In a 'Plot Twist', Wikileaks Releases Documents It Claims Detail Russia Mass Surveillance Apparatus (techcrunch.com) 168
WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front, surprised some observers Tuesday morning (Snowden called it a "plot twist") when it released documents linking a Russian tech company with access to thousands of citizens' telephone and internet communications with Moscow. From a report: Writing a summary of the cache of mostly Russian-language documents, Wikileaks claims they show how a long-established Russian company which supplies software to telcos is also installing infrastructure, under state mandate, that enables Russian state agencies to tap into, search and spy on citizens' digital activity -- suggesting a similar state-funded mass surveillance program to the one utilized by the U.S.'s NSA or by GCHQ in the U.K. (both of which were detailed in the 2013 Snowden disclosures). The documents which Wikileaks has published (there are just 34 "base documents" in this leak) relate to a St. Petersburg-based company, called Peter-Service, which it claims is a contractor for Russian state surveillance. The company was set up in 1992 to provide billing solutions before going on to become a major supplier of software to the mobile telecoms industry.
politicians don't recognize integrity (Score:5, Insightful)
For politicians, revealing their misdeeds means you're an agent of their enemy. Not having any honesty or integrity themselves, they don't entertain the thought someone's agenda might be something else than supporting a particular political party.
Re: politicians don't recognize integrity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you approve of the political purposes behind leaks, and have no frickin' idea how international politics works.
Re: politicians don't recognize integrity (Score:2, Informative)
Just to remind/clarify: WikiLeaks just publishes everything they get. That's their stated mission. The politically biased agents are the people that give the information to WikiLeaks, not the organization itself. Assange is not the whole organization or its head, he's just a spokesperson. The organization seems to be structured in a way that it will go on if Assange goes missing.
Re: politicians don't recognize integrity (Score:1)
Riiiight. That's why they release info that is politically expedient for them and hold back info that is not.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, like releasing Hillary's emails to the media, not in one shot but rather a bit at a time like once a week for the two months before the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that what Wikileaks did was motivated by trying to harm Clinton. You're just anti-Clinton so it doesn't look like political manipulation to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Damage Control? (Score:2)
Re: Damage Control? (Score:2)
Well, nobody can credibly deny that all those mass surveillance systems were made to look inward and spy after country's own citizenry.
Ever seen spies sending messages to their governments on Facebook?
Too late, Julian (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess he's getting tired of living in his Ecuadorian mom's basement and his 15 minutes of fame are over about an hour ago. Let that co-opted weasel dangle.
From the article:
Gee, ya think? They've now released thirty-four whole documents and they're looking for a pat on the back.
Too late, Hillary (Score:3, Informative)
In 2010 [slashdot.org] you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":
But now that your precious Hillary has blamed him [thehill.com], you are not only call him names yourself, but do dismiss the truth he delivers... Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?..
Re: (Score:2)
Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?
Jumping in... I'd just like to remind everyone that weasels have asses.
Re: (Score:2)
If you so insist.....
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDDzrqZU0AAYQuV.jpg
To show my humanitarian side, and soothe the bleeding eyes.....
http://www.eyebleach.me/babes/
Re: (Score:1)
Lol still obsessed with Hillary, so sad. I bet you have some great thoughts on her recent book you didn't read and just read someone else tell you what was in it and why you should be hysterically angry at it.
Re: (Score:1)
In 2010, I held Jay Cutler in higher regard too. But since then he's also turned out to be a phony and a waste of space. 2010 was the year the rape allegations came out and Assange chose to run into hiding rather than fight them. 2010 was also the year he chose to make Wikileaks a tool of his personal agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't answer the guys point though. Your original thought was "you shouldn't dismiss the truth because it's delievered by an ass."
Now you think Assange is an ass you seem pretty willing to dismiss the truth simply because he tells you it.
We aren't wondering why you think Assange is an ass, we're wondering why you have changed the amount of value you place on being told the truth. I'm willing to be that you only want the truth as long as it's convenient and easy to slot into what you allready believe...
Re: (Score:2)
If someone digs for the truth and gets general truth out, that's good. If someone publishes some truths, that's less good. When someone publishes truths in ways designed to help or hurt a political candidate, rather than as a dump, that person is a politician and should be judged accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...but his meddling in the 2016 elections clearly demonstrate that he's a lot more interested these days in the axe he has to grind with the Clintons than in pursuing the original mission of his organization...
His mission was to publish dirt on powerful people. The Clintons are powerful people and have tons of dirt. It's not surprising that he dribbled out lots of info about them because there is a lot to dribble out. More dirty laundry of the rich and powerful getting exposed is always good. I'm not clear why people have flopped on him, as if Clintons' misdeeds remaining hidden were somehow a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The timing seemed to imply it wasn't released because it had to be released, but because if it was released then, it would change something, namely the outcome of the election. It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.
So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people? I find that info on a candidate before an election is helpful - much more useful than after an election. Yes the timing looks bad but I'm sure that he was fed the information in such a way as to maximize the damage. Remember that he's only a messenger, the actual info comes from other sources - as might the timing.
Re: (Score:2)
So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people?
The dirt was definitely released when it was convenient for a number of very corrupt people.
Re: (Score:2)
So dirt should only be reported when it's convenient for the corrupt people?
The dirt was definitely released when it was convenient for a number of very corrupt people.
This would be true no matter how or when it was released since they are all very corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian hackers among the bushes, please.
Does this actually matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess he's getting tired of living in his Ecuadorian mom's basement and his 15 minutes of fame are over about an hour ago. Let that co-opted weasel dangle.
Does this actually matter?
I've often wondered why people keep trotting out these sorts of attacks. It's saying, literally, "this is not a good thing, because the person is somehow bad".
Firstly, it's only your opinion.
Secondly, Julian does not seem to have a lot of conceit, pompousness, or self-importance in other matters - including interviews. He's certainly confident and well-informed, but I haven't seen anything particularly negative about his demeanour.
Attention whore is an explanation of this one action, but with no other corroborating evidence do you think the explanation is likely? Are other explanations more likely than this one?
Thirdly, and most importantly, is this in any way relevant? Is there some reason we can't say "good job, Julian!" and think that maybe his actions are doing some good for the world?
Must we discount this achievement because he's not your model of perfection?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Must we discount this achievement because he's not your model of perfection?
Yes, because IT WAS HER TURN!
That's all this boils down to. Remember: these fuckos were singing Assange's praises and nominating him for all the Nobel Prizes (even Chemistry!) when he was revealing shit about Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason we can't say "good job, Julian!" and think that maybe his actions are doing some good for the world?
Probably because this is the internet. Everyone on the internet hates everyone.
Re:Does this actually matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree, but the point stands. Whether or not Assange is a pompous conceited ass has no bearing on his opinions or actions.
What we're looking like is a reflection of a fundamental problem with democracy. Democracy depends on an electorate that is educated on and involved in the issues. The problem is that issues are hard. They're full of gray areas and squirrelly corner cases.
But you know what's very easy? Deciding whether you like someone or not. Then if you conflate that with them being a good or bad person, and further decide that you'll trust all the "good" people completely and distrust all "bad" ones completely... Well then you'll never have to deal with difficult thinking ever again.
How do you know that you're one of those people? Well, if you can find a group of people somewhere whom you agree with pretty much all the time, that's a reliable sign that you don't really think for yourself. On the other hand, let's say you don't really fit in anywhere; you have some strong disagreements with the people you agree with most, and sometimes think people you dislike probably have a point... Congratulations then, that means you think for yourself. The fundamental philosophy of our government, of our very society was built around people like you. Kind of sad, when you think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the electorate should be informed of the issues. However, one-sided information has some seriously bad effects. If someone were to truthfully describe all of your bad points to someone else, that person would almost certainly form an unjustly negative opinion of you. It's possible to lie while telling the truth.
If Wikileaks had wanted to inform people about Clinton's emails, Wikileaks would have dumped all the information on the net at once. Leaking it out slowly is a political act, and I will
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Too late, Julian (Score:2)
He's a white male so therefore literally Hitler amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. As far as I've been able to tell, he's a real jerk in his own right, regardless of race, sex, national origin, and other such things. He's done some good things in his time, but a lot of not so good things.
Re: Too late, Julian (Score:2)
His personality was irrelevant when he was embarrassing GWB and his merry band of scumbags but because he embarrassed Hillary when it was HER TURN and maybe contributed to her losing he's now the enemy and clearly a Russian operative blah blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know much about him at that time. The Clinton releases I would feel better about if he'd done one large dump rather than spacing things out for increased political effect.
He is a foreigner who deliberately influenced a US election in ways other than just infodumping.
Re: Too late, Julian (Score:2)
The contents of the emails are what matter, not the personality or nationality of the messenger. Like I said before, it was fine for him to embarrass the âoeother sideâ but when he proved himself to be not be a left wing partisan then he became the demonic Russian puppet who ruined everything. Heâ(TM)s anti-establishment as far as I can tell and the DNCâ(TM)s disgraceful treatment of Bernie Sanders is more likely to have influenced the way he handled things than Vladimir Putin.
Re: Too late, Julian (Score:2)
Ooh good comeback. I bet you're a terror at the high school debating society.
You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fame" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's hiding out, but nobody wants him. As a purveyor of information, he's damaged goods, desperately trying to stay relevant. You'll notice how the anti-US docs have dried up now that Putin's boy has become president.
Re: You paid shills were saying "15 minutes of fam (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And despite the fact that the Trump administration has been leaking like a sieve, Wikileaks has released nothing on them. When you're an organization that prides itself on integrity, choosing sides politically is not a good look.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the Trump-leakers decided to contact Fox or WSJ instead of Wikileaks? How would Wikileaks be able to publish that information? It's not like they magically get a copy of every document accidentally left on a train, or quietly spoken to a contact on while hiding in a cupboard at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too late, Julian (Score:2)
Not to mention what is damaging to western democracies isn't damaging to the Kremlin. The Kremlin wants its citizens to know they are monitored. They don't care if WikiLeaks leaks details of their enforce mechanisms for publicly touted surveillance powers.
Now if they published corruption details that would be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it's not a leak about the Trump administration, right?
Chelsea Manning did that, not Julian Assange. All Assange did was take the credit and do interviews.
Who? (Score:2, Insightful)
"believed by many to be a Kremlin front"
Who believes that?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"believed by many to be a Kremlin front"
Who believes that?
Those that believe the Democratic political narrative in general, including many /. editors.
The funny thing is we saw them INVENT it... (Score:1)
It's funny because they talked about creating that narrative in the very emails! Pity most people never actually read them and instead trusted people like CNN, who lied about them being altered when they're DKIM verified, had Chris Cuomo, who is an attorney who should know better, lie about it being illegal to read them, and who also helped rig the debates? Or maybe Bezos' WaPo, which was passing the DNC articles to review, working with Podesta, and running secret fundraisers with the DNC after the DNC's
Re: (Score:2)
He sure seemed interested in getting Trump elected. (It wasn't that he just released dirt on CLinton, but the way he dribbled it out for maximum political effect). I don't know if he's a Kremlin front, but he's not an impartial publisher.
Re: (Score:1)
show us the tax returns
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll see how you feel when you Flynn and Manafort start singing.
Seems consistent to me (Score:4, Insightful)
They found the US government was spying on its citizens and released proof. Now they've discovered that Russia is spying on its citizens and released proof. Seems consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it's a steady trend.
Yesterday: Revelation: US government is spying on its citizens
Today: Err you probably know this: Russia is spying on its citizens.
Tomorrow: Guys, China has a firewall.
Saturday: WATER IS WET! AHHHH
"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front (Score:5, Insightful)
The headlines on Slashdot sure have changed over the years. You guys used to (figuratively) fellate Assange in the comments here, but one election cycle of punching your candidate for a change, and Wikileaks is a Russian front? That's some thin skin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"but one election cycle of punching your candidate for a change, and Wikileaks is a Russian front?"
Sorry, but a guy who injected himself in the election specifically because he personally didn't like a candidate deserves that title. When you selectively data dump what you have, vocally timing it up to drip to influence the US election, both practices that were different from past releases of simply dumping everything he had in troves as fast as he properly process it, you've become a tool, esp when it's cl
Re:"WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin fr (Score:4, Insightful)
A corrupt, incompetent candidate who allegedly said "can't we just drone this guy"? Golly Gee, I wonder why Assange might not like her. Were you whining, though, that Assange "just didn't like Bush" when he was publishing information about that president's war crimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Reread what you wrote. You're agreeing that Assange was doing his best to stop Clinton from being elected, and you're making excuses for why.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you first, Slick. Hillary Clinton was a complete and utter trainwreck of corrupt warmongering incompetence. Anyone with two neurons to rub together would want her as faaaaar from any position of power as possible. Now you take that, plus an alleged crack about getting someone murdered - it wouldn't be the first time [youtube.com] - and you think said person wouldn't have a perfectly valid self-interest in seeing that person lose an election?
And that's assuming his decision was in any w
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Reread what you wrote. You're agreeing that Assange was doing his best to stop Clinton from being elected, and you're making excuses for why.
As Uberbah pointed out already, Wikileaks published dirt on the Bush Jr. administration as well as HRC.
Maybe he smiled a bit when WL published the Clinton/DNC emails after having his life threatened by HRC, but seeing as how WL has published dirt from *both sides*, I don't see any other reason than DNC/Clinton butthurt as a reason to accuse Assange/WL of plotting specifically against HRC.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I agree with a '+5 Insightful' post, even thank him when we usually disagree on many if not most topics, and I get modded 'Troll'?
LOL!
I'm not sure if it's the actual content of the post or the fact that I dared to exhibit consistency in my principles even with someone with whom I usually disagree with that triggered the snowflake with mod-points.
Either way it's pret
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I would say it was a butthurt Hillbot with modpoints, but I'm still sitting at a +2, so who knows. But it sounds like we can agree on her being a loathsome person, so I will raise a glass and toast to her sharing Kristian Saucier's [theguardian.com] fine accommodations, and for the same reasons he did.
Re: (Score:2)
punching your candidate
Well he would have punched both candidates, but one of them was standing in the corner beating on himself. For some reason voters considered that more trustworthy and he "won" by a photo finish.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is believed by many to be a Kremlin front.
They're all stupid fuckwits, but they still believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with some extremely suspicious behavior, compounded with obvious lies, around the rape allegations. I got really annoyed by people who swallowed whatever he said, no matter how implausible, no matter how wrong. His political campaigning against Clinton showed that he isn't an impartial truth dumper.
Wikileaks docs about Russia in 2015 (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front,
List 5 such people who are not absolute retards. I'll wait.
Re: Fuck Off (Score:5, Funny)
You're right! Fine. Let's throw out the no-retards rule.
List 5 people who have the belief, preferably with a link or quotation for each one where they explain how they became aware of the sinister Kremlin-Wikileaks connection. And if all 5 say "I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love," I swear none of us will giggle or smirk or anything like that!
Re: (Score:2)
How far slashdot has fallen when comments like this are modded 5 insightful.
Why? Because people actually write what everyone would think? Maybe we should return to the Slashdot of old, and just be polite with our questions and then label the people in our minds and then reply saying how retarded they are and ask for a true Scotsman.
Slashdot is full of coders, we simply applied a standard optimisation algorithm to eliminate the worthless inefficiencies of the discussion. Given that you and I typed this I think the algorithm has some bugs that need to be ironed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's your fault for coming up with a list of "absolute retards" after the PP said "no absolute retards". Quotes used because I know a couple of disabled people, so I prefer the term "fuckwits", myself.
I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community, rumored that NSA/GCHQ has intercepts of Assange talking to Russians about this stuff and the election hacking.
Re:I missed a "Kremlim front" thing? Daaaamn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community...
You mean that the people that wikileaks is trying to expose would want to tie them to the latest boogeyman in order to discredit them? Say it ain't so!
Re: (Score:2)
Handpicked spooks chosen by a professional liar who committed perjury [usnews.com] does not mean "widely believed".
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community,
Where can I find this intelligent community?
Re: (Score:3)
Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
You must be new here. I've seen this accusation made here frequently.
When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.
Your lack of experience with the material is immaterial [wikipedia.org]. It is a fact that many people have accused Wikileaks of Russian influence, especially over the last year and change.
Woodward and Bernstein were an FBI front (Score:2)
That some of the leaks are believed to have come from Russia wasn't the thing I hadn't heard of. The thing I hadn't heard of was that some people believe Wikileaks is a Russian front.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think, if you were trying to set up a 'front' that you'd find someone 'better' than Assange to lead it ;-)
Kremlin front? (Score:1)
Read: butt-hurt Hillary supporters.
Re: (Score:1)
So the majority of everyone?
Re: (Score:1)
Are all Hillary supporters butt-hurt? Do all of you believe she lost because of the Russkies?
So, not China then? (Score:1)
Now that would have been interesting.
Plot twist? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no plot twist, there's just a final revelation which will be largely unknown among the Russians because most media outlets are controlled by the Kremlin, as well as the largest social network in Russia.
Everyone with a brain perfectly understands that Putin has always been lying about the state of surveillance and privacy in Russia. Largely there's none, because there's no law when it concerns the men in power. They do as they please.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most people knew that western governments were doing some spying on their own people too. However, seeing the actual documents, the details of how and when and what for - that's what's interesting.
believed by many to be a Kremlin front (Score:1)
[by whom?] [citation needed]
Illegal? (Score:2)
Does anyone know weather or not there is any law that would lead lead people to believe they have a right to privacy in Russia? in the united states we have laws against illegal search? Does the same concept even exist in Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few things in the constitution and in labor law it appears: https://iclg.com/practice-area... [iclg.com] . But how strong these are I have no idea.
What a Russian takes away from this (Score:3)
Most likely, the details are all falsified by the FSB (so NSA/GCHQ/BND doesn't get in), but the scope is authentic.
kremlin front (Score:1)
my ass. Stop repeating liberal propaganda bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Annnnd the liberal McCarthyites have mod points, it seems. There's just as much evidence to support Obama having a fake birth certificate as there is that the Russians had anything to do with anything last year. They've become what they hated.
Disinformation (Score:1)
Disinformation: Vlad is throwing Peter Services under the bus while leaving the other sources of spying in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange (Score:2)
In other news, Assange's hair and teeth have started falling out after latest balcony appearance.
WikiLeaks, believed by many to be a Kremlin front (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That video link proves the entire Left (Democrats) are under Russian influence, have always been and continue to be.
Half of this country has been saying this for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I hope more people watch this.
Re: (Score:2)
Moronic ones, that's who. [youtube.com] Or Swiftoating ratfuckers. Messing with other countries [time.com] is what you do.
Re: (Score:2)
You fuckheads said the same thing about anyone who questioned the Iraq war, smearing them as Saddam supporters. You were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.