death threats she received after Trump attacked her in interviews and on Twitter, which led her to hire security guards, and a Fox executive to warn to Trump’s lawyer that “If Megyn Kelly gets killed, it’s not going to help your candidate.”

          http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/03/megyn-kelly-new-face-nbc-news-spent-election-withholding-news-public/214913

    • lprent 4.3
      8 January 2017 at 9:57 am

      So CV doesn’t like people being criticised for being fools when they act like idiots? He just likes doing it himself. Now there is a surprise… Another thin skinned whine.

      Wikileaks in the opinion of many people, including myself, almost certainly acted as a cutout for some state player (most likely the Russian Federation). If that wasn’t a “SECURITY STATE” in operation using wikileaks as part of a chain of cutouts, then I’d be very surprised. To date wikileaks hasn’t supplied any information that even remotely refutes that. In fact they haven’t even denied it, probably because they were so interested in releasing the material that they didn’t closely check where it came from.

      So you approve of Wikileaks complaining about leaks. And apparently support for trying to attack journos for helping discuss wikileaks role

      Where exactly do you draw your line about what is permissible in public life? At present your words are starting to make Cameron Slater look a lot cleaner.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.2
        8 January 2017 at 10:07 am

        1) As I pointed out “leaks” by the security state/deep state are what they WANT you to know. It’s not a “leak.” A leak is what they DON’T want you to know.

        Major clue: You can tell the difference because if it were a true leak, establishment shills would be running around like headless chickens demanding national security investigations and espionage prosecutions into whoever released the true leak.

        Instead: ZIP

        2)

        Wikileaks in the opinion of many people, including myself, almost certainly acted as a cutout for some state player (most likely the Russian Federation). If that wasn’t a “SECURITY STATE” in operation using wikileaks as part of a chain of cutouts, then I’d be very surprised. To date wikileaks hasn’t supplied any information that even remotely refutes that.

        You’ve got the burden of evidence perfectly reversed. Not surprising, but try and think it through.

        a) The people making the ACCUSATION that Wikileaks is a cutout or asset of the Russian Federation need to provide the evidence to support their claims. (This is the idea that the innocent need to be proven guilty; as opposed to the authoritarian model that those accused need to prove their innocence).

        b) Julian Assange, Bill Binney and Craig Murray have already come forward and categorically stated that an INTERNAL LEAKER not a state connected hacker was the source of the DNC emails. Again, the “IC” (Intelligence Community) have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever around how a hacker got that data out of the DNC systems, across the internet and to Wikileaks.

        TL/DR it’s an internal leak not a foreign hack

        • Aotearoean 4.3.2.1
          8 January 2017 at 10:20 am

          Wow now I have read it all.

          An organisation that is threatening to dox all reporters and has clear preferences for PEOTUS and has pretty clear links and preferences for another state that has no respect for human rights should be treated with respect unless something can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

          Did I get that right?

          • Bill 4.3.2.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 10:36 am

            Putting aside the ‘loading’ in your comment, the logical counter position would seem to be giving governments and their intelligence community a free pass.

            Wikileaks put info into the public domain. The info was accurate and authentic.

            Wikileaks may or may not be ‘wholly sane’ or whatever (if I can ascribe a human feature to an org for the sake of argument).

            And the answer to that question, or an opinion on that front, should be entirely beside the point unless the idea (in this instance) is to bolster the take of the Intelligence Community by blowing up the vehicle the messenger used (who-ever or what-ever that messenger may be)…ie, a process of elevating or beefing up the credibility of one view by disparaging incidental or inconsequential details that then get attached to the countervailing view.

            • lprent 4.3.2.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 11:03 am

              The info appears to have been selectively and very carefully placed into the public domain – almost certainly using cutouts from a state player (most likely Russia by an order of magnitude) against another state. It appears to have been at least partially successful. Which means that this will happen again and will need to be countered from all sides.

              Wikileaks appears to have become a conduit, not for whistle blowers which computer people on the net will tend to tolerate, but for state actors to use.

              What it indicates to me is that Wikileaks doesn’t look like it can be trusted to do the required back checking.

              • Bill …
                8 January 2017 at 11:54 am

                Back checking? Wiki and others who claim to be involved have stated quite categorically that the source isn’t Russian. Which suggests a degree of back-checking.

                By your own own logic (that only idiots leave prints), and perhaps allowing for some small possibility of double bluff, those fingerprints that the US Intelligence are using to bolster their claims ought to be dismissed or treated with extreme skepticism at best..

                Either that, or the claim also has to be made that the Russian State is idiotic.

                Page 3 of the Intelligence report has this.

                Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.

                Now, I don’t know about any contradictory statements or false claims that may or may not have been made, but here’s a link to the ‘Guccifer 2.0 page containing leaked documents going back to June 2015.

                Seems to me that the Intelligence Services have themselves a story (just as they did with WMD) and that they’re bent on pushing a line no matter what countervailing info comes to hand (dismiss it) and no matter what common sense might seem to dictate (ignore it).

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 January 2017 at 4:22 pm

                  stated quite categorically that the source isn’t Russian. Which suggests a degree of back-checking.

                  It suggests naivety or dishonesty to me.

                  If they actually stated it categorically that is. I was under the impression they said the courier wasn’t Russian.

          • lprent 4.3.2.1.2
            8 January 2017 at 10:57 am

            Yeah. CV is really getting rather strange – and curiously illiterate about computer systems.

            The whole point about hacking is to not leave fingerprints all over everything. You seldom find a smoking gun unless the people doing it are completely stupid. Consequently the computing community doesn’t work on the basis of absolute evidence. There is simply no chance of getting your required level of evidence for anything except script bunnies.

            So the level of evidence required by the computing community is very similar to that required by the intelligence community. It is pretty much revolves around tracking, motive, skills, and opportunity.

            In this case there were quite obvious widespread deliberate hacking going on in the US political systems this election. Attempts and infiltrations appear to have gone on throughout most political areas in a way that was very broad in the types of systems targeted and very systematic. It seemed to target both democrats and republicans (there has been a lot of low key grumpiness from them) and against both organisations and individuals. That is state player in operation.

            This is obvious for anyone who understands what happens in the nets (and clearly CV doesn’t).

            The motivations for that level of operation and the subsequent targeted leaks points directly to which state players would have been interested in doing it. But that is limited by the capabilities. Personally my list for that is limited to Russia and Israel. The Iranians, North Koreans and other state players with a large cyber capabilities simply don’t have the required levels of capability for something that widespread. The Chinese and western europeans don’t have motivations for the type of leaks that were made.

            Plus the fingerprints identified by the real experts in hacks (ie computer industry) are those from known teams from Russia when they needed to use anything beyond off-the-shelf toolkits.

            The daily beast has a pretty good summary about some bits of it.
            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/how-the-u-s-enabled-russian-hack-truthers.html

            Pretty much anyone around the computer industry who has had to deal with this crap over the decades are going to tag the Russians for it. That is regardless of court-level proof that will never happen.

            In the end analysis, computer systems need to hardened against real threats regardless of the weak level of plausible deniability being used – which is pretty much in evidence from russia, trump, and wikileaks. In the computer industry, we don’t require proof. We just require reasonable probability and some plausible reasons that what is suspected is not or could not be the case.

            So far the Russia security services , Trump, and Wikileaks haven’t provided that. So they likely to remain as being seen as a threat that the net has to deal with.

            • Bill 4.3.2.1.2.1
              8 January 2017 at 11:03 am

              The whole point about hacking is to not leave fingerprints all over everything. You seldom find a smoking gun unless the people doing it are completely stupid.

              And yet (apparently)…

              • lprent …
                8 January 2017 at 2:04 pm

                There don’t appear to have been many fingerprints apart from some characteristic tools.

                But as I said. You look for motive as much as evidence. So come on – point out anyone apart from the Russian FSB and military who has the current motive to do this kind of activity, a long history of trying to do it across decades, and the current capabilities for this kind of widespread attack targeted at non-profitable systems.

                FFS, how frigging naive can you be.

                The problem is that now it has been done at this level, we’re going to see a whole lot more of it, and it is likely to get steadily cheaper in terms of skillsets to do it.

                So how long will it be before we have not just the incompetents like Slater doing it here, but programs from anyone who means us harm. How long until it isn’t state players like the Russians fiddling with the US democratic systems, but corporations looking for a tax break?

                Meanwhile we have moron apologists like CV not bothering to look at the dangers involved in this kind of activity because they have personal ideologies that are severely separated from reality..

                • Bill …
                  8 January 2017 at 2:22 pm

                  Okay. What you call ‘characteristic tools’ others (NSA etc) are calling ‘finger prints’ of evidence. But whatever.

                  Motive? Well, apart from state actors any one of a huge number of people or groups of people. I mean, it was a political party that was hacked, yes? So by way of a NZ comparison, who might want to hack into the Labour Party? Only other states? No.

                  Has Russia tried and failed to access the DNC before? I can’t see why they’d really bother. Their targets (in line with other state actors) surely tend to be commercial and military in nature.

                  As for current capabilities. It was a fairly basic phishing attack (if as outlined and explained in a NYT article is to be believed) and the malware was apparently one and a half years old and downloadable. Why would a state actor use old malware? And if they could, then how did they come to fail in previous alleged attempts to breach these same systems?

                  On the flip side. Intelligence Agencies have a track record of getting caught up in their own b.s. (eg WMD) and this is playing out in a remarkably similar way from what I can see. (Inflate anything that supports the main contention and dismiss out of hand anything that seems to contradict it)

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 January 2017 at 2:38 pm

                    surely tend to be commercial and military in nature.

                    Seriously? You can’t see any commercial or military utility in subverting elections?

                    …and before you start, that doesn’t translate as “the Russians did it it must be true”.

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 3:19 pm

                      Seriously, seriously!?

                      No OAB. Not ‘seriously’. I suggested a hierarchy – y’know, that word ‘tend’. ‘Tend’ doesn’t denote exclusivity. It denotes a tendency.

                      Now, how does releasing a political parties internal email automatically translate into ‘subverting elections’? Why not viewed as serving ‘the public interest’? Or even just fucking with a party hierarchy?

                      Corollary. How many different things have the Democrats blamed for their defeat? Well, there was the head of the FBI. He was in the firing line. Then there was the backing given to a recount off the back of alleged anomalies in voting tallies that Jill Stein ran with and that Clinton gave her blessing to. And now it’s the ruskies shooting down Democratic election prospects with their own fucking email communications. Apparently we’re to take all of this seriously..

                      The only thing missing is the Democrats owning their own shit.

                      Corollary no 2. If Sanders was going to chop the establishment from the left, then it’s fair to say that Trump successfully severed the current specific make-up of the establishment from the right. And no, I don’t think either was actually anti-establishment. But both would have wrought changes. So expect to see more of the somewhat ousted old guard from the Democrats and Republicans march in lock-step against Trump just as they would have against Sanders in a bid to firmly re-establish themselves. (I think they’ll ultimately fail, but hey…)

                      Final thing. Imagine if the SIS here was running around post election essentially claiming or insinuating that the elected PM of NZ was a foreign plant? And imagine if all the media in NZ were echoing that claim and giving it extra volume? And imagine that the only evidence for such a thing was a pile of leaked emails from a NZ political party that contained some vague signposts (that no hacker would have left in place) pointing to the alleged foreign government’s country?

                      I for one would be demanding concrete evidence because if the Intelligence Community is undermining the very person they are (at least on paper) meant to serve and be accountable to….yeah. It’s not little chips.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      8 January 2017 at 3:56 pm

                      Imagine if the SIS here was running around post election essentially claiming or insinuating that the elected PM of NZ was a foreign plant? And imagine if all the media in NZ were echoing that claim and giving it extra volume? And imagine that the only evidence for such a thing was a pile of leaked emails from a NZ political party that contained some vague signposts (that no hacker would have left in place) pointing to the alleged foreign government’s country?

                      OK, let’s imagine. Suppose we had a National candidate for PM who’s been effusively complimentary about Xi Jingpin and who has done a lot of business using Chinese money. Labour’s expected to win, but among other things their election campaign is damaged by a leak of head office emails detailing all the kinds of things political parties get up to when trying to win elections, and they end up losing. Shortly after, the SIS and GCSB report that their investigations suggest China was behind the leaked emails, although they can’t reveal all the info that led them to that conclusion, as it would help people wanting to avoid detection in future. The new PM blusters that NZ’s intelligence services wouldn’t have a clue, and appoints some other staunchly pro-China people to his cabinet.

                      In that situation, yes I would expect a media uproar, yes I would be highly suspicious of our new PM and his relationship with China, yes I would assume the intelligence services were more trustworthy than either Xi Jinping or our new PM, and yes I would want to see action taken over it.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:03 pm

                      I think Mark Twains discription of a miner is accurate in discribing a spook when he said. ” a miner is a liar standing next to a hole”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:04 pm

                      I couldn’t give a stuff what the Democrats say, or whether your narrative about them has any relation to reality.

                      How many times do I have to say it before it gets through?

                      One thing you got right – it isn’t “little chips”. If the SIS were saying that an NZ election had been subverted by a foreign power I doubt very much whether you’d be running around pretending it was all just sour grapes about the election result.

                      Lprent’s given you a really good explanation of why “concrete evidence” is very unlikely to be forthcoming, so you can carry on bleating about it all you like. Me, I’ll stick with giving it a chance of being accurate information.

                      Go on, keep pretending that means I support Hillary Clinton.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:12 pm

                      Dig on gents

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:16 pm

                      I think Mark Twains discription of a miner is accurate in discribing a spook when he said. ” a miner is a liar standing next to a whole”.

                      Spies that lie to their rulers very quickly become dead spies.

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:33 pm

                      And round and round we go with you simply not responding to salient points in comments.

                      Lynn offered an opinion that, well let’s just say it isn’t altogether convincing and point out that it’s comprehensively contradicted by one of the links you yourself have been keen on (you’ve posted it twice).

                      btw. Where did I say anything about any standard commenter’s supposed support for Clinton (or Trump for that matter)? And where did I say the Intelligence Community running this shit was about their ‘sour grapes’ over an election result?

                      Actually. Don’t bother cobbling together any of your usual evasive non-responses (I know I neither said nor stated either of those things). I guess your wee nap from earlier didn’t work out. Maybe another time.

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:38 pm

                      The Democrats were not expected to win – not by me (except briefly when the ‘grab a pussy’ thing was gathering steam) and not by others either.

                      And that assumption (expected winners) is fairly central to your comparison PM.

                      edit – and the leaving out of any long running and antagonistic foreign policy is kinda weird if you’re looking to draw comparisons too.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:44 pm

                      I wonder how many stars appeared on the CIA honours board post 9/11. I’m guessing fuck all

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 4:59 pm

                      how does releasing a political parties internal email automatically translate into ‘subverting elections’?

                      That isn’t a salient point, it’s a false frame: there’s nothing “automatic” about it at all.

                      But you already answered your own question:

                      …no matter what the emails actually contained, enough people are going to reckon there must have been something in them and shift their perceptions accordingly…

                      What was I saying yesterday about a narrative with no internal consistency?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:10 pm

                      You don’t understand oneness. The US Army has lost 2 field armies in combat since the end of the vietnman war. That’s over 100,000 troops dead. For nothing. There was no honour in it. I can’t let that go unopposed

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:17 pm

                      You asked or challenged me with : .You can’t see any commercial or military utility in subverting elections?

                      To which I responded : …how does releasing a political parties internal email automatically translate into ‘subverting elections’? Why not as…

                      You see the connection there? Do you? Yes? I mean the connection between your question and my response?

                      Okay. And now you’re contending that your original question was a piece of false framing. Which is fine. It’s alright.

                      Less impressed with you looking to have ripped a portion of some comment I made out of context mind. It would have been at least part way honest to have linked to the full comment.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:27 pm

                      now you’re contending that your original question was a piece of false framing.

                      Nope, I’m contending that your use of the word “automatically” is a false frame, especially in light of your previous acknowledgement of the effect the reporting of the hack/leak had on public perception.

                      The allegation is that Russia hacked both parties and chose a side. If I’m going to condemn the CIA when they do it in Central America why would I let Putin off the hook?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:37 pm

                      @Clump_AKA Sam who said anything about supporting it? I oppose it too. Sun Tzu talks about the stupidity of besieging a walled city, Despite that he’s required reading at West Point they don’t seem to have learned much.

                      I sort of get it though. From a military perspective, access to oil means more tanks on the ground, more planes in the air. That cannot be left to the strongest warlord to determine. The US formed this doctrine during WWII, understandably so, given what was (and is) at stake.

                      Now they just look like the biggest warlord.

                      The longer two enemies fight the closer they resemble one another. Confucious (apocryphal).

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:48 pm

                      Ah! Okay. Getting to the bottom of your dishonesty now. So lets put a wee bit of context back around that butchery, aye?

                      There was an attempt to discredit the content of the emails that failed, therefore, no matter what the emails actually contained, enough people are going to reckon there must have been something in them and shift their perceptions accordingly.

                      And that was in relation to you contending there was no smoking gun in the emails.

                      So the Democrats did something dumb in response to the leak that (arguably) had a consequence…brought a smoking gun in to existence, even if none had existed previously.

                      So whether the Russians or Chinese or just some well fucked off Sanders voters or any other number of other possible people/groups harbouring a gripe hacked the accounts, the fall out was determined by the subsequent actions of the Democratic Party.

                      Shit happens.

                      And then we’re back to you accepting stories about Russian hacking on a basis of faith even though you say you only have a 30% confidence rating in stuff the Intelligence Community says.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 5:59 pm

                      Accepting the possibility that it might be true is not the same as having faith in it.

                      I believe Lprent made the same point.

                      Is “whatever happened the consequences are all the Democrats’ fault” an accurate summation of your argument?

                      If so, I would put it like this:

                      The Democrats are weak: cf: Hillary Clinton, being an inadequate bulwark, cronyism, etc.

                      The Republicans are weak: cf: climate denial, Trump, cronyism, right wing beliefs, etc.

                      Meanwhile, Putin makes hay while the sun shines. Is that such an unlikely scenario for you to dismiss it out of hand?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:00 pm

                      Hopefully if the US draw down in Europ properly Wikileaks can focuse on other problems like climate denial

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:08 pm

                      I wouldn’t say that’s an accurate summation of my argument, no. There are some things the Democrats have only themselves to blame for, yes.

                      I basically agree with your takes on the Democrats, Republicans and Putin.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:09 pm

                      Clump_AKA_Sam: in theory, Wikileaks concentrates on the material it’s provided with, while Anonymous (no relation) does the hacking.

                      I suspect Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana vs. the USA may be somewhat ahead of the game.

                      Be nice to see some Koch emails but 😈

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:13 pm

                      One problem all hackers suffer is lack of understanding about geometry. We are so conditioned to think in small bites it’s difficult to imagine the whole system. It’s like saying oh shit, I forgot to tell it where to get the information to turn on the light.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:21 pm

                      I basically agree with your takes on the Democrats, Republicans and Putin.

                      Then I hope we’re both wrong because that’s a shitty scenario despite the various lines of evidence in its favour.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 6:26 pm

                      @Clump_AKA_Sam: nah. I don’t think anyone really sees the big picture: we’re pips talking about oranges and lemons,

                      To labour the metaphor, we have to get together with pith, skin, flesh, and juice before we can see just one fruit.

                      Shoulders of giants and so-forth.

            • Morrissey 4.3.2.1.2.2
              8 January 2017 at 11:23 am

              So the dastardly Russians, who we are blaming for the Democrats’ near obliteration in November, now have to prove a negative.

              Surely the onus of proof is on those who have made these fantastic allegations? You know, morally unimpeachable people like James Clapper.

              • Bill …
                8 January 2017 at 11:30 am

                What’s that parallel situation I’m grasping for? Oh that’s right. Iraq and WMD. Same shit, different time. And (it seems) just as many people traipsing off the cliffs of incredulity – “They wouldn’t couldn’t lie/make shit up/ be wrong…”.

                • Morrissey …
                  8 January 2017 at 11:38 am

                  They’ve also been loud in their support for ISIS in Syria. They haven’t even got the excuse of gross ignorance any more.

                  • Bill …
                    8 January 2017 at 12:01 pm

                    Those are “rebels” Morrissey! For gawd’s sake stick to the script…and when the script stops working, move on, create a headline distraction and a new dark rabbit hole for people to fall down…maybe something like…oh, I dunno. How about Russian hacking? Can we give that one a birl?

                    • Wainwright …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:53 pm

                      “Everyone who opposes Assad is ISIS!” sounds a lot like “Everyone who criticises Trump and Wikileaks are just bitter Hillary fans!”

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 3:22 pm

                      It would. Just as well ‘no-one’ says that everyone opposed to Assad is ISIS then, innit? ‘No-one’s’ saying the latter either.

                    • Wainwright …
                      8 January 2017 at 8:53 pm

                      No, but you are implying that people who oppose Assad are stupid chumps swallowing a “script” about Syrian resistance. It’s close enough.

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 9:35 pm

                      I’m implying nothing of the sort Wainwright.

                      In relation to Morrissey’s comment, western governments have been actively supporting ISIS, Al Nusra and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham in Syria. And ‘for some reason’ the media has consistently referred to them as rebels and/or moderates.

                      That was the case in both eastern Aleppo and the Barada Valley.

                    • Wainwright …
                      9 January 2017 at 10:07 am

                      And you among other authors here have been actively involved in whitewashing the brutality of Assad’s regime and implying that anyone who thinks he’s a genocidal monter is uninformed and brainwashed.

                    • Bill …
                      9 January 2017 at 10:20 am

                      That’s quite an allegation there Wainwright. Either back it up by citing instances of me doing that or withdraw the allegation or cop yourself a long ban.

                      Use google advanced search on the site. That should bring up all my comments and posts.

                      I’ll be back late afternoon/early evening to see where we’re at.

                    • Andre …
                      9 January 2017 at 10:37 am

                      Bill, if you’re in the mood for some introspection, you may want to consider that your writings have left me with exactly the same impression that Wainwright has expressed.

                    • Bill …
                      9 January 2017 at 11:33 am

                      Having an impression is a personal matter. It belongs to you.

                      And is absolutely not the same as doing the big fingery pointy unsubstantiated, utterly false accusations flying around the show thing on some-one.

                      And you want help Wainwright find these supposed instances of whitewashing and what not, then please, feel free.

                    • Wainwright …
                      11 January 2017 at 3:57 pm

                      OK Bill. There was no search button on the front page so I did some googling\

                      You’ve dismissed any suggestion that the positive reporting coming out of Aleppo might be biased.
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/voices-from-aleppo/#comment-1281037
                      You’ve mocked images of a wounded child and reporting from inside Aleppo which didn’t match your narrative.
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/the-propaganda-war/
                      You’ve shrugged and said “Everyone’s bombing residential neighbourhoods” to avoid people talking about Russain atrocities
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/the-propaganda-war/#comment-1239631
                      You’ve denied that there’s civil war in Syria implying the only resistance to Assad is foreign fighters.
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/the-propaganda-war/#comment-1239682

                      But I apologize. I should obviously have said “I have the IMPRESSION you are actively whitewashing the brutality of Assad’s regime and implying that anyone who thinks he’s a genocidal monter is uninformed and brainwashed.” I’ll be more careful in future.

                    • Bill …
                      12 January 2017 at 9:33 am

                      Questioning ‘accepted’ lines and offering different analyses isn’t white-washing anything. But like you say, someone being curious and/or skeptical gives rise to an impression of white-washing in your mind. That says quite a lot.

                      Maybe you should just stop reading what I write Wainwright. It very rarely just echoes official narratives.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 January 2017 at 11:32 am

                🙄

                In the computer industry, we don’t require proof. We just require reasonable probability and some plausible reasons

                I note that getting 3M votes more than the other guy is “near obliteration” on Planet Morrissey

                English comprehension 101?

                • Morrissey …
                  8 January 2017 at 11:36 am

                  The Clinton campaign made a choice not to visit the rust-belt cities, as well as not speaking out against police executions of black people, and not speaking out in support of the Native American water protectors in North Dakota.

                  Yes, you’re correct—if the U.S. had a decent voting system, Trump would be nowhere near the White House now. But if winning Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, etc. were key to victory, then the people in those states who had suffered because of policies brought in by the husband of the Democratic candidate were going to hit back; a rational strategy would have been to target those people rather than ignore them and hope for their “traditional” support.

                  The Clinton strategists decided to go for celebrity endorsements instead of working people’s endorsements, and they paid the price.

                  They have lost power in the Senate AND the House, as well as hundreds of local posts.

                  Those dastardly Russians.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 January 2017 at 11:48 am

                    Is that the narrative you think I’m pursuing? Something about the democrats? Some sort of excuse for how shit they are?

                    😆

                    • Morrissey …
                      8 January 2017 at 11:54 am

                      You’ve been enthusiastically recycling their lies, whether you like them or not.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:37 pm

                      Which lies would those be? Include a link to my enthusiastic repetition while you’re at it.

      • Anne 4.3.3
        8 January 2017 at 10:10 am

        … they were so interested in releasing the material that they didn’t closely check where it came from.

        What I would like to know… did they also receive the hacked Republican Party data and chose not to release any of it? Or was that data withheld by the hackers and their backers?

      • Bill 4.3.4
        8 January 2017 at 10:16 am

        Curious as to how you’d rate John McAfee’s take on the source of the leak Lynn (given your familiarity with computery stuff).

        He contends that no state actor would leave the date stamp or their own language in the code. That they’d also be cognisant of what key board they used and would not leave an IPS address pointing right back at themselves in there to boot.

        To me, that just speaks of common sense….a basic covering of tracks that applies to the ‘virtual world’ just as much as it does in the ‘real world’.

        He also claims the malware used was about a year and a half old … and could have been downloaded from the ‘Dark Web’.

        Here’s the link to his 5 min interview slot.

        https://www.sott.net/article/338907-McAfee-Antivirus-founder-destroys-FBI-report-Russia-DID-NOT-hack-DNC-emails

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.4.1
          8 January 2017 at 10:38 am

          This guy? The one who was running for president?

          • Bill 4.3.4.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 10:48 am

            Yeah OAB. The guy who knows more than a thing or two about computer viruses and security systems – that guy.

            Maybe you’d like to point to something like him pissing his pants in public some time as a way of discrediting anything and everything he has to say? Oh. You just tried that.

            Tell me (you may know). What the fuck is it with some people that they insist on some info coming from people in possession of some shining white perfection before what that person has to say can be allowed to enter any realm of intelligent consideration?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.4.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 11:00 am

              In May 2016, McAfee was appointed Chief Executive Chairman and CEO of MGT Capital Investments. The company announced that it will be renamed John McAfee Global Technologies. During this time, McAfee claimed that he and his team had exploited a flaw in the Android operating system that allowed him to read encrypted messages from WhatsApp. Gizmodo investigated these claims and reported that McAfee had sent reporters malware-infected phones to make this hack work.

              Actions such as these speak to credibility cf: The Baloney Detection Kit. McAfee has made many other interesting claims over the years.

              Tell me, (you may know). What the fuck is it with you and these bullshit strawmen like your last paragraph?

              • Bill …
                8 January 2017 at 11:14 am

                No straw man OAB. I’m just sick and fucking tired of discussion/debate/argument falling by the wayside because some are more disposed towards personal attacks. I thought you could enlighten me as to why some people prefer that level of non-debate.

                Wherever your quoted text came from…if malware can make encryption visible, then that’s a flaw, hole or vulnerability in the encryption code, no?

                And again. I really don’t give a monkey’s flying fuck about what the man may have said or done in relation to stuff that simply isn’t relevant to supposed Russian hacking of the DNC.

                If you’re suggesting he knows fuck all about anything and that he’s wrong about the potential or likely source of the hacking, then engage and make that argument. But fuck right off with the useless innuendo and bullshit. It’s tedious.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 January 2017 at 11:28 am

                  Yes, it’s a strawman, Bill. I said jack shit about “shining white [interesting choice of word] perfection” or anything close to it. If you think all sources are equally credible, say so, and I’ll stick with the Baloney Detection Kit.

                  Yesterday I put the CIA at 30% credibility. Given that it means that one in three of the things they say are true, I wonder if it’s too generous. It’s a pity that didn’t give you a big fucking cluebat about how I regard information and its sources, but apparently not.

                  I note you didn’t lose your rag at me about it though. Do I need to post it every day to drive the point home?

                    • Morrissey …
                      8 January 2017 at 11:59 am

                      Welcome back, marty. I thought you’d stormed off, vowing never to come back.

                      Now that you’re back with us, I see you’re still fond of the thought-free endorsement, often of extremely dodgy people. I wonder if you noticed that the “Bloke” you’ve just plus-oned had just asserted, in apparent high seriousness, that the CIA’s disinformation campaigns are “30 per cent accurate”, so that’s good enough for him?

                      Or did you just endorse his idiocy because you noticed he was having a go at Bill, who you were swearing at a week ago?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:39 pm

                      Morrissey, I note that you can’t articulate my position to save yourself.

                  • Bill …
                    8 January 2017 at 12:14 pm

                    From wiki (for ease of expression) A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

                    I didn’t make any argument.

                    You disparaged McAfee as a way of dismissing anything he had to say. You still haven’t addressed any of the points he raised. That’s a bullshit level of engagement – it’s not engagement.

                    I don’t think all sources of info are equally credible. But I don’t generally go pointing at a person’s unrelated shortcomings as a way to evaluate the credibility of points they may be making.

                    You gave a 30% rating which I remarked was low given your apparent defence of the ‘official’ line which you then huffily pointed out was 130 (something) above some nonsensical minus 100% for some twin towers stuff.

                    But hey. Just want to say “Well done!” for trashing yet another section of comment thread on this blog with bollocks and bullshit totally unrelated to the comment you were originally (allegedly) responding to.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:24 pm

                      “a way of dismissing anything he had to say”

                      Bullshit. I didn’t “disparage” him, I linked to acknowledged actions because they speak to his credibility. They tell me that his words should be approached with caution.

                      So I’d just like to say well done for your jaundiced and hostile responses to more-or-less everything I have to say. Especially considering I had to explain my position twice in twenty-four hours, yesterday at some length.

                      Refer to that dialogue for more information, then go fuck yourself.

                    • Bill …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:39 pm

                      tsk-tsk.

                      Go have yourself a wee lie down there OAB and see if you feel any the better for it. And then, preferably don’t come back before deciding to engage in a political blog as opposed to doing message board stuff all day long.

                      Cheers. 😉

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 12:48 pm

                      You mean like down the page, where I made a point about bullies?

                      Your failure to grasp the point I was making at 4.3.4.1 came with a side-order of snide abuse. Take a look in the mirror.

    • red-blooded 4.4
      8 January 2017 at 11:36 am

      “…“left wing” (whoever the fuck they think they are)…”

      CV, it’s good to have you finally coming out and confirming that you no longer see yourself as left wing. It’s been obvious to most people reading your posts and comments for many months.

      • Clump_AKA Sam 4.4.1
        8 January 2017 at 2:36 pm

        Actually the US electoral collage did what it was suppose to do which is to divert power away from the cities to the regions.

        • Colonial Viper 4.4.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 3:01 pm

          Some people fail to understand that the USA is the United STATES and that consitutional power to choose the President of the United STATES resides with the decision of the STATES.

          • Clump_AKA Sam 4.4.1.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 3:08 pm

            I’m also having trouble figuring out what hacking US elections actually means, as far as I can figure it means US right, every one else wrong. And I am no defender of US exeptionalism.

            • Colonial Viper 4.4.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 7:16 pm

              Also worth remembering that the US are the world’s most experienced specialists in hobbling the results of foreign nations’ elections.

              The irony of US deep state complaints about suffering the same today.

              • Wainwright …
                9 January 2017 at 10:10 am

                So it makes it okay for Russia to interfere in US elections?

                You have a weird morality about this politics thing. If no one got executed, it’s okay for authoritarian regimes like the Saudis to have damaging information about them. If a country you don’t like did a bad thing, it doesn’t matter when their democracy gets subverted by others. If Wikileaks wants to build a database to doxx every verified person on Twitter, that’s not an invasion o f privacy because you like Wikileaks.

      • Colonial Viper 4.4.2
        8 January 2017 at 2:59 pm

        Of course I’m not part of the watered down, weak kneed, regime change synpathetic, establishment biased, free market political centre that you consider “left wing.”

    • Kiwiri 4.5
      8 January 2017 at 11:53 am

      Hi CV. Your punctuation has been noted.

  5. Bill 5
    8 January 2017 at 9:58 am

    Pointing out that an outgoing Admin is passing info to media outlets before it goes to an incoming president is newsworthy… if that mode of dissemination of info during a transition is not normally the case. Is it ‘illegal’? I dunno. Regardless, I can’t see the bit about how that becomes complaining about leaks

    Beyond that, some tweet about an idea to compile some ‘mind map’ of twitter accounts…meh. Seems that someone had a brain fart.

    • lprent 5.1
      8 January 2017 at 10:08 am

      Beyond that, some tweet about an idea to compile some ‘mind map’ of twitter accounts…meh. Seems that someone had a brain fart.

      I suspect that someone at wikileaks did. However it isn’t that far fetched. It is the basis of the usage of metadata. Given enough data about people and an absolute pile of computing power you can track groups and individuals from the correlations of interconnections between people and what they are looking at.

      The obvious company doing this is google with their fast reactions in adverts to whatever you’re looking at. The NSA and whoever does the internal security in China appear to be pretty good at it as well in a rather clumsy and beauiracratic way

      • Anne 5.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 10:15 am

        ‘bureaucratic’ lprent. Couldn’t let that one pass.

        • lprent 5.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 2:15 pm

          Couldn’t let that one pass.

          I could see it was wrong; it is one of my ‘blocked’ words that I never spell right. But the spell checker wasn’t popping and I was getting rushed to the shower to head out to annoy my parents at the marina before they departed Auckland.

          I’ll try to fix the damn spell checker. It will be easier than learning to spell that abortion of a word (see the Etymology – a satirical pejorative of french mixed with greek)

      • Bill 5.1.2
        8 January 2017 at 10:22 am

        I wasn’t so much thinking it was far fetched, so much as thinking “why replicate something I’ve little doubt the likes of the NSA already has” – given notions of privacy etc.

        It strikes me as akin to combating the intrusion of CCTV cameras via the cunning ploy of fitting everyone up with a head cam.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1
          8 January 2017 at 10:50 am

          Why replicate it? Why dox reporters?

          1. Because you’re a bully?
          2. ???

          • Bill 5.1.2.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 10:56 am

            From what I can understand it would be effectively doxing everyone with a twitter account – not just reporters. And I’d have thought my take was already pretty clearly set out. As ideas go, it’s stupid, and it’s contradictory in terms of Wikileaks’s proclaimed positions on privacy.

            And they’ve binned it. Which is good.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 11:02 am

              To be clear, do you agree that bullies make threats, and that this was a threat?

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 January 2017 at 2:55 pm

                Wikileaks is operating in a high threat environment. They are the targets of very high powered establishment bullying, from cutting off their access to funds to ex judicial imprisonment of their founder. But you seem fine with that kind of establishment bullying.

                A reminder that many on “the left” will quickly side with mainstream power and establishment when push come to shove.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 January 2017 at 6:36 pm

                  Bullies make empty threats then step back when challenged. They’re cowards and most often, victims in their own right.

                  The establishment is made of sterner and far more substantive stuff. Luckily, they tend to be impersonal and clumsy too.

                  Thanks for the gratuitous insults. They say something about me so much yes indeed.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 January 2017 at 7:28 pm

                    So if wikileaks is simply making empty threats, what is your moaning and bitching about?

                    The fact is that the transparency work that wikileaks does is critical to revealing the strategies and tactics of the power elite.

                    For the establishment left to side with the deep state in smearing wikileaks is unfortunate, but not at all unexpected.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2017 at 7:38 pm

                      For [redacted], a Labour Party member, to make comments about “the establishment left”, says something about [redacted].

                      Too much conflict of interest to glean any useful information.

                    • mickysavage …
                      8 January 2017 at 10:06 pm

                      CV answer the freaking question. Did Wikipedia screw up with the doxing proposal.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 January 2017 at 10:55 pm

                      Dunno. But as I said, Wikileaks is suffering from constant attacks against its personnel and leadership so the odd ill considered and unfiltered idea might get through.

                    • Wainwright …
                      9 January 2017 at 10:16 am

                      There we go. “I don’t know if it’s a bullying, invasive, counter-freedom move to assemble a doxxing database of every verfiied Twitter user, because Wikileaks suggested it and I, Colonial Viper cannot find fault with Wikileaks”

                      Can’t argue with religious zealots.

                • TheExtremist …
                  8 January 2017 at 10:33 pm

                  “They are the targets of very high powered establishment bullying, from cutting off their access to funds to ex judicial imprisonment of their founder.”

                  But ex judicial murdering you seem pretty ok with in the Philippines

  6. Morrissey 6
    8 January 2017 at 11:10 am

    We’ve had some pretty credulous commenting this morning, from the likes of “Wainwright”, “Aotearoan” and of course, our good friend “One Anonymous Bloke”.

    In contrast to a few confused Kiwis, I recommend anyone interested in serious journalism rather than crude propaganda to consider the words of someone who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the labyrinthine and treacherous world of U.S. politics….

    “The real issue, though, is that there has been a very extreme dearth of evidence to actually support the claims that have come from the U.S. government, largely, though not exclusively, through anonymous sources laundered through newspapers. People were very skeptical, rightly so, when Julian Assange came out and declared that his source was not the Russian government or any state actor. There’s good reasons for skepticism about whether Julian even knows that and, if he does know that, whether he’s accurately describing who his source is, when he has a duty to protect his source. Unfortunately, there is very little skepticism being applied to the agencies that have repeatedly misled and deceived and lied to the American public, which is the CIA and other intelligence agencies, who, when they’re not lying, are often simply wrong, particularly when it comes to things like attribution of a hack, which is a very difficult thing to pin down.

    And so, you have a really consequential and dangerous issue, which is ratcheting up tensions between two nuclear-armed powers, who have decades of tensions, who have almost come to nuclear war on multiple occasions simply through misperception and miscommunication. And all of this is happening in a media environment that has proven over and over that they’ll print anything, no matter how false and dubious, if it feeds the hysteria about Vladimir Putin and the Russians. And so, this is a really toxic environment, and I think that journalists ought to be trying to rein it in and to demand some skepticism and restraint, and, most of all, insist on seeing evidence, conclusive evidence, publicly presented, that what the CIA and the other intelligence agencies are claiming about the Russian government and what they did here is actually correct.

    —-Glenn Greenwald, speaking to Amy Goodman, Jan. 5, 2017

    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_on_dearth_of_evidence

    • Psycho Milt 6.1
      8 January 2017 at 11:19 am

      Have you tried reading the OP? It’s actually about something, which you don’t seem to have noticed.

      • Morrissey 6.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 11:26 am

        I certainly have. It’s as intellectually honest and convincing as this presentation at the United Nations a decade or so ago….

  7. Morrissey 7
    8 January 2017 at 11:29 am

    Former US secretary of state says information he provided leading to the invasion of Iraq is a “blot” on his record…..

    • The Chairman 7.1
      8 January 2017 at 11:54 am

      There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it
      https://youtu.be/gBoVst-WTIY?t=1s

    • Aotearoean 7.2
      8 January 2017 at 12:07 pm

      Yeah I get this Morrisey but I do not see it as an either or contest.

      If either side behaved badly they should be caned for it.

      It is not a matter of picking sides but expecting some pretty basic social norms to be recognised and adhered to.

      • Morrissey 7.2.1
        8 January 2017 at 12:12 pm

        I agree. So where is the evidence? James Clapper says he’s not ready to present it yet. He’s a notorious perjurer, I take it you’re aware of that?

        Did you support the similar hysteria about WMDs in 2003?

        • Aotearoean 7.2.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 12:14 pm

          Do you agree that Wikileaks threatened to dox every reporter? If so how do you feel about it?

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 7:23 pm

            Feelings are irrelevant. And reporters who have close personal ties to the elite they are supposed to be reporting on need to be transparent about those ties.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 7:31 pm

              That’s why politicians (and even wannabe politicians) go to such lengths to hide their political donations and affiliations, because reporters. 🙄

  8. Morrissey 8
    8 January 2017 at 11:33 am

    I note that [snip] Giovanni Tiso is one of those listed to lend weight to this nonsense. Surely he destroyed any credibility he might have had by his decision to [snip].

    [Wind it back Morrissey you are getting well away from the point of the post and attacking others is not justified – MS]

    • Wainwright 8.1
      8 January 2017 at 11:44 am

      Look at “Morrissey” throwing around insults “they” can’t back up again. Or is it only OK to make baseless accudsations from behind a pseudonym when you do it? 🙄

      • Morrissey 8.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 11:52 am

        Unlike the perjurers that you and several others on this thread seem to rate so highly, I back up everything I say. Do you think the “liberal” Giovanni Tiso did NOT support Hooton’s [off point – MS]

        • Aotearoean 8.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 12:43 pm

          I thought the post was all about stuff that Wikileaks tweeted. How can this be perjury?

        • Wainwright 8.1.1.2
          8 January 2017 at 12:55 pm

          Giovanni Tiso isn’t even mentioned on the page you link to. Can you actually substantiate anything you’ve said on this thread, “Morrissey”?

    • Macro 8.2
      8 January 2017 at 12:00 pm

      What has this comment got to do with the post?
      I’m not a huge fan of the aforementioned G T either. But your comment is simply an ad hominem slur.

      • Morrissey 8.2.1
        8 January 2017 at 12:10 pm

        My point was that this whole anti-WikiLeaks crusade is a pile of credulous nonsense, and that impression is made even stronger by the use of Tiso’s comment as some sort of makeweight.

        Tiso—a self-professed “liberal”—has a record of [snip – off point – MS]

        • weka 8.2.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 12:53 pm

          I agree with Macro, your comment doesn’t really have much to do with the post. If you think Tiso is wrong, make a case for how.

    • Psycho Milt 8.3
      8 January 2017 at 12:56 pm

      I’m certainly no Giovanni Tiso fan, but at least he doesn’t spam comments threads with completely irrelevant ad hominem and tenuous guilt-by-association claims.

  9. Colonial Viper 9
    8 January 2017 at 2:50 pm

    John Harwood, Clinton Camper and anchor from CNBC asked via Twitter who people believe more: Wikileaks, or the US intelligence community?

    After 84,000 responses, the answer may (or may not) surprise you.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-07/who-does-america-believe-84000-votes-later-here-answer

    [Very debatable if this is on point. How about you address the post CV – MS]

    • Clump_AKA Sam 9.1
      8 January 2017 at 2:55 pm

      The funny thing is, every one is claiming hacks on everything except voting machines. Might want to clear that up a bit y’all

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 3:06 pm

        Also the Russian hacks were so clever they swung the election for Trump in the Rust Belt states: but somehow left Clinton ahead with a record 3 million popular vote advantage.

        Billiant Ruskie hacking science there

        • Clump_AKA Sam 9.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 3:10 pm

          It’s sad really to see great minds get clouded by manufactured wants

        • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.2
          8 January 2017 at 3:40 pm

          Who’s making the claim that Russian hacking “swung the election for Trump?” Anyone outside of your skull? No-one on this thread has made that claim.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2017 at 7:21 pm

            So you agree that Russian hacking had no effect on the US electing Trump?

            • McFlock 9.1.1.2.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 8:31 pm

              There’s a gulf between “no effect” and “swung the election”.

            • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.2.1.2
              8 January 2017 at 9:21 pm

              McFlock beat me to it. To which I’d add, it would make a grand total of 0 difference whether a hypothetical Russian cyber attack on a US election were to have any actual concrete effect or not, it would be a serious hostile act regardless.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 January 2017 at 10:53 pm

                Countries conduct cyberattacks on each other all the time. Just par for the course.

            • Muttonbird 9.1.1.2.1.3
              8 January 2017 at 10:41 pm

              Do you agree that your posting has no effect on the advancement of NZ communities?

  10. adam 10
    8 January 2017 at 4:14 pm

    You know this post is a nasty distractions whilst working people get dealt a poor hand again.

    Here are just two I’m dealing with. 1st an employer not paying holiday pay, until employee returns to work. Labour department do not want to know about it.

    2nd, migrant workerer getting no pay whilst factory shut, and if complains, will loss job (then get deported). So we organised food for them.

    But, sure lets bitch and fight over hacks to a party which has spent the last 30 years doing bugger all for working people.

    Get a grip.

    • Clump_AKA Sam 10.1
      8 January 2017 at 4:33 pm

      Personally I have lost all respect for soro’s in the last few years since his agenda to tear down the west has been exposed

    • Glenn 10.2
      8 January 2017 at 7:18 pm

      Well said adam.

    • mickysavage 10.3
      8 January 2017 at 10:03 pm

      Come on Adam. This post is about an interesting online development.

      Yesterday I put up a post about how the Ambulance officers are being attacked. A variety of posts is possible.

    • Chris 10.4
      8 January 2017 at 10:08 pm

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

  11. One Two 11
    8 January 2017 at 4:29 pm

    Not a single commentator, author or moderator at this site, knows who or what is in control of wikileaks, or Assange

    • garibaldi 11.1
      8 January 2017 at 4:45 pm

      Whoever is in control of Wikileaks certainly deserves our eternal gratitude for what they have achieved for mankind. Exposure of what goes on is extremely important for democracy, and uncovers the propaganda all parties indulge in. This is why the might of the Empire has set about destroying Wikileaks.

      • One Two 11.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 7:16 pm

        I don’t believe it’s straight forward as that

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 7:19 pm

          But it’s worth noting that even the latest US intelligence community report to Trump says that wikileaks email releases all appear genuine and unaltered.

  12. Ross 12
    8 January 2017 at 5:07 pm

    I find this obsession with alleged hacking by Russia of the Democrats quite interesting given that the Democrats would, I’m sure, be happy to see Russia hacked. Indeed does anybody seriously think that Russia isn’t spied on and hacked by the US?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1
      8 January 2017 at 5:23 pm

      Of course they are.

      On this forum, condemnation flows thick and fast when they do it, too. Any discussion of Venezuela, for example, will include a. Gosman and b. references to US hostile interference.

      By the way, the allegation is that Russia hacked both Republicans and Democrats.

      • Ross 12.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 5:39 pm

        the allegation is that Russia hacked both Republicans and Democrats

        He who is without sin can cast the first stone…

        The US is involved in hacking all over the world. Their whining is laughable.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 5:48 pm

          According to that frame, spying is a sin.

          Then again, others contend that neglecting the use of spies is the height of inhumanity. Which would make neither side sinful per se.

        • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.2
          8 January 2017 at 9:24 pm

          Their whining is laughable.

          Leaving aside the fact that they’re not “whining,” they’re imposing sanctions on the culprits, the question remains: is it wrong to interfere in other countries’ elections per se, or is it only wrong when the US does it?

          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2017 at 10:02 pm

            they’re imposing sanctions on the culprits

            Nah, that’s just Obama doing a bit of last minute legacy posturing before he bails out of office.

        • mickysavage 12.1.1.3
          8 January 2017 at 10:01 pm

          Did you read the post? The point was that Wikileaks wanted to dox a whole lot of reporters. If you think this is wrong then it should not matter who is doing it.

  13. Andre 13
    8 January 2017 at 5:36 pm

    This probably fits better in “hacking, schmacking” but since it’s relevant to how many of the subthreads here have (d)evolved and the active argument is here: a brief summary of some of the evidence Russia was involved in the hacking.

    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313154-five-reasons-intel-community-believes-russia-interfered-in-election

  14. Ad 14
    8 January 2017 at 8:58 pm

    If Prime Minister English sought to openly ridicule the SIS and GCSB – or indeed say the Chinese Premier did the same – it would be assumed there was a fundamental inability of the government to actually work. If Andrew LIttle started off at them even before he became Prime Minister we would think he was certifiable.

    If Trump thinks he can simply wait these guys out, he should have a look at how vast the intelligence groupings are, what they actually do, how hard they play. You only have to go back to Kennedy and Hoover, or indeed LBJ and Hoover. They are definitely in the “Presidents come and go …” school of public service.

    The President-Elect should – as Mr Clapper said – express skepticism. But going over into ridicule is flat the worst start to governing I could think of. Trump will not be able to rule the whole of the executive branches with just a coupe of analysts in the White House and the seat of his pants.

    If Trump keeps the pattern up with the intelligence community in Washington and worldwide, he will find:
    – greater and greater politicization of intelligence issues
    – a real reluctance of the professional staff to provide the clear advice that the agencies and the President need, and
    – a fast loss of faith in the ability of the executive branch to protect the nation’s vital interests.

    Trump should swallow hard and stop talking and start listening. Maybe he will gain some intelligence.

    • Muttonbird 14.1
      8 January 2017 at 9:06 pm

      I am fascinated that you, an authority worshipper and right wing establishment sucker, might suddenly be waking up to the damage Trump might do.

      Former prime minister Key ridiculed all sorts of public services and you did not say a word. Rather, you said he was doing a bang-up job!

      • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.1
        8 January 2017 at 9:18 pm

        The US absolutely kicked the can down the road in 08. Now they owe 20 trillion. That’s a great source of pain there going to try and pay off. Iv no doubt in that

        • Muttonbird 14.1.1.1
          8 January 2017 at 9:27 pm

          I’ve read your poorly spelled posts over the last few days you have made yourself apparent on this site and I don’t think you are a genuine supporter of NZ communities.

          • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2017 at 9:37 pm

            Maybe you should have a kit Kat

            • Muttonbird 14.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2017 at 9:41 pm

              You are Paul Henry. I should have guessed.

              • Clump_AKA Sam …
                8 January 2017 at 9:48 pm

                The only time a say a simple sorry is when I can’t hear reporters

              • mickysavage …
                8 January 2017 at 9:54 pm

                MB I think you should read Ad’s stuff more deeply. He is way more complex than what you think.

                • Muttonbird …
                  8 January 2017 at 10:09 pm

                  You’ve defended Ad as a person genuinely concerned with ordinary voteless people in this country but I must admit I have not seen any consistent evidence of this. What I do see is a lot of odd, inconsistent posts about how the John Key government is doing so well and how we should all be thankful for the continuation of the current National government because: house prices. I’ve seen these ideas, and the next day I’ve seen a few socially responsible ideas. Quite frankly, Ad is all over the place as far as I’m concerned and you, yourself have admitted this in saying he is an old leftie who experiments with all sorts of shit (I paraphrase).

                  Honestly, I believe Ad is an authority worshipper, like Chris Trotter, and doesn’t have a fighting bone in his body.

                  • mickysavage …
                    8 January 2017 at 10:14 pm

                    He is someone who is really interested in the political process and what works and what does not work. Sometimes you have to see what the background is and what effect it is having, and if triangulation and tacking to the middle is a legitimate tactic.

                    He also comes up with some really idealistic stuff.

                    He is complex …

                    • Muttonbird …
                      8 January 2017 at 10:24 pm

                      Complex alright. I’ve seen nothing at all from him concerning what works for disenfranchised people..

                      …If I might talk about something else, I have heard recently on the radio a campaign for people to clean shoes when entering West Coast forests and I know you have been involved with this so I want to thank you for your work because to lose Kauri in the Auckland region and beyond would be devastating.

                    • mickysavage []
                      8 January 2017 at 10:28 pm

                      Thanks MB it is a real worry. There is a report that will be released soon which details how bad the problem is although some of the details have already appeared in the media.

                      It is going to be a tough time for the Kauri. Central and Local Government need to throw everything at the problem.

                    • Wainwright …
                      9 January 2017 at 10:19 am

                      ” Sometimes you have to see what the background is and what effect it is having, and if triangulation and tacking to the middle is a legitimate tactic.”

                      No you don’t. Triangulation’s been tried, failed, tried again, failed, tried again, failed, tried again, and here we are on 25%. Definitiong of insanity is . . .

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.1.2
              8 January 2017 at 9:46 pm

              Oh dear. You appear not to have gained genuine certification as an approved acceptable lefty. How will you cope?

              • Muttonbird …
                8 January 2017 at 9:51 pm

                Are you concerned with NZ people? From your recent posts, I think not.

                Edit: from all your posts, actually.

                • Clump_AKA Sam …
                  8 January 2017 at 9:55 pm

                  All we can do is share our concerns and await replies. That’s what makes New Zealand a great country

                • Colonial Viper …
                  8 January 2017 at 10:00 pm

                  Oh dear you mean I don’t have your much vaunted acceptable lefty certification either? How will I cope with your righteous moral judgement?

                  • Muttonbird …
                    8 January 2017 at 10:15 pm

                    My Judgement? How about the judgment of the hundreds of thousands of people left behind by your government?

                  • Muttonbird …
                    8 January 2017 at 10:37 pm

                    Also, I know you hate China because Trump does (you follow Trump regardless) but you love Chinese house buying immigrants to New Zealand and attack anyone who questions it. How do you explain this?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 January 2017 at 10:51 pm

                      I don’t answer to you and your silly delusional scenarios silly billy

                    • Muttonbird …
                      8 January 2017 at 11:07 pm

                      CV, You are bannable material because you are an idiot. You are all over the place and you know it.

                      Please continue if you want to get banned again, I and everyone else here will love it.

                      Otherwise, find a plank and stick to it for god’s sake.

  15. B 15
    9 January 2017 at 3:54 am

    Oh piss off.

    Maybe it’s time to unravel labour and the greens.

  16. Instauration 16
    10 January 2017 at 8:01 pm

    Redfed
    @WLTaskForce is NOT WikiLeaks;
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817538212709203968
    Why do you assert otherwise ?

  17. Intauration 17
    10 January 2017 at 8:10 pm

    The premise of Redfeds post unravels accordingly.

    [lprent: I let the comment through. I JUST have to know what wondrous insights you are referring to…. /sarc

    Actually it just looks like a dickhead trying to be a smartarse and failing at the first. Yawn. ]