• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FP: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government in 2016

P

Parham

Banned
WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.

The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation.

“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.
Click to expand...

In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down.
Click to expand...

“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”

The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny.
Click to expand...


More details here
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Curious. Since it seems WikiLeaks staff thought it would be or should be released but Assange turned it down... well, this makes me think WikiLeaks as a whole isn't in Russia's pocket but Assange almost certainly is. Of course, that ultimately leaves the whole thing in hands of Russia for now.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Woorloog said:
Curious. Since it seems WikiLeaks staff thought it would be or should be released but Assange turned it down... well, this makes me think WikiLeaks as a whole isn't in Russia's pocket but Assange almost certainly is. Of course, that ultimately leaves the whole thing in hands of Russia for now.
Click to expand...
Saw a big tweet-thread during the election about the founding of Wikileaks which basically boiled down to "WL fine at start, but the decent founders left and ceded control, leaving Assange to control it and turn it into Russian puppet org it is today."
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
kirblar said:
Saw a big tweet-thread during the election about the founding of Wikileaks which basically boiled down to "WL fine at start, but the decent founders left and ceded control, leaving Assange to control it and turn it into Russian puppet org it is today."
Click to expand...

Why am i not surprised.
 
F

Foffy

Banned
Interesting that a group focused on "transparency of governments" seems awfully silent about a particular one...

Не может обидеть папу, I guess.
 
G

Gurgelhals

Member
giphy.gif
 
D

Dingens

Member
I was gonna ask why Wikileaks seemingly has a monopoly as far as whistle-blower sites go. Can't be too hard creating a new site, can it? I mean, people shit on Wikileaks for not releasing certain stuff, but nobody cares to create some sort of counterforce to release the stuff they wouldn't. why?
Or is it more of an image/PR issue? According to the article, the leaks in question appear to have been released, so why did nobody care? With all the Russia-frenzy going on, you'd expect at least one newspaper to write about it.
What's the problem?
 
SlimySnake

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Send Seals into the Ecuador embassy. Time to take him out. Foreign Relations be damned. Hillary the Hawk wouldve done it.

I am not a 100% serious.
 
A

antonz

Member
WikiLeaks is going to try and cause a big deflection to get this story out of peoples minds.

America's favorite Russian Agent in Congress Dana Rohrabacher met with Assange and has "earthshattering information he will deliver to Trump".

So we can expect some serious bullshit out of the White House Soon
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
Dingens said:
I was gonna ask why Wikileaks seemingly has a monopoly as far as whistle-blower sites go. Can't be too hard creating a new site, can it? I mean, people shit on Wikileaks for not releasing certain stuff, but nobody cares to create some sort of counterforce to release the stuff they wouldn't. why?
Or is it more of an image/PR issue? According to the article, the leaks in question appear to have been released, so why did nobody care? With all the Russia-frenzy going on, you'd expect at least one newspaper to write about it.
What's the problem?
Click to expand...
Might have something to do with Assange holing up in an embassy for the last 5 years because he's afraid of being extradited and charged in the US. You're gonna make some enemies by leaking stuff, especially if it's stuff Wikileaks won't release. Russia isn't afraid of killing people.
 
P

Palette Swap

Member
Dingens said:
I was gonna ask why Wikileaks seemingly has a monopoly as far as whistle-blower sites go. Can't be too hard creating a new site, can it? I mean, people shit on Wikileaks for not releasing certain stuff, but nobody cares to create some sort of counterforce to release the stuff they wouldn't. why?
Or is it more of an image/PR issue? According to the article, the leaks in question appear to have been released, so why did nobody care? With all the Russia-frenzy going on, you'd expect at least one newspaper to write about it.
What's the problem?
Click to expand...
There's a really good alternative: international newspapers. They answer to higher standards and do publish leaks.

Typically, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published the Panama Papers or LuxLeaks.
 
C

ClayKavalier

Banned
Piano said:
What makes it better than The Economist? In general, I love The Economist, even when I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

They're very different, I wouldn't say one is better than the other. The Economist is a weekly newspaper, Foreign Affairs is a monthly (bi-monthly? Can't remember) journal that goes more in-depth on topics, with articles often written by experts in the field.
 
D

Dingens

Member
skullmuffins said:
Might have something to do with Assange holing up in an embassy for the last 5 years because he's afraid of being extradited and charged in the US. You're gonna make some enemies by leaking stuff, especially if it's stuff Wikileaks won't release. Russia isn't afraid of killing people.
Click to expand...

So you think the US would've been afraid of killing people? or rather assassinate Assange if they got the chance? if their history is any indication...
But yeah, that's not the point. Wikileaks became famous because they have a recognizable face with an anti-hero story attached to it, and that face became a target because it was attached to a now famous site - but that seems hardly like a requirement for a whistle-blower site. I'm sure somebody could find a better way of doing things without risking his/her life.
Also it doesn't really answer the 2nd question of why nobody reported on the russia documents when they were apparently leaked regardless. Or are journalists now afraid to get assassinated in some dark alley? That didn't stop them in the past.

Palette Swap said:
There's a really good alternative: international newspapers. They answer to higher standards and do publish leaks.

Typically, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published the Panama Papers or LuxLeaks.
Click to expand...

That is not the same though. There is a big difference between releasing primary sources and releasing some sort of summary which not only contains the facts from the primary sources but also the authors interpretation.
I'd rather have both. The original and the interpretation. Sadly very little newspapers/journalists list all there sources in a verifiable manner. Gotta step up to scientific papers for that - and they are usually not very keen on plain reporting news.
 
P

Palette Swap

Member
Dingens said:
So you think the US would've been afraid of killing people? or rather assassinate Assange if they got the chance? if their history is any indication...
But yeah, that's not the point. Wikileaks became famous because they have a recognizable face with an anti-hero story attached to it, and that face became a target because it was attached to a now famous site - but that seems hardly like a requirement for a whistle-blower site. I'm sure somebody could find a better way of doing things without risking his/her life.
Also it doesn't really answer the 2nd question of why nobody reported on the russia documents when they were apparently leaked regardless. Or are journalists now afraid to get assassinated in some dark alley? That didn't stop them in the past.



That is not the same though. There is a big difference between releasing primary sources and releasing some sort of summary which not only contains the facts from the primary sources but also the authors interpretation.
I'd rather have both. The original and the interpretation. Sadly very little newspapers/journalists list all there sources in a verifiable manner. Gotta step up to scientific papers for that - and they are usually not very keen on plain reporting news.
Click to expand...
In the cases I mentioned, papers published curated dumps: they filtered out irrelevant stuff and edited out irrelevant personal information. They didn't just write articles, they published the leaks, but avoided doxxing people for the sake of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wired: Technical breakdown of Russian Indictments
2
1K
Cauliflower of Love replied
  • Locked
Julian Assange: Wikileaks emails were not from Russia
2 3 4 5 6
284
32K
Rebel Leader replied
  • Locked
WikiLeaks release excludes evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia
14
4K
inner-G replied
  • Locked
WikiLeaks release excluded evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia
2 3
123
16K
leroidys replied
  • Locked
AP: Private lives exposed by Wikileaks
2 3
121
16K
Funky Papa replied
Top Bottom