There's a lot of people talking about Assange today for obvious reasons. I'd like to highlight to incredibly important pieces regarding Assange that I consider must-reads if you want to examine...
Exemplary
There's a lot of people talking about Assange today for obvious reasons.
I'd like to highlight to incredibly important pieces regarding Assange that I consider must-reads if you want to examine Wikileaks or its leader.
Here's Assange's ghostwriter of an autobiography laying it all out from 2014. Read about Assange as the self-proclaimed "third best hacker in the world", Assange the person, Wikileaks leader, narcissist etc. etc.
Here's the 2018 Muller Investigation-produced outlet that shows clearly and definitively that Wikileaks (and certainly Assange personally) worked with the Russian GRU (in the form of Guccifer 2.0) to influence US elections.
These two documents inform what Assange's been up to in recent years as a partisan, anti-US hacker. He's been using Wikileaks in his self interest for years. Also prior to being stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy for years.
Assange's clearly being prosecuted as a hacker rather than a journalist revealing secrets in a reasonable way. (Wikileaks stopped releasing documents in a reasonable way ensuring the safety of random bystanders back in 2010).
The ideals many people believe Wikileaks have upheld clearly don't seem to be what the organization have been working from. At least from as far back as 2011.
Even though you may agree with ideals of openness in government, over-protection of governments' irresponsible and even immoral use of power, Wikileaks is not an outfit you should champion. That's clear from evidence that's been publicly available for years.
To me it's interesting to see how many have continued to support the outfit against reason because they appear to want so bad that Assange and Wikileaks were [their] guy even though they've clearly demonstrated they're not.
That strikes me as an incredibly shortsighted and "ends justify the means" way of looking at things. The issue with Wikileaks and Assange being a GRU patsy (or worse) is a matter of trust, since...
That strikes me as an incredibly shortsighted and "ends justify the means" way of looking at things. The issue with Wikileaks and Assange being a GRU patsy (or worse) is a matter of trust, since information was purposely withheld because of that; Both the DNC and RNC were hacked and yet only the DNC data was leaked. And Wikileaks even refused to publish a pretty significant Russian leak during the US election. So the question then becomes... what else have they withheld, chose not to publish or even purposely omitted from their leaks, and why?
Why was it important to publish the names of agents rather than redacting their names from cables, leaving them out to dry in the field, irrespective of their nationality? Why was it important to...
Why was it important to publish the names of agents rather than redacting their names from cables, leaving them out to dry in the field, irrespective of their nationality?
This isn't about the leaks themselves, but avoiding completely and totally unnecessary harm to random people by following basic publishing standards.
That's beyond even selective leaking or refusing to leak things that aren't targeting the "right people", it's about basic respect and human decency. That's my gripe with Wikileaks. They systematically showed they don't care in the slightest who they hurt as long as it's done in the name of the cause.
He tangled with Russia and lost... at least if you follow his stances. he was against Putin until he had something against him., then abruptly changed course. The denial of hosting the Panama...
He tangled with Russia and lost... at least if you follow his stances. he was against Putin until he had something against him., then abruptly changed course. The denial of hosting the Panama papers was a firm nail in the coffin for me.
So is this relatively minor charge the only one Assange is going to face? Or are more indictments going to be brought forward after people go through what Mueller has found out? Also, I keep...
So is this relatively minor charge the only one Assange is going to face? Or are more indictments going to be brought forward after people go through what Mueller has found out?
Also, I keep hearing that the UK is charging him for skipping bail. But no info about what charge he was actually dodging, and whether or not it is still ongoing.
It's often very frustrating trying to understand an ongoing news/political situation - especially when you're trying to grasp a long term situation. He skipped bail escaping an arrest warrant...
But no info about what charge he was actually dodging, and whether or not it is still ongoing.
It's often very frustrating trying to understand an ongoing news/political situation - especially when you're trying to grasp a long term situation.
I think the 7th reference linked in that wikipedia page (to a Guardian article) gives as full an account of the situation as we're going to find- and bear in mind a lot of Wikileaks supporters feel that the Guardian is biased against Assange.
The Swedish case was dropped - I think due to being unable to interrogate him to satisfy technicalities of Swedish law e.g. he offered to meet the prosecutors in the Ecuadorian embassy. From what I understand Sweden does have the option to re-open the case again but I'm not sure how that relates legally to their original extradition that he took asylum to avoid.
I have to admit I really don't know how to react to this news. On one hand it became pretty clear that for one reason or another during the past years Wikileaks had become more and more a biased...
I have to admit I really don't know how to react to this news.
On one hand it became pretty clear that for one reason or another during the past years Wikileaks had become more and more a biased tool of Assange, but on the other hand it was a decent source of info when it was denouncing of the atrocities that had happened in Iraq.
I'm torn on what to expect from the general consensus and the media, and would appreciate any carification from anyone whom might've followed the whole ordeal more cloasely than myself.
I supported him when wikileaks first started to garner attention (even have a TIME magazine with him on the cover saved from that time). I thought (and still think) it's important to hold...
I supported him when wikileaks first started to garner attention (even have a TIME magazine with him on the cover saved from that time). I thought (and still think) it's important to hold governments accountable when they try to sweep atrocities or other sketchy things under the rug. Wikileaks seemed like a good way to do that, but over the years it seemed to stray from that goal and got really partisan with what it released. Assange also seems to have become little more than a Russian puppet, but maybe that's a little paranoid of me.
I support the original mission of exposing government bullshit (within reason and without endangering innocent people), but I do not support Julian Assange anymore. He seems to have played some part in this weird Trump-Russia relationship (at the very least there's the Trump -> Stone -> Assange connection) and I'm not okay with that. I'm hoping maybe some good will come of his arrest. Allegedly he had some sort of deadman's switch, but that could've been bullshit or only contain more cherry-picked information. Maybe he'll squeal and rat some people out. idk.
So long story short my support of Assange was tied to the stated mission of wikileaks, which seems to have changed over the years, so that's the end of my support of Assange.
I believe that was insurance.aes256. It's an old, widely distributed and readily available file. Presumably if anyone were to fuck with wikileaks, the key to that file would be released into the...
Allegedly he had some sort of deadman's switch, but that could've been bullshit or only contain more cherry-picked information.
I believe that was insurance.aes256. It's an old, widely distributed and readily available file. Presumably if anyone were to fuck with wikileaks, the key to that file would be released into the wild by a dead man's switch. Is it a bluff, or something that the powers that be would rather not get released? Perhaps we'll find out shortly.
If there is one thing that's really keeping me from not having any sympathy for the guy is the fact that it might come off as not being willing to stand up for whistleblowers. Don't get me wrong,...
If there is one thing that's really keeping me from not having any sympathy for the guy is the fact that it might come off as not being willing to stand up for whistleblowers.
Don't get me wrong, I realise that he himself really wasn't one, and he was more of a manager of a source that publicised whistleblowers' news, but at the same time I have to admit that if anyone came up to me and asked me to name a recent whistleblower, Assange would instantly come to mind.
I guess in the end he's just a figure that's gonna be surrounded by controversies, let's hope he won't cause any considerable damage to any possible future source of leaks...
Edit: as soon as I was done posting this comment it came to mind how critical he's been on the Panama Papers already so in hindsight he's already been causing issues to whistleblowers. I'm now inclined to just say 'fuck him'.
Honestly I don't think the leaks he did were all that great, in retrospect. Wikileaks did not put forward an honest depiction of the events in the Collateral Murder video, for example, they gave a...
Honestly I don't think the leaks he did were all that great, in retrospect. Wikileaks did not put forward an honest depiction of the events in the Collateral Murder video, for example, they gave a narrative that was plausible according to the publicly available information at the time, but that doesn't hold up anymore. And IIRC they knew facts that contradicted the narrative they put forward and didn't acknowledge them.
Picture from the arrest Video of the arrest The man has really not aged well, he turned into a caveman living in that house for 7 years from the looks of it. Perhaps he will have it better in a...
The man has really not aged well, he turned into a caveman living in that house for 7 years from the looks of it. Perhaps he will have it better in a prison health wise.
I won't be surprised if we find out he is suffering from some mental illness. The way he got dragged out literally kicking and screaming, and has visibly poor hygiene are both evidence of that....
I won't be surprised if we find out he is suffering from some mental illness. The way he got dragged out literally kicking and screaming, and has visibly poor hygiene are both evidence of that.
He's given up on taking care of himself and doesn't care how others see him. That's a sign of depression.
Im wondering if that insurance file he released will have anything of worth. Assuming it gets releassed. Needless to say this will be an interesting story.
Im wondering if that insurance file he released will have anything of worth. Assuming it gets releassed. Needless to say this will be an interesting story.
Jesus Christ what a piece of work. “Please do the bare minimum to not destroy our embassy please” “Fuck you. Also I leaked documents about you because I’m so mad you asked me to do a thing”
Jesus Christ what a piece of work. “Please do the bare minimum to not destroy our embassy please”
“Fuck you. Also I leaked documents about you because I’m so mad you asked me to do a thing”
assange is, honest to god, probably the dumbest political refugee on the planet. all he had to do was not rock the boat with ecuador and he'd have been fine, even though lenin moreno (the most...
assange is, honest to god, probably the dumbest political refugee on the planet. all he had to do was not rock the boat with ecuador and he'd have been fine, even though lenin moreno (the most recent president of ecuador) was not fond of him and called him a nuisance. instead, he did literally everything in his power to make ecuador not like him and be liable to throw him under the bus, and now he's probably going to get the book thrown at him in at least two jurisdictions, likely rendering most of his life over, because he felt the need to challenge ecuador on everything (because i guess he felt like he had some sort of leverage?).
I know very little about him from solid sources so take all this with a mountain of salt. But from what I have heard from friends I generally trust is that Assange has a god complex and thinks he...
I know very little about him from solid sources so take all this with a mountain of salt. But from what I have heard from friends I generally trust is that Assange has a god complex and thinks he shits gold because Wikileaks was viewed as a big deal in 2015 (i think thats when it was big?). He probably thought there was no way Ecuador would HAVE THE GAULL to kick him out. How could they. He’s julien mother fucking assange. Whelp. Now he’s going to jail. So. Fucking rip you pos person
Assange, third best hacker? "A" hacker? That's rich. This is not a negative comment to the op, or the poster of the comment (which I cannot figure out how to reply to), or anybody/thing else. Not...
Assange, third best hacker? "A" hacker? That's rich.
This is not a negative comment to the op, or the poster of the comment (which I cannot figure out how to reply to), or anybody/thing else. Not opining on what he did or if he's a "good" or "bad".
Perhaps only revealing my personal bias about people in this era thinking so highly of themselves, when they weren't even around when the real geniuses were building the technology they take for granted.
I haven't read anything that described anything he did that as being so complex and ingenius in it's elegance that he'd qualify for a title that has been so completely twisted in it's meaning as to be unrecognizable from it's origin. I think whoever mentioned "narcissist" nailed it though. The REAL "third best hackers" aren't doing interviews and whoring headlines (or being dragged out of embassies like some meth'd out hobbit zombie).
click Reply underneath the comment you want to reply to. ;) p.s. You can also @ mention other people as well, so that if you address multiple people in a single reply, the people not being...
which I cannot figure out how to reply to
click Reply underneath the comment you want to reply to. ;)
p.s. You can also @ mention other people as well, so that if you address multiple people in a single reply, the people not being directly replied to can still be notified about your comment. E.g. (see below)
I went on HN to see discussion on this and there is so. much. arguing. And general disagreement. Why is it such a cesspool sometimes? (I understand in this case there may be trolls or shills or...
I went on HN to see discussion on this and there is so. much. arguing. And general disagreement. Why is it such a cesspool sometimes? (I understand in this case there may be trolls or shills or whatever directing the flow of the arguments)
not very surprising, honestly. the crypto-libertarian crowd loves assange, and so do the techbros, and both are significant contingents on reddit and hackernews. it'd be more surprising to see him...
not very surprising, honestly. the crypto-libertarian crowd loves assange, and so do the techbros, and both are significant contingents on reddit and hackernews. it'd be more surprising to see him get roasted on either, really.
The answer is that HN is filled with crypto-libertarians (as another commentator mentioned) along with a seemingly growing alt-right contingent that's focused on spreading FUD. The design of the...
The answer is that HN is filled with crypto-libertarians (as another commentator mentioned) along with a seemingly growing alt-right contingent that's focused on spreading FUD.
The design of the site and the way it's moderated essentially rewards people who can abuse sealioning and feign neutrality. If someone behaves in a disingenuous manner by purposely misrepresenting sources, groups etc you're not supposed to respond and let it naturally sink. Some examples of things I've seen include anti-climate change propaganda, support for gay conversion therapy and even people advocating to pretend to be the opposite gender to take advantage of inclusitivity programs, grants etc. Needless to say, I've grown increasingly despondent at the current state of HN and how moderators treat the site.
There's a lot of people talking about Assange today for obvious reasons.
I'd like to highlight to incredibly important pieces regarding Assange that I consider must-reads if you want to examine Wikileaks or its leader.
Here's Assange's ghostwriter of an autobiography laying it all out from 2014. Read about Assange as the self-proclaimed "third best hacker in the world", Assange the person, Wikileaks leader, narcissist etc. etc.
Here's the 2018 Muller Investigation-produced outlet that shows clearly and definitively that Wikileaks (and certainly Assange personally) worked with the Russian GRU (in the form of Guccifer 2.0) to influence US elections.
(Assange helped Manning with hacking, just as an interesting aside)
These two documents inform what Assange's been up to in recent years as a partisan, anti-US hacker. He's been using Wikileaks in his self interest for years. Also prior to being stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy for years.
Assange's clearly being prosecuted as a hacker rather than a journalist revealing secrets in a reasonable way. (Wikileaks stopped releasing documents in a reasonable way ensuring the safety of random bystanders back in 2010).
The ideals many people believe Wikileaks have upheld clearly don't seem to be what the organization have been working from. At least from as far back as 2011.
Even though you may agree with ideals of openness in government, over-protection of governments' irresponsible and even immoral use of power, Wikileaks is not an outfit you should champion. That's clear from evidence that's been publicly available for years.
To me it's interesting to see how many have continued to support the outfit against reason because they appear to want so bad that Assange and Wikileaks were [their] guy even though they've clearly demonstrated they're not.
Edit: there/their mistake corrected.
That strikes me as an incredibly shortsighted and "ends justify the means" way of looking at things. The issue with Wikileaks and Assange being a GRU patsy (or worse) is a matter of trust, since information was purposely withheld because of that; Both the DNC and RNC were hacked and yet only the DNC data was leaked. And Wikileaks even refused to publish a pretty significant Russian leak during the US election. So the question then becomes... what else have they withheld, chose not to publish or even purposely omitted from their leaks, and why?
Why was it important to publish the names of agents rather than redacting their names from cables, leaving them out to dry in the field, irrespective of their nationality?
Why was it important to doxx pretty much every female turkisk voter and publishing all of their private phone numbers rather than redacting them?
This isn't about the leaks themselves, but avoiding completely and totally unnecessary harm to random people by following basic publishing standards.
That's beyond even selective leaking or refusing to leak things that aren't targeting the "right people", it's about basic respect and human decency. That's my gripe with Wikileaks. They systematically showed they don't care in the slightest who they hurt as long as it's done in the name of the cause.
He tangled with Russia and lost... at least if you follow his stances. he was against Putin until he had something against him., then abruptly changed course. The denial of hosting the Panama papers was a firm nail in the coffin for me.
So is this relatively minor charge the only one Assange is going to face? Or are more indictments going to be brought forward after people go through what Mueller has found out?
Also, I keep hearing that the UK is charging him for skipping bail. But no info about what charge he was actually dodging, and whether or not it is still ongoing.
It's often very frustrating trying to understand an ongoing news/political situation - especially when you're trying to grasp a long term situation.
He skipped bail escaping an arrest warrant issued in Sweden..
I think the 7th reference linked in that wikipedia page (to a Guardian article) gives as full an account of the situation as we're going to find- and bear in mind a lot of Wikileaks supporters feel that the Guardian is biased against Assange.
The Swedish case was dropped - I think due to being unable to interrogate him to satisfy technicalities of Swedish law e.g. he offered to meet the prosecutors in the Ecuadorian embassy. From what I understand Sweden does have the option to re-open the case again but I'm not sure how that relates legally to their original extradition that he took asylum to avoid.
I have to admit I really don't know how to react to this news.
On one hand it became pretty clear that for one reason or another during the past years Wikileaks had become more and more a biased tool of Assange, but on the other hand it was a decent source of info when it was denouncing of the atrocities that had happened in Iraq.
I'm torn on what to expect from the general consensus and the media, and would appreciate any carification from anyone whom might've followed the whole ordeal more cloasely than myself.
Edit: grammar
I supported him when wikileaks first started to garner attention (even have a TIME magazine with him on the cover saved from that time). I thought (and still think) it's important to hold governments accountable when they try to sweep atrocities or other sketchy things under the rug. Wikileaks seemed like a good way to do that, but over the years it seemed to stray from that goal and got really partisan with what it released. Assange also seems to have become little more than a Russian puppet, but maybe that's a little paranoid of me.
I support the original mission of exposing government bullshit (within reason and without endangering innocent people), but I do not support Julian Assange anymore. He seems to have played some part in this weird Trump-Russia relationship (at the very least there's the Trump -> Stone -> Assange connection) and I'm not okay with that. I'm hoping maybe some good will come of his arrest. Allegedly he had some sort of deadman's switch, but that could've been bullshit or only contain more cherry-picked information. Maybe he'll squeal and rat some people out. idk.
So long story short my support of Assange was tied to the stated mission of wikileaks, which seems to have changed over the years, so that's the end of my support of Assange.
I believe that was insurance.aes256. It's an old, widely distributed and readily available file. Presumably if anyone were to fuck with wikileaks, the key to that file would be released into the wild by a dead man's switch. Is it a bluff, or something that the powers that be would rather not get released? Perhaps we'll find out shortly.
If there is one thing that's really keeping me from not having any sympathy for the guy is the fact that it might come off as not being willing to stand up for whistleblowers.
Don't get me wrong, I realise that he himself really wasn't one, and he was more of a manager of a source that publicised whistleblowers' news, but at the same time I have to admit that if anyone came up to me and asked me to name a recent whistleblower, Assange would instantly come to mind.
I guess in the end he's just a figure that's gonna be surrounded by controversies, let's hope he won't cause any considerable damage to any possible future source of leaks...
Edit: as soon as I was done posting this comment it came to mind how critical he's been on the Panama Papers already so in hindsight he's already been causing issues to whistleblowers. I'm now inclined to just say 'fuck him'.
Honestly I don't think the leaks he did were all that great, in retrospect. Wikileaks did not put forward an honest depiction of the events in the Collateral Murder video, for example, they gave a narrative that was plausible according to the publicly available information at the time, but that doesn't hold up anymore. And IIRC they knew facts that contradicted the narrative they put forward and didn't acknowledge them.
Picture from the arrest
Video of the arrest
The man has really not aged well, he turned into a caveman living in that house for 7 years from the looks of it. Perhaps he will have it better in a prison health wise.
All that stress and isolation will do that to a person.
I won't be surprised if we find out he is suffering from some mental illness. The way he got dragged out literally kicking and screaming, and has visibly poor hygiene are both evidence of that.
He's given up on taking care of himself and doesn't care how others see him. That's a sign of depression.
Yeah. Even if you don't agree with everything he's done, it's still upsetting to see someone like that.
I feel like it would be weird if no mental health issues where developed during his stay at the embassy with everything going on around him.
Im wondering if that insurance file he released will have anything of worth. Assuming it gets releassed. Needless to say this will be an interesting story.
I've lost track. What happened? Why was he at the embassy?
Jesus Christ what a piece of work. “Please do the bare minimum to not destroy our embassy please”
“Fuck you. Also I leaked documents about you because I’m so mad you asked me to do a thing”
assange is, honest to god, probably the dumbest political refugee on the planet. all he had to do was not rock the boat with ecuador and he'd have been fine, even though lenin moreno (the most recent president of ecuador) was not fond of him and called him a nuisance. instead, he did literally everything in his power to make ecuador not like him and be liable to throw him under the bus, and now he's probably going to get the book thrown at him in at least two jurisdictions, likely rendering most of his life over, because he felt the need to challenge ecuador on everything (because i guess he felt like he had some sort of leverage?).
He might be trying to position himself as a martyr, which seems to be working from some of the reddit threads I saw earlier today.
he was already a martyr to those people, honestly. has been since he first got confined to the embassy.
I know very little about him from solid sources so take all this with a mountain of salt. But from what I have heard from friends I generally trust is that Assange has a god complex and thinks he shits gold because Wikileaks was viewed as a big deal in 2015 (i think thats when it was big?). He probably thought there was no way Ecuador would HAVE THE GAULL to kick him out. How could they. He’s julien mother fucking assange. Whelp. Now he’s going to jail. So. Fucking rip you pos person
Assange, third best hacker? "A" hacker? That's rich.
This is not a negative comment to the op, or the poster of the comment (which I cannot figure out how to reply to), or anybody/thing else. Not opining on what he did or if he's a "good" or "bad".
Perhaps only revealing my personal bias about people in this era thinking so highly of themselves, when they weren't even around when the real geniuses were building the technology they take for granted.
I haven't read anything that described anything he did that as being so complex and ingenius in it's elegance that he'd qualify for a title that has been so completely twisted in it's meaning as to be unrecognizable from it's origin. I think whoever mentioned "narcissist" nailed it though. The REAL "third best hackers" aren't doing interviews and whoring headlines (or being dragged out of embassies like some meth'd out hobbit zombie).
click
Replyunderneath the comment you want to reply to. ;)p.s. You can also @ mention other people as well, so that if you address multiple people in a single reply, the people not being directly replied to can still be notified about your comment. E.g. (see below)
Thanks mate - I don't know why but I didn't see the Reply link in the comment I wanted to reply to. I blame old age.
Heh, no prob and no worries, we all have those moments. ;)
@DevNull this comment will also show up in your notifications because I @ mentioned you, even though it is not a direct reply to one of your comments.
I went on HN to see discussion on this and there is so. much. arguing. And general disagreement. Why is it such a cesspool sometimes? (I understand in this case there may be trolls or shills or whatever directing the flow of the arguments)
The reddit thread on /r/technology wasn't much better.
not very surprising, honestly. the crypto-libertarian crowd loves assange, and so do the techbros, and both are significant contingents on reddit and hackernews. it'd be more surprising to see him get roasted on either, really.
The answer is that HN is filled with crypto-libertarians (as another commentator mentioned) along with a seemingly growing alt-right contingent that's focused on spreading FUD.
The design of the site and the way it's moderated essentially rewards people who can abuse sealioning and feign neutrality. If someone behaves in a disingenuous manner by purposely misrepresenting sources, groups etc you're not supposed to respond and let it naturally sink. Some examples of things I've seen include anti-climate change propaganda, support for gay conversion therapy and even people advocating to pretend to be the opposite gender to take advantage of inclusitivity programs, grants etc. Needless to say, I've grown increasingly despondent at the current state of HN and how moderators treat the site.