Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It applies to Wikileaks too.
-
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.
Contractor charged with leaking classified NSA info on Russian hacking
- Thread starter WarMacheen
- Start date
It applies to Wikileaks too.
ElRenoRaven
Member
I'll take prime examples of how not to leak shit for 1000 Alex.
Can you be any dumber? I mean seriously. limited views of said item and you email the outlet you leaked it to from your work computer. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Not death worthy though at all. Course she was caught and should do some time for it. I'd say a couple years should be good. After that she's sure as hell not gonna get any jobs anywhere that needs shit kept secret. That's for sure.
Can you be any dumber? I mean seriously. limited views of said item and you email the outlet you leaked it to from your work computer. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Not death worthy though at all. Course she was caught and should do some time for it. I'd say a couple years should be good. After that she's sure as hell not gonna get any jobs anywhere that needs shit kept secret. That's for sure.
cpp_is_king
Member
I'd heard that officials had evidence of them hacking election systems months ago
shawnbuddy
Member
This lady is ex-military. She knows how these things work.
jellies_two
Member
edit: already on page 1.
Assange literally had a TV show on RT, Russia's propaganda network. They disseminated the DNC emails on behalf of the Russians. If you don't see that they're one and the same, you're actively deluding yourself.
"Assange is a Russian stooge."
"Wikileaks is an FSB Front."
And so on and so on.
These are all commonplace on these boards, and actually from a handful of posters in this very thread.
Kirblar, we've gone over this before. Right here in fact.
Dartmouth films produced and edited the show. RT merely bought the rights to it. They had nothing to do with it beyond slapping their logo in the bottom left corner.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
I think she just hated Trump a lot. Unfortunate, should have sent it to NYT or WP.
Apparently this is her Twitter? https://twitter.com/Reezlie/with_replies God, she hates him haha.
Apparently this is her Twitter? https://twitter.com/Reezlie/with_replies God, she hates him haha.
shawnbuddy
Member
No. They've always said, until now, that there was no evidence of that.
jellies_two
Member
Damn well beaten.
Assange is a Russian "stooge". *Trump* is a Russian "stooge". That doesn't make them Russian plants, they're just all in a huge orgy to the detriment of the American IC and democratic institutions and the voting public.
It's hard to believe she wouldn't grasp this. I work at a testing company and I have educational information on the Obama girls on my work computer as well at other well known kids and even I'm smart enough to know that information would be a shitstorm and easily traced back to me. I find it hard to believe someone with top security clearance wouldn't know the gravity of doing something like that. Especially in this political climate where Republicans are constantly talking about leaks.
That was aimed at the premise of The Intercept having clean hands here that has been proposed ITT
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
If the NSA was just going to sit on it then it was her duty to leak it.
We don't know if that was the case, though. I'm guessing that it was. The small number of people who touched it certainly suggests that.
jellies_two
Member
25 years old?
ElRenoRaven
Member
You're seriously going to pretend that it's not the narrative that Wikileaks = Russia? Come on now. Who are you kidding?
The Faceless Master
Member
like robbing a house and dropping your wallet at the scene.
ho can someone be that inept?
must be a setup.
ho can someone be that inept?
must be a setup.
Aaronology
Member
Aye, it seems pretty clear they outted her inadvertently. Scanning and OCR'ing the documents before attempting to have them verified seems like a really easy step they neglected.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
And only a half-dozen people printed it in the last several months? I don't buy it.
The Albatross
Member
uuhhhh...... Relax bud. I really don't care about the Intercept one way or another, it's just a mediocre website. Don't really have a bias against it anymore than I have a bias against, like, mediocre videogames.
I'm not justifying destroying anybody's life to help Trump. I hate Trump. Leaking classified intelligence is still a crime though and it's a huge risk to take, especially for information that is more or less interesting, but not much more than that.
That's not a "narrative", that's the actual truth.
Guys, please look at her Facebook-Page. This hate is just barbaric, unhinged. Facebook needs to shut it down right now. So many people without ANY compassion, glad they can enjoy the misfortune of others. It's definitely reflected in the US' broken justice system, with absolutely insane prison sentences, vindictive and hateful judges, attorneys, media coverage. It really makes me sad, exhaused and desperate. This country maybe can't be fixed.
Green Ninja
Banned
The names winner, reality winner
jellies_two
Member
the intercept are a young (in age) group that have been criticised by main stream press before for sloppy reporting. It makes total sense they would screw up, the source was wet behind the ears. They didn't have Snowden helping them at each step.
edit: and the trump-can-do-no-wrong crowd are spinning her as a poster child for the "deep state" etc, not sure why TBH are they trying to suggest she is a cog in the vast clinton/soros conspiracy to make their guy look awful? If Trump followed their inane advice and "sacked all the obama appointees" she would still have had a job anyway.
innervision961
Member
Also, how the hell can the leaks be real but the news be fake and we love Wikileaks but we hate leaks? Like how the hell is any of that rational at all?
Neuromancer
Member
Reality Leigh Winner sounds like a character in Snowcrash.
Rktk
Member
She has a public Facebook profile?
"I don't believe anyone here has said that there are literal Russian intelligence officials running Wikileaks, or that they are actually a "front" name." - nomis
But seriously, are you even going to defend your posts or not? Or will I see you in another thread talking about Assange and his RT show yet again?
Aaronology
Member
You're throwing it on a little thick, aren't you?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
There's degrees of separation there that may be too close for comfort but to use that as some kind of smoking gun is absurd.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_reveal_much_about_the_critics/
Regarding disseminating info "on behalf" of "the Russians", if someone had hacked the RNC and gave their findings to Wikileaks, what do you think Wikileaks would have done with that info?
TestOfTide
Banned
First off, Wikileaks IS blatantly working for Russia, and they are praising the leaker because this leaker was leaking a story long before it was meant to be leaked because it was clearly still being investigated and now that investigation has been compromised.
Second off, I will say that the leaker herself was NOT working the Russians and was just some dumbass newbie who saw that the IC was constantly leaking shit against Trump and thought she could get away with leaking shit about Russia she saw as recently as May 5th. Oddly enough most of the press didn't bite (because it wasn't coming from their usual sources) except The Intercept because they have been so goddamn thirsty for a scoop.
Is that rational enough for you?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
So you want to be an NSA leaker: The three steps to success and fame!
1) Make a burner gmail account: The government doesn't have access to gmail, but just to be safe make a new gmail so if you forget to log out, they won't see all your personal information!
2) Print the information out on your work printers: Save money on ink, it's expensive!
3) Email your favorite writer. Make sure you use your work computer, their internet is much faster and they won't be looking their own traffic!
Snowden's Blanket Tip!
1) Make a burner gmail account: The government doesn't have access to gmail, but just to be safe make a new gmail so if you forget to log out, they won't see all your personal information!
2) Print the information out on your work printers: Save money on ink, it's expensive!
3) Email your favorite writer. Make sure you use your work computer, their internet is much faster and they won't be looking their own traffic!
Snowden's Blanket Tip!
You are just using a formalistic, legalist definition of "crime". Deep Throat leaking to Woodward and Bernstein also broke the law. And? It's about what people actually DO that matters. Yes, it's a huge risk that she should only have taken with way better care or not at all, but she deserves definitely not a quarter of what sadly is probably coming for her. It makes me very sad, a young, compassionate, thoughtful life, as you can see from her Facebook page, probably to be destroyed by vile assholes like Sessions and Trump.
Schnozberry
Member
Actual voting machines are not connected to public facing networks, so they aren't really hackable in conventional sense over the internet. This leak documents an attempt at hacking software companies tied to voting machines and multiple spearphishing campaigns aimed at local election officials. There's no evidence pointing to either success or failure regarding the hacking attempts.
Yes, just type her name in the search box.
No. It's occassions like these where you can really see how hateful a big part of humanity is. Lots of gross sexism and homophobia there too (ENJOY LESBIAN PRISON RAPE HAHAHA)
Using words like "blatantly" and "obviously" doesn't suffice. It's about proof, and you need to provide it instead of peddling conspiracy theories. The IC doesn't even have the same assessment as you or others making such wild accusations.
I'm going to have to assume that yourself and kirblar have some evidence for it, so my suggestion would be to provide it to the FBI or NSA so we can finally expose Wikileaks for being the FSB front that they are.
But if the Intercept didn't remove identifiying information from the printed document, like microdots, then they were real sloppy as well. People on Twitter are decoding the microdots and know what the serial number of the printer is.
shawnbuddy
Member
Okay, you read the article. That's better than some. And you can admit that this is farther into our election system than it has ever been reliably reported the Russians have reached? That's the point I'm making. It''s novel, interesting information.
The Albatross
Member
Wait... wait... So I'm using the word "Crime" improperly here, but you're comparing her leak to ... Deepthroat, Watergate, and the collapse of Richard Nixon...?
C'mon.
I hope that the punishment fits the crime here, and similar to you, I worry that it won't with Jeff Sessions at the helm of the Justice Dept. the punishment will be greater than the crime, but c'mon, this leak wasn't saving the Republic, taking down Trump, or doing anything else. If it was, reporters like Woodward and Bernstein would have been reporting on it, not fairly mediocre outlets desperate to break stories (and then seemingly screw them up).
But, for what it's worth, I don't use facebook so I'm not looking her up on facebook like you have, either. I'm sure she's otherwise a good person who did something illegal and very very stupid. But, if you're a government contractor and you're privileged to classified top secret information at the NSA, you have to know that there is tremendous risk to your livelihood when you leak that information.
TestOfTide
Banned
Oh you want evidence? How about that time that the Panama Papers came out and Wikileaks peddles the same fucking conspiracy bullshit against them as Russia Today:
Or what about that time that Wikileaks tried to justify Pro-Putin rebels shooting down the Ukrainian Airplane MH17:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/492033939142619136?lang=en
Is that a good start for you?
Oh you want evidence? How about that time that the Panama Papers came out and Wikileaks peddles the same fucking conspiracy bullshit against them as Russia Today:
Or what about that time that Wikileaks tried to justify Pro-Putin rebels shooting down the Ukrainian Airplane MH17:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/492033939142619136?lang=en
Is that a good start for you?
Wikileaks promoted the Panama papers. You can even go through their timeline for that.
The issue with OOCPR is the following, and I'll directly quote Assange.
"There's a claim repeated by the usual idiots in the ruling class press that WikiLeaks said the Panama Papers had been produced by the CIA US intelligence to attack Vladimir Putin. Absolutely not. In fact, we explicitly stated that we did not believe that was so. The key journalist and newspapers who collected the Panama Papers in Germany are our publishing partners, so we knew about the story. We aggressively promoted it. However, the particular story that came out on Vladimir Putin, which was pushed as the leading story in the Western press, rather than issues relating to say David Cameron or Western figures coming out of the Panama Papers, was funded by USAID and Soros Foundation. They funded an organization called OOCPR, which does sometimes good work, but is based in Maryland and focusses exclusively on negative stories about Russia and the former Soviet states. So, you have a story on Vladimir Putin produced by an organization, which exclusively focuses on Russia and the former Soviet states that is based in Maryland and is funded, the only funders listed, by USAID and the Soros Foundation. That is no model for integrity. And that's what we said. Some good journalism, but this is a difficulty when you have negative stories about Putin being pushed forward and funded by the US government. We are trying to distinguish WikiLeaks' model of publication, where we are funded by our readers and not by dodgy foundations or the US government. We don't like it when we are in competition with an organization based in Washington, DC and funded by the US government. Readers should be able to distinguish which sources are more reliable to give you the truth. One that is funded by a government attacking a figure in another government or one that is funded by its readers and has a track record of publishing everything with time limited redactions."
Some shitty tweets, no doubt. Not proof of an FSB front.
Do you agree with Obama's assessment of Wikileaks? Yes or no?
The second tweet is a Max Keiser blog post. Was it irresponsible? Sure. But if you're going to stat pulling out random tweets from some 40k+ then I suppose we're going ot be here for a long time. Chew out Wikileaks all you want, but let's not jump the gun here. I'm not in agreement with a number of things they've done and published - including these tweets. But I'm not going to start claiming they're an FSB front because sometimes it aligns with what RT has said. This is an absurdity.
Haha, Russia shot down a commercial airliner not because they mistook it for a Ukrainian jet, but because they were tricked into mistaking it for a Ukrainian jet.
:J-Law-okay.gif
innervision961
Member
Oh you want evidence? How about that time that the Panama Papers came out and Wikileaks peddles the same fucking conspiracy bullshit against them as Russia Today:
Or what about that time that Wikileaks tried to justify Pro-Putin rebels shooting down the Ukrainian Airplane MH17:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/492033939142619136?lang=en
Is that a good start for you?
You forgot the time wikileaks edited out mentions of billions in payments from Putin to Assad!
http://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992
yellowjacket25
Member
I worked in a top secret position at the same age as her. It is made very clear on multiple occasions what the potential consequences are to leaking this type of information. I still to this day haven't even hinted to my friends or my family what I worked on back then. The only thing that I can buy is that she didn't think she would get caught if she printed a document and sent it to someone in the mail which is utter stupidity. She is pretty lucky that she even got out the door with the document.
TestOfTide
Banned
First off I like how your "defense" of wikileaks is to quote their dumbass conspiracy about the western media was conspiring to hurt Putin because the Putin parts of the Panama Papers weren't the REAL story according to wikileaks. I like that because in your attempt to claim that wikileaks isn't blatantly working for the Russians, you post a paragraph in which Wikileaks gives some dumbass conspiracy about how PUTIN is the real victim here.
Second of all how is that me pulling out "random tweets"? They CHOSE to promote that shit because it justified Putin's side of things.
Here's some more blatant evidence that they are working for Russia:
When it came to the DNC emails, they not only didn't redact anything, but when asked about the Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers that Wikileaks had just put out to the public, WIkileaks said they did that ON PURPOSE. How the fuck does that promote whistleblowing?
And I'm sure you'll give some bullshit excuse about how they don't hold back information because they wikileaks, except they DID hold back information when they made sure to only release the Podesta emails in a drip drip fashion, which BTW, they literally started a couple hours after the Access Hollywood tape dropped.
The BLATANTLY proves that they weren't doing it for "whistleblowing" but were doing it because whoever they were taking orders from wanted to help Trump and hurt the democrats. And based on the previous evidence the mostly answer to that is Russia.
Oh yeah and this too. I had almost forgotten about how when it came to Russia, SUDDENLY wikileaks is OK with redacting key information.
But I'm sure Dopus will give us some BS excuse on how that doesn't REALLY prove that Wikileaks is working for Russia, because.....
This was and still is concerning for a number of reasons. Ultimately, we don't know if they were indeed redacted but it's not a good look in either case. Of course, Wikileaks and Assange have a different version of events but that is to be expected.
Here we go again. Let me be clear from the start, I don't agree with everything Wikileaks have done. I don't agree with all of the releases. I don't agree with some of the timings and I'm not a fan of publishing without censorship. I would much prefer if their releases went through a journalistic filter much like Snowden.
With that said, with all of their faults and miscalculations, with all of Assange's bias and contempt for US imperialism - I'm not going to stand here and make an accusation that they're a front for the Russians because that's not what the evidence has shown. That's jumping to conclusions that aren't there. That's being irresponsible. I'd refer you back the previous administration and Obama's assessment of Wikileaks and Assange. The assessment of the IC themselves. If it was truly that "blatant" then we would know about it.
Not redacting SS and CC numbers isn't evidence of them being a Russian front. I'm sorry, but that's weak. Release timings are also not evidence. Wikileaks as an organisation has been clear that in most cases they will time releases for maximum impact. That's the whole point.
In addition, I provided Assange's response. Not mine. You should make note that I stated in my reply that "I'm not in agreement with a number of things they've done and published - including these tweets."