ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/wikileaks-publishing-private-individuals-personal-information/ If it’s personal or sensitive or family-related, we found it. So, we found details of custody battles. We found parents writing to authorities about missing children. We found details of elopements, of divorces, of partners who had sexually transmitted diseases, partners who had AIDS, people who were in debt, in distress, in all kinds of financial difficulty, and, of course, some of the cases that you mentioned earlier, that is to say, people who were raped, including children who were raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 But if they do exist, I would have to weigh up the individual harm against the greater good of an aggressive press devoted to shining a light on wrong doing. Collateral damage then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Collateral damage then. Any examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Collateral damage then. Yeah that's what happens in the now hundreds of drone strikes by the people Wikileaks has been exposing. I never understand this thing where one side has almost no rules and the other side has to tiptoe through the tulips. Edited September 14, 2016 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Yeah that's what happens in the now hundreds of drone strikes by the people Wikileaks has been exposing. Exactly why I used that phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Any examples? You miss the link to the AP reporter interview above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 More examples if you need them. http://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-just-published-tons-of-personal-data-like-a-b-1784140603 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Exactly why I used that phrase. It's not on the same level as blowing up women and children in wedding parties eh? Edited September 14, 2016 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Oh if you want specific example then fifteen seconds of searching got me Robert Finch's email address, credit card number and social security number. finch@finchconstructors.com 4636000820196706401128 99953741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 It's not on the same level as blowing up women and children in wedding parties eh? How has the DNC email leak helped prevent that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43229 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Oh if you want specific example then fifteen seconds of searching got me Robert Finch's email address, credit card number and social security number.Have you got the expiry date and security code cheers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 How has the DNC email leak helped prevent that? I'm talking about Wikileaks in rounded terms with reg to their impact on the actions of scum who try and stay in the dark. I have no idea why you're having a pop at good people who take massive risks to expose corruption and state sponsored killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 You miss the link to the AP reporter interview above? Yep, which was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Oh if you want specific example then fifteen seconds of searching got me Robert Finch's email address, credit card number and social security number. Has Robert Finch complained that this has caused him any tangible harm? Collateral information, but damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Have you got the expiry date and security code cheers? Well if that information is harmless then you won't mind hoying your credit card and NI numbers up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Has Robert Finch complained that this has caused him any tangible harm? Collateral information, but damage? I don't know yet but there certainly was the potential for damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I'm talking about Wikileaks in rounded terms with reg to their impact on the actions of scum who try and stay in the dark. I have no idea why you're having a pop at good people who take massive risks to expose corruption and state sponsored killing. Apart from the revelations which brought them to the attention of the world and on which they worked with proper journalists, what have they done to improve the world? In fact what have they changed at all? My issue is that corruption and state sponsored killing can be brought into the light in a much more responsible way. Dumping everything they have is unnecessary and offers the potential for negative unnecessary consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 I don't know yet but there certainly was the potential for damage. Robert Finch is delighted that the email address no-one looked at on his companies website is getting so much publicity, and the only price he has to pay is cancelling a credit card, not even that if no-one has his expiry date or security pin etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Robert Finch is delighted that the email address no-one looked at on his companies website is getting so much publicity, and the only price he has to pay is cancelling a credit card, not even that if no-one has his expiry date or security pin etc. He was the first person I found, there were hundreds more. How difficult would it have been to redact any nine or sixteen digit sequences? Therefore removing all credit and SS numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Apart from the revelations which brought them to the attention of the world and on which they worked with proper journalists, what have they done to improve the world? In fact what have they changed at all? My issue is that corruption and state sponsored killing can be brought into the light in a much more responsible way. Dumping everything they have is unnecessary and offers the potential for negative unnecessary consequences. Potential as yet unmet. The US military have confirmed during Manning's hearing that their reflexive argument made after EVERY leak that leakers have "blood on their hands" has no basis in fact. Only one Afghani killed by the Taliban was claimed to have been such a victim, turned out he wasn't even named in the leaks. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/15572324025/us-military-admits-no-one-died-because-mannings-leaks.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Potential as yet unmet. The US military have confirmed during Manning's hearing that their reflexive argument made after EVERY leak that leakers have "blood on their hands" has no basis in fact. Only one Afghani killed by the Taliban was claimed to have been such a victim, turned out he wasn't even named in the leaks. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/15572324025/us-military-admits-no-one-died-because-mannings-leaks.shtml But was it responsible to name Afghans who co-operated with the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) He was the first person I found, there were hundreds more. How difficult would it have been to redact any nine or sixteen digit sequences? Therefore removing all credit and SS numbers? I've discussed this ad naseum with others and there is a commitment to as much transparency as possible....Because once the redacting starts where does it end? Who is going to get left in and who out? It's a nuance but it's also a slippery slope. Once they start filtering (they do some already) the material becomes tainted and filtering adds an unwanted dimension to their quasi-impartiality with regard to their 'service'. They have a lot of stuff on Israel which they haven't released that is a greater worry. Edited September 14, 2016 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I've discussed this ad naseum with others and there is a commitment to as much transparency as possible....Because once the redacting starts where does it end? Who is going to get left in and who out? It's a nuance but it's also a slippery slope. Once they start filtering (they do some already) the material becomes tainted and filtering adds an unwanted dimension with regard to their 'service'. They have a lot of stuff on Israel which they haven't released that is a greater worry. Transparency for transparency's sake is idiotic. They gain nothing by not redacting those details. How would working with trusted media outlets damage them? Apart from a bias with the DNC against Sanders this leak has exposed nothing. Did the Erdogan leak expose anything either? Just because you can release this shit doesn't mean you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 He was the first person I found, there were hundreds more. How difficult would it have been to redact any nine or sixteen digit sequences? Therefore removing all credit and SS numbers? Numbers with those digits could refer to many things in the public interest. Date/Time stamp. Financial sums etc. Many of the donors have benefited enormously from their contribution and so they are fair game. Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second largest donor, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009. The third largest donor on the list, Frank Sanchez, donated just over $3.4 million and exchange was appointed to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade by Obama in 2010. http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29808 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 And why haven't they released all that they have on Israel? Surely their commitment to transparency and freedom of information obliges them to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now