'This Time It's Russia's Emails Getting Leaked' (thedailybeast.com) 215
"Russian oligarchs and Kremlin apparatchiks may find the tables turned on them," writes Kevin Poulsen at The Daily Beast, reporting on a new leak site that's unleashed "a compilation of hundreds of thousands of hacked emails and gigabytes of leaked documents."
"Think of it as WikiLeaks, but without Julian Assange's aversion to posting Russian secrets."
Slashdot reader hyades1 shared their report: The site, Distributed Denial of Secrets, was founded last month by transparency activists. Co-founder Emma Best said the Russian leaks, slated for release Friday, will bring into one place dozens of different archives of hacked material that, at best, have been difficult to locate, and in some cases appear to have disappeared entirely from the web. "Stuff from politicians, journalists, bankers, folks in oligarch and religious circles, nationalists, separatists, terrorists operating in Ukraine," said Best, a national-security journalist and transparency activist. "Hundreds of thousands of emails, Skype and Facebook messages, along with lots of docs...."
The site is a kind of academic library or a museum for leak scholars, housing such diverse artifacts as the files North Korea stole from Sony in 2014, and a leak from the Special State Protection Service of Azerbaijan.
The site's Russia section already includes a leak from Russia's Ministry of the Interior, portions of which detailed the deployment of Russian troops to Ukraine at a time when the Kremlin was denying a military presence there. Though some material from that leak was published in 2014, about half of it wasn't, and WikiLeaks reportedly rejected a request to host the files two years later, at a time when Julian Assange was focused on exposing Democratic Party documents passed to WikiLeaks by Kremlin hackers. "A lot of what WikiLeaks will do is organize and re-publish information that's appeared elsewhere," said Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute. "They've never done that with anything out of Russia."
The Russian documents were posted simultaneously on the DDoSecrets website and on the Internet Archive, notes the New York Times, adding that the new site has also posted a large archive of internal documents from WikiLeaks itself.
"Personally, I am disappointed by what I see as dishonest and egotistic behavior from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks," Best tells the Times. "But she added that she had made the Russian document collection available to WikiLeaks ahead of its public release on Friday, and had posted material favorable to Mr. Assange leaked from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has lived for more than six years to avoid arrest."
"Think of it as WikiLeaks, but without Julian Assange's aversion to posting Russian secrets."
Slashdot reader hyades1 shared their report: The site, Distributed Denial of Secrets, was founded last month by transparency activists. Co-founder Emma Best said the Russian leaks, slated for release Friday, will bring into one place dozens of different archives of hacked material that, at best, have been difficult to locate, and in some cases appear to have disappeared entirely from the web. "Stuff from politicians, journalists, bankers, folks in oligarch and religious circles, nationalists, separatists, terrorists operating in Ukraine," said Best, a national-security journalist and transparency activist. "Hundreds of thousands of emails, Skype and Facebook messages, along with lots of docs...."
The site is a kind of academic library or a museum for leak scholars, housing such diverse artifacts as the files North Korea stole from Sony in 2014, and a leak from the Special State Protection Service of Azerbaijan.
The site's Russia section already includes a leak from Russia's Ministry of the Interior, portions of which detailed the deployment of Russian troops to Ukraine at a time when the Kremlin was denying a military presence there. Though some material from that leak was published in 2014, about half of it wasn't, and WikiLeaks reportedly rejected a request to host the files two years later, at a time when Julian Assange was focused on exposing Democratic Party documents passed to WikiLeaks by Kremlin hackers. "A lot of what WikiLeaks will do is organize and re-publish information that's appeared elsewhere," said Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute. "They've never done that with anything out of Russia."
The Russian documents were posted simultaneously on the DDoSecrets website and on the Internet Archive, notes the New York Times, adding that the new site has also posted a large archive of internal documents from WikiLeaks itself.
"Personally, I am disappointed by what I see as dishonest and egotistic behavior from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks," Best tells the Times. "But she added that she had made the Russian document collection available to WikiLeaks ahead of its public release on Friday, and had posted material favorable to Mr. Assange leaked from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has lived for more than six years to avoid arrest."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pegging is not homosexual. It is a perfectly normal activity between a man and a woman. At least that's what my wife keeps telling me.
Re: (Score:1)
The heart wants what the heart wants.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Again, pegging is not a "traditionally homosexual fashion". And there's no shame in enjoying being dominated sexually by a woman. You should try it sometime. Trump himself enjoyed being spanked with a rolled up magazine by Stormy Daniels.
Re: (Score:2)
It is OK if you accidentally had that fantasy while she was pegging you. It probably doesn't mean you're gay, but only you can answer that.
Either way, it is OK. Accept your feelings, they are yours alone, and they're potentially your most valuable possession. That's up to you, though.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: On the west coast, pegging is perfectly normal. Has been for decades.
All manner of sexual appetites between consenting adults are perfectly normal, and you insistence otherwise is simply anti-human.
If you want to discover how intollerant you are, just come out to the west coast and visit an "adult store." And then visit 5 or 10 more just to double-check that you weren't in an unusual one the first time; every neighborhood for 1000 miles sells tools for the mentioned activities, because they are
Re: (Score:1)
As the Kovington Katholic Kids in the MAGA hats chanted last week, "It's not rape if you enjoy it".
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even sound progressive to me. Is this what the AM radio told you progressives think, or did you learn about it at the bar?
Re: (Score:1)
You moron. "Look over there, they are the bad guys."
Re: The Week That Was (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's my porn name. Don't wear it out.
Re: (Score:2)
You've confused me with someone else.
Re: The Week That Was (Score:4, Informative)
The reality is that Pelosi and Schumer did nothing but block everything while the President at least tried to negotiate with them.
The situation was:
* Democrats, Republicans, and the White house negotiated a deal in December where $1.6B was put in the budget to improve border security. This was to cover a bunch of things that would actually make the border more secure, but would not cover a wall. Note also that this was when Republicans controlled the house.
* The senate passed this budget deal with a total of 94-6 or so.
* Some right wing pundits complained that Trump was backing away from his promise.
* Trump reneged on the budget deal and decided he would accept nothing but $5.7B for the wall, no other options, no negotiating.
* Paul Ryan refused to bring the budget deal it to a vote in the House.
* The shutdown started.
Honest question: do you disagree with these facts? If so, what did I get wrong? And if not, how does this involve Pelosi blocking and Trump negotiating?
The files from Sony contain PII and PHI (Score:5, Insightful)
There's all kinds of PII [lifelock.com] and PHI [hhs.gov] in that stolen information.
I'm sure these folks don't care, because, like Assange, they're trolls. When they're helping your side, they're described with superlatives. When they're harming your side, they're described with expletives. They don't care. They just do what they do for their own personal reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure these folks don't care, because, like Assange, they're trolls.
Now trolls with shortened life expectancy.
Re:Proof, Citation? (Score:5, Interesting)
The heck? Citation needed, EditorDavid...
I second this. However I'll wait until Glenn Greenwald checks in on this. If anyone can find a way to excuse Julian Assange he can.
Personally I have become disenchanted with Assange in various ways. He could have contributed so much more than he did but he persisted in making dumb choices, making it hard for the right people to take him seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to celebrate him, you're going to have to shoot him, because alive he's a participant in events, not some sort of "messenger."
Sense of priorities is missing (Score:2)
That you would conflate life and death information about US empire (as are readily found in WikiLeaks publications) with personal peccadilloes about Assange speaks very badly about you and your priorities, and says nothing about Assange or WikiLeaks. Greenwald has made an impressive reputation for keeping his comments on very important matters of state and not letting personal trifles steer him from informing us about what we ought to consider. So much of this ad job promoting these leaks reads the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be responding to a number of assertions that I did not make.
I didn't say anything about "personal peccadilloes." I said that he made some poor ("dumb") choices. I can make the case for that but I don't want to get into it here.
I asserted that he contributed a lot but could have done more. Perhaps you believe he could not have done more. Then we just disagree there.
Also you seem to think that I discount Greenwald's probity on the issue. In fact I don't.
Re: Proof, Citation? (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been numerous leaks exposing Russian misbehavior, all of which are conspicuously absent from Wikileaks. Some of which are discussed in the fucking summary if you want a "citation."
Wikileaks was an awesome idea, and then Assange destroyed it when he let his ego get the best of him and turned it into an anti American disinformation machine.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason he did so is because he viewed the US as beholden to powerful international foreign anti-journalist criminal interests like Saudi Arabia and Israel and wanted to expose the worldwide surveillance was being used for evil.
When Snowden leaked that trove and Assange became a pariah-with-teeth, he became an enemy of the state+8. That became a consuming distraction for him as... it probably would for most people. He's very human, flawed.
I do think at one point they could have called him an independen
Re: Proof, Citation? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The reason he did so is because he viewed the US as beholden to powerful international foreign anti-journalist criminal interests like Saudi Arabia and Israel and wanted to expose the worldwide surveillance was being used for evil."
Unlike the Russian government which is all teddy bears and moonbeams and under no circumstances would they shut down non governmental media outlets and order the extra judicial murders of journalists or poison former citizens on foreign soil. No no , not at all. Squeaky clean is Putin.
Its fucking incredible that in the 21st century there are still pathetic Russian apologists in the west no matter what the Russians do. Whilst the Russia people are no better or worse than anyone else in the world, their politicians are and have been for at least 100 years, psychopathic scumbags who will literally do anything to gain and keep power.
Re: (Score:1)
Squeaky clean is Putin.
"I would have expected better from British boys," said the officer.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think russia has decommisioned its nuclear arsenal? You're a fucking clown.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason he did so is because he viewed the US as beholden to powerful international foreign anti-journalist criminal interests like Saudi Arabia and Israel and wanted to expose the worldwide surveillance was being used for evil.
Yah, no, Assange has no beliefs. He's just an attention whole who needs a transfusion of capital from time to time.
Re: Proof, Citation? (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct, and there's a little more:
1.) Assange began his high profile association with Wikileaks as a spokesperson, only. That essentially made him immune to legal action because he made it clear he did not have anything to do with the internals of WL.
Later, when pissed off governments wanted his young ass, he changed his job description to, "journalist," in an effort to be immune by way of freedom of the press.
2.) WL itself fell off the radar and had very little in the way of exciting revelations and donations fell dramatically. They stepped back into the news cycle by violating their own strict rules of conduct by creating publicity prior to data releases.
Donors didn't bite and WL went to hell.
I've studied both Wikileaks and Assange for years and I admired their first efforts but that all soured when Assage's ego and WL's financials went in opposite directions.
Re: (Score:2)
Your #2 is rather strange, considering that WL was deplatformed from almost every payment system in existence very rapidly under pressure.
Re: (Score:3)
No commodity of any kind, way, shape or form is unfundable on the Internet. You know that. Look at Silk Road.
The payment methods you mention are outdated. If that were not true, the Dark Web would have no market.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the portion of people out of all users of internet that know how to pay on dark web sites?
It works for determined people buying illegal shit and willing to jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot for processing their payment. It doesn't work for everyone else.
Bitchute is a site aimed at "everyone else". Ergo, the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The subject is Wikileaks.
Die-hard fans were able to donate plenty post-mainstream payment ban. Not enough people wanted to.
Why should they? You know as well as I do that people's attention span lasts only as long as the lightning strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Because non-diehard fans are likely the bulk of donors, and their activity would drive a lot of people interested in seeing the curated English leaks that wikileaks specializes in. Which in turn would have prevented the current insane narrative of them being an agent of Russian government. The only reason that stuck to some extent, is because there aren't enough people invested in wikileaks to debunk the narrative to their friends when US propaganda machine spun on to do its thing.
Deplatforming ensured that
Re: (Score:2)
My affiliations are hugging the goddam Internet since its birth.
You're what I call a linksta. You throw a lot of links you know I won't read because I've been studying this since it surfaced.
Your links aren't going to add value to my real-time follow.
And, I already answered your redundant question.
Stop popping and start hopping.
Re: (Score:1)
The heck? Citation needed, EditorDavid...
Why would he need to post a citation for someone else's statement? You do know what quote markers mean, right?
Re: (Score:2)
We're sorry, but EditorDavid is not the author of TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick glance through wikileaks shows quite a lot of russian secrets. EditorDavid seems to have drank the koolaid.
Assange vs. Russia (Score:1)
Julian Assange's aversion to posting Russian secrets
That's news to me. What's the reason behind his reluctance to touch anything out of Russia?
Re:Assange vs. Russia (Score:4, Funny)
It's called "Polonium-210"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Assange vs. Russia (Score:5, Funny)
Black Russian: Kahlua & Vodka.
White Russian: Kahlua & Vodka & Cream.
Dead Russian: Polonium & Novichok.
Garnish with an umbrella swizzle stick laced with Ricin.
Although, considering what Saudi Arabia was allowed to do to Jamal Khashoggi . . . this really isn't something we should be making fun of . . .
Ursidae poker (Score:4, Funny)
Hope the security is strong with you.
Fancy Bear [wikipedia.org] just authorized unlimited overtime.
Good Luck Going after the Russians (Score:2)
They play by different rules, which are closer to mafia tactics. For the folks running the site or stealing the docs nothing is off limits as long as there is no direct link to the top.
Seems like the war on Assange is ramping up again (Score:3, Informative)
That might be a good tactic. [wikipedia.org]
At last! (Score:1)
A version of Wikileaks that the western establishments can support! I'm sure it's completely trustworthy, unbiased, & documents weren't selectively "leaked" by US & UK govt. three letter agencies.
I wonder if we'll end up with an online version of Spy vs. Spy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs._Spy), where the Five Eyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) dump documents stolen from their adversaries on DDoS & their adversaries do the same on Wikileaks? Of course the establishment press a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>I wonder if we'll end up with an online version of Spy vs. Spy
All the better, says I. I'd rather have both sides' secrets public, than either only one's, or, even worse, none at all. Quoting Erasmus [wikipedia.org]: Give light, and the darkness will disappear of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Under Soviet Union a super computer with network was something very special and something to wait for.
Requests for such fully imported or a domestically produced copy of a western computer system was not easy to make.
Getting such a system was a real effort. The real work done on such a computer had to be approved and tracked.
Home computers played copies of games, allowed people to learn code. To understand hardware an
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the conspicuous absence of any U.S. intelligence (or anything else embarrassing to the U.S,) on this "leaks" site screams CIA/NSA operation to me. They had may as well put their logos on the home page.
Re: (Score:1)
Fellow comrades (Score:2)
c3RhbmQgZG93biBvcGVyYXRpb25z :P
Let's kill Assange (Score:1)
Summary of the article: US and other watmongering states want to annihilate Assange. I'm doing my best to spread gossip against him to ease their task.
Re: (Score:2)
Watmonger: noun
1) A tour guide specializing in Buddhist religious sites
2) An incense peddler
US documents walked (Score:2)
Like the Pentagon papers. A domestic political release to the media.
Re: Implying Russia had something to do w DNC emai (Score:2, Insightful)
You said conspiracy theory like it was bullshit, and then deep state like itâ(TM)s real. Convenient. Tool.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like there isn't an uncollected power establishment composed of corporations and appointed officials. Who votes for positions on the Council on Foreign Relations? Who voted for all the CIA officials who lied to Congress while spying on Congress? The ones that spy on presidential candidates and even elected presidents? These are undisputable facts, not Alex Jones rambling about the Illuminati or the
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to visit the library and open a newspaper, those conspiracy videos are getting to you.
You seem about 2 years behind on current events. I guess that is the last time you made it to the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
To go back to the good old days when 75% of Americans thought Saddam had WMD's and was involved in 911.
To repeat for the indoctrinated...how do you think that happened, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna try that again while sober?
Re: (Score:2)
It could have been the Russians, who regularly undertake malicious activity. But it could also be China, or a leak from within the DNC, or the Awan spy ring [amazon.com], who had access to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz's computers and tablets, as well as those of some 40 other House Democrats.
It was Bernie!
He made the DNC "Feel the Bern!"
Re:"Russia Supplied Wikileaks" Assertion is Unprov (Score:4, Informative)
Guccifer 2.0 [wikipedia.org] is presumed to be the "person" who supplied the DNC emails to wikileaks and, quoting wikipedia, "The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks that Guccifer 2.0 has said were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC were committed by two Russian intelligence groups. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.". Wikipedia provides numerous citations to back that up. idk if the U.S. Intelligence Community conducted analysis above and beyond what the private sector cybersecurity firms did but I think it's a safe assumption that they did.
Of course, I suppose you can always dismiss the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis if you assume that it's all part of the deep state conspiracy against Trump. And the private sector firms... I guess Trump supporters can just dismiss them as peddlers of fake news too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone at Slashdot ...
You don't appear to be new here but you sure act like it.
Do you suppose there's any way at all that you can discover who actually authored TFA?
Copypasta! (Score:5, Informative)
Someone at Slashdot seems to be pushing the "Russia supplied Wikileaks with the DNC hack info" theory as fact when it hasn't been proven.
It hasn't been proven to you. Do not presume to know what intelligence agencies know.
But the Russia theory is pushed above all because that's the one that fuels Democratic activist outrage and the "Russian collusion" fantasy
People aren't being indicted and convicted [washingtonpost.com] because it's a fantasy.
Cue up the cries of "Russian bot" in 5...4...3...
I don't think you're a Russian bot but I do think you are useful idiot. [wikipedia.org]
Also noticed that you are just copypastaing your own site and call everything that doesn't agree with you a "hard-left outlet".
Read the article you linked (Score:1)
People aren't being indicted and convicted of collusion with Russia. There's even a handy table that summarizes the charges for you.
Also, I am hard left.
Re: (Score:1)
We can't presume to know what the intel agencies know; therefore, we can't presume that they have evidence, even if they did claim to possess it. If a claim is made publicly, then it must be proven with public evidence. If not, the claim must be treated as unsubstantiated... because as far as anyone else is concerned, it is!
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is probably far more disturbing. The spy agencies record calls outside the US without warrants. If they realize one caller is a US citizen they are supposed to keep the recording locked unless they get a warrant.
Maybe they caught someone high up speaking to someone high up there, and listened but shouldn't have, and now need a way to drag it out into the open without revealing a grotesquely unconstitutional action.
Ymmv to the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break
I am so sick of the fawning over our so-called 'intelligence' agencies, that I have had enough. Let's call them what they really are, the short bus commando.
When in your life time has the CIA or the NSA *ever* been right with their so-called intelligence? When did they ever give us a heads up on important developments? When did they ever prevent something bad from happening? When did their 'intelligence' ever lead to anything good? The answer, never. They were wrong about Iraq. The
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually? It already was when the Republicans went after Bill Clinton with a special prosecutor for Whitewater, which turned into impeachent (but not removal) for a process crime not even related to the Whitewater issue.
Neither side learns. All we see is the wisdom the Founding Fathers had in things like the 4th and 5th Amendments in trying to stop powerful people from using the power of government to investigate their political enemies.
Now maybe there is something here, but it is driven by politics. A
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who lived in USSR before and after collapse I am well ware of who Russians are and what they are capable of. So all I have to say is this. Ubei sebya ap stenu der'mo. Razgon 100m. Stena betonnaya.
You don't sound like a Russian bot/troll. You sound like a dumb asshole.
Is it Popov or Popoff that's the real Russian vodka?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you did just fail the Reverse Turing Test...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the minds of a small group of people doing something interesting.
On a paper in a safe in a walk in vault in a secure mil/science city.
On paper in a safe in a secure building.
Should Russia need a "Super Computer" such work is done on site with a computer. No networks outside needed.
One task gets one super computer on site.
The exception would be university science, academic networks to gather real time data from all over Russia/globally.
Russia is well networke