WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground

Absolutely fascinating article over at Wired.com, which if true, could potentially have quite seriously repercussions on the integrity of regularly leaked data from Wikileaks.

In the swirling sea of subterfuge that makes up this electronic world of secrets, half truths, and outright lies, it puts a big question mark on what information can be trusted, and what cannot.



Is Wikileaks in fact a 'honeypot', and for whom?

www.wired.com...

WikiLeaks is always going to be releasing information some people don’t like. That is the point of them. But lately the timing of and tone surrounding their leaks have felt a little off, and in cases like the DNC leak, more than a little biased. At times, they haven’t looked so much like a group speaking truth to power as an alt-right subreddit, right down to their defense of Milo Yiannopoulos, a (let’s be honest, kind of trollish) writer at Breitbart. But the way WikiLeaks behaves on the Internet means a lot more than some basement-dwelling MRA activist. “WikiLeaks’ initial self-presentation was as merely a conduit, simply neutral, like any technology,” says Mark Fenster, a lawyer at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. “As a conduit, it made a lot of sense, and had a lot of influence, immediately. The problem is, WikiLeaks is not just a technology. It’s humans too.”

The article takes the tack that Wikileaks may in fact be implicated in spreading Russian propaganda.

The provenance and truth of the DNC emails looks more solid—but those sketchy ties to Russia make the whole thing seem like a foreign government trying to influence the US presidential election. It’s a little weird (tinfoil hat alert) that Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder, has a show on RT, a Russian government-funded (read: propaganda) television network. And a little off that the DNC leak whodunnit seems to point to a pair of Russian hackers thought to be affiliated with the Russian intelligence agencies FSB and GRU, respectively.

What was the provenance of the data, and who did it hurt?

Assange says that Wikileaks is not responsible for the content they leak. Fair enough, but the Wired article suggests it would be easy for Wikileaks to unwittingly (or wittingly) become part of someone else's agenda.

But these leaks and tweets damage WikiLeaks’ credibility. If they’re not scrutinizing their own leaks on the base level of their content, it’s not hard to imagine that WikiLeaks could unwittingly become part of someone else’s agenda (like, say, a Russian one). “If you are a legitimate leaker, why go with WikiLeaks?

Most interesting of all is this statement.

“Wikileaks is a pastebin for spooks, and they’re happy to be used that way.”

Wired suggests that perhaps the Russian FSB is using Wikileaks to release the DNC emails to try damage the Clinton campaign.

Perhaps, and perhaps another October Surprise is imminent.

The problem with Wikileaks is that they have a face, when they shouldnt. If they knew how to keep it neutral, then maybe they could be trusted a little more. Assange enjoys the attention, oh yes he does.

a reply to: cuckooold

I'm so over this Russian connection to the DNC Leaks. Don't you think Assange has considered this already?

Yes he's a media whore, he's living in exile like Snowden. See the resemblance?

The DNC Leaks most likely did not come from the Russians. The Director of National Intelligence even says so.

Wiki-leaks is like a very powerful living weapon. If it's going to be "biased", you'd appreciate having it on your side! Thus far, Wiki-leaks has obviously been against the DNC and hopefully, will spill the beans on Hillary.

It's the counterbalance to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and other media outlets that have trashed their integrity, in order to get Hillary elected.

For me, leaked information will always be exactly about that - the contents of the data released. I will take into account the leaker as well, and my gauge is how full-retard the government goes in bringing the traitor to justice.

Is it true? Is it Misinformation? Disinformation? A combination of truth and untruth? For a reference point, the only things we (the public reader) have to go by when we read leaked documents is the actions and events of government/military/alphabet agency leading up to the time of the release.

Wikileaks has made it clear that the data releases are for the public consumption and interpret based upon both the information officially disseminated to the public by state sanctioned agencies versus that which is in the leaked documents.

Is Wikileaks used by government agencies for nefarious purposes? You can bet your bottom dollar it is.
Is Wikileaks responsible for the validity of the information in the leaks? No, they're a storage unit, not a hotel service.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Pretty pathetic smear piece in my opinion. Also they just repeat the lies of the DNC in saying "omg Russians hacked us!!11!!"

Assange redacted the CFR Speech data (Council on Foreign Relations for the uninitiated), he also blocked Tony Blair comments, and buried other stuff. Assange is a tool. A propaganda tool. Nothing more.

He's controlled. Simple as that.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
For me, leaked information will always be exactly about that - the contents of the data released. I will take into account the leaker as well, and my gauge is how full-retard the government goes in bringing the traitor to justice.

Is it true? Is it Misinformation? Disinformation? A combination of truth and untruth? For a reference point, the only things we (the public reader) have to go by when we read leaked documents is the actions and events of government/military/alphabet agency leading up to the time of the release.

So what's your opinion? Do you think this was a Russian hack to discredit Hillary and the DNC? To help Trump's prospects, or something else altogether?

originally posted by: Ohanka
Pretty pathetic smear piece in my opinion. Also they just repeat the lies of the DNC in saying "omg Russians hacked us!!11!!"

Why? Because you say so?

My mind isn't made up on the veracity of this story or not, but comments like yours add nothing to the discussion except to show your own bias.

Here's an idea. Let's here on ATS hatch a plan to falsify some documents about Trump and send them to Wikileaks.

Then we can just sit back and watch with a bag of popcorn. The results will prove how much of a shill Assange is.

Bit of a vapid hit piece there. Blaming it on them not liking the Democrats doesn't take away from the validity of the leaked information. If it's true then it's true and needs to be out there.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Here's an idea. Let's here on ATS hatch a plan to falsify some documents about Trump and send them to Wikileaks.

Then we can just sit back and watch with a bag of popcorn. The results will prove how much of a shill Assange is.

Unnecessary; we know Wikileaks has not released any emails that make Trump look bad. The DNC traffic would almost certainly have contained references to Trump's poor record on immigration and ties to organized crime. Somehow, these did not get "leaked."

a reply to: DJW001

Who at the billionaire level doesn't have ties to organized crime? I mean really?

Haven't you heard the old expression:

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

Edit:

The DNC traffic would almost certainly have contained references to Trump's poor record on immigration and ties to organized crime. Somehow, these did not get "leaked."

Are you seriously implying that emails that would be seen as damning to trump's campaign were filtered by wiki leaks?

How about last week on Bill Mahr, when Assange said he would leak Trump's Tax Returns, if indeed he were able to obtain them?

You sir, should get the Tin Foil Hat of the year award.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Bit of a vapid hit piece there. Blaming it on them not liking the Democrats doesn't take away from the validity of the leaked information. If it's true then it's true and needs to be out there.

The leaked information shows absolutely no criminal activity. All it shows is marketing strategies. There are humorous references which, when taken out of context, look bad. For example,they refer to the Hispanic vote as "taco bowls" not because they do not respect Hispanics, but because of Trump's idiotic attempt to sway them by posting a picture of himself with a taco bowl. You may find their attitude cynical, but they are not the ones insulting people openly.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Bit of a vapid hit piece there. Blaming it on them not liking the Democrats doesn't take away from the validity of the leaked information. If it's true then it's true and needs to be out there.

It's obviously true if not people would not have resigned. So they exposed voter fraud in thr DNC. It's one thing to suspect it another to have it proven. My only question is how far back does it go and have we ever really had a choice??

a reply to: ColdWisdom

He also has ties to the criminals running Russia. That doesn't strike you as being a potential conflict of interests?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Bit of a vapid hit piece there. Blaming it on them not liking the Democrats doesn't take away from the validity of the leaked information. If it's true then it's true and needs to be out there.

It's obviously true if not people would not have resigned. So they exposed voter fraud in thr DNC. It's one thing to suspect it another to have it proven. My only question is how far back does it go and have we ever really had a choice??

It does not actually expose voter fraud, does it? All it really proves is that the DNC favored Clinton, which was never a secret.

a reply to: DJW001

o has ties to the criminals running Russia. That doesn't strike you as being a potential conflict of interests?

Source? I'm really looking forward to reading it by the way.

a reply to: cuckooold

I'd be a hundred times more suspicious about 'Wired' than Wikileaks. Especially given how that article you posted comes across.

So is the problem where the information came from... or what is in the information released?

If you are a supposed whistle blower organization, why would they sit on the information till after the election.. when they can release it to actually enact change?

a reply to: cuckooold

“Officially Lost the Moral High Ground”??!! That seems a bit dramatic for something that comes across as a journalist’s negative opinion on WikiLeaks. Yes, the documents released by WikiLeaks were timed for the democratic convention. That doesn’t make them suspicious, it only makes them…. well, BRILLIANT!