Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 0) 250

The media, including the "MSN" has reported heavily on every single claim and investigation on Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years. There has been no covering up anything, and every report about this election calls out how disliked she is. There's just nothing there that makes her corrupt in any way that the whole system isn't as well.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 2) 250

I dunno. On one hand you've got a former first lady, successful senator and secretary of state, and on the other side you have a former reality TV show host that won't prove he's not broke or in debt to foreign powers. I think one of those choices is pretty damn good and it's not the guy that lost money in the casino business.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 1) 250

You hit the nail on the head there, but most of us trying to point out the moral issues with the way Wikileaks is conducting themselves now are getting modded trolls.

I don't imagine that Wikileaks has anything to do with causing the DDOS, but wouldn't be surprised at all if someone claiming to be behind it contacted Wikileaks to take credit as a sign of support.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 250

Unless there's a conspiracy to alter the evidence on the part of the people whose information was leaked. Google can't get involved without protracted legal action and a forced reveal, otherwise they'd lose any shot at trying to be a trustworthy service for *anyone*.

If you send me an email, someone hacks into my computer and distributes it, and then we both go "Oh, shit, that shouldn't have gotten out there!" and modified our copies of the original mail - you get a complete stalemate, because it's an easy argument that the hacker is the one that changed the file.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 2) 250

Where does Wikileaks or Assange claim to operate as a neutral information broker? I think you'll find that newspapers across the world often have an editorial page, and even their headline stories, as you may have noticed, can seem to fortuitously appear at opportune times.

When Wikileaks made it big, they had a simple claim of "no filter" access to leaked documentation and at the time, there were no signs that Wikileaks sourced information from anyone other than insiders.

1. There's really no way to differentiate between the two, as a large proportion of hacks originate from someone with inside knowledge. If this was 20 years ago, it would have been a simple "leak", not a "hack". It's not like we're talking about nuclear launch codes here.

2. Cry me a fuckin' river. When it comes to peoples' privacy rights that I'm concerned about, a future POTUS is at the absolute bottom of that list. This disturbs me slightly less than leaks disturb the characters on Yes, Minister. May we never live in a world without political leaks (and/or "hacks") of this nature.

So you're saying that the motivation of a person distributing private documents has absolutely no bearing on whether or not those documents should be given scrutiny for truth?

Once again, I find it most disturbing that you choose to focus on the unspeakable crime of someone showing evidence that Hillary is a completely self-aware, unrepentant liar. I don't mean "caught in contradicting statements"; I mean, she was actually talking about the art and necessity of lying as a politician. And you really think the most damning and horrible thing in this situation is that this astoundingly frank little speech of hers wasn't hushed up for all eternity?

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of what you're claiming. Do you know about politics at all? I mean that seriously, do you know how it works? Have you ever taken a PoliSci class? I haven't, but based on many years of studying politics and the history of the American political system for fun (yes, some people do that) I've found it pretty clear that such things happen *all the damn time*. Politics is a dirty, ugly business and in order to get even the greatest and most altruistic things done, you need to make deals with the devil.

Is that your roundabout way of saying you think it's fabricated? Even though the Clinton campaign refused to deny or comment on its authenticity? Because if someone called me a liar and put words in my mouth that were definitely unfavorable, I don't think I would hesitate to mention that it was a lie. Pleading the fifth is fine for an actual criminal court, but you cannot possibly expect any thinking person to take seriously the possibility that this was a fabrication if she and her people completely refused to comment on it, especially seeing as how Wikileaks is not particularly well known for publishing fabrications.

Honestly, at this point, I have no idea. I won't accuse Wikileaks of publishing *known* fabrications, at least. Given Assange's personality and the grudge he has against Clinton, I wouldn't entirely put it past him. But even saying that, I wouldn't make that accusation.

However, with the information we have about the *source* of this data? And the known history of Russian information warfare should lead anyone to being concerned about what they're taking at face value. See some of the links on this page for a bit of background on Russia's recent history in this area.

The way Clinton's campaign has responded to the information leaked so far, wouldn't lead me to think it was falsified in any large way. But, the risk is there and if people get into the habit of taking everything Wikileaks publishes at pure face value, what happens when something *is* modified and the injured party has to defend themselves against something grievous?

Really, the best way to survive American politics is to avoid black and white viewpoints. Never let yourself fall into the trap of feeling like everything has to be good versus evil, or that every argument has two equally valid sides. Be careful, be reserved, and be watchful. But don't be paranoid, and don't get worked up.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 4, Informative) 250

Pretty much every media outlet that doesn't have implicit bias in its very DNA has endorsed Hillary, including ones that haven't endorsed a Democrat at all in over 100 years, ones that have only endorsed candidates two or three times in a century, and as of October 6th the number of endorsements for Donald Trump among major American newspapers sat at a big fat zero.

The only "conspiracy" that would be on par than that, if it were actually indicative of one, would be climate science. However, you can usually find maybe 2-3 people in every group of 100 climate scientists that will disagree.

Comment Re:Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 2) 250

There are a lot of evil things about Trump, but most of them don't need to be leaked because they're already public knowledge. He just lies about them with absolute conviction and for some reason, people believe him.

Hillary keeps being accused of corruption, but even in the wildest fantasies of the Republican opposition, they've never had a damn thing that she could actually be *charged* with, because she's just doing the same things politicians have done since the dawn of time. They're just mad because she does them far, far better than they do. Is she a manipulative person with her own agenda that will steamroll her opposition? Absolutely. But to many of us, she's *our* kind of steamroller. I don't know what your media is telling you about Hillary, or what sites on the internet you're reading, but many of us don't believe she's going to be a blank check for the financial industry by any means. Is she "cozy" with them? Maybe, but at least she knows what she's dealing with, and is in a position to challenge them from a position of authority and begrudging respect from most of them.

It's a terrible thing that your country has to deal with such problems due to sanctions, but unfortunately for you, Russia has really put themselves in a position to earn them. Seizing the Crimea through the "invasion of green men" as it's been called is a blatant assault on Ukraine, and they should absolutely be shunned for it.

Regarding the media in your country and how they report on Trump... well, that's pretty much what our media is saying, too. But at every turn, Trump has chances to say things to disprove those accusations and completely fails to even get close to it. He will quite literally say things like "I respect women, I respect women more than any other man alive." and then follow that up the next day by saying that a woman wasn't pretty enough to sexually harass or assault. He's a cartoon come to life, a terrible, terrible cartoon.

Comment Re:Who says the amounts are equal? (Score 1) 250

Except Trump's withheld tax returns, unknown business relationships, the use of his non-profit for personal gain, his importing of cheap Chinese steel which was dumped illegally on the market, his hiring and abuse of illegal immigrants used to build his projects (complain about being underpaid again and I'll have you deported!), his record of sexual harassment and assault, his history of racial bias in housing access, his multiple lies on stages contradicted by his own words as little as a few hours later and his longstanding history of forcing small businesses to settle for pennies on the dollar by refusing payment and threatening extended legal battles before he declares bankruptcy anyhow. Oh, and he claims to be worth ten billion dollars because he "feels" like that's his net worth, when independent estimates of his personal wealth range from 150 million to 3.5 billion, tops.

You've got a lot of things that make you want to think Hillary is evil that don't really surprise most observers that follow politics (and she's never even been properly charged with any of her supposed "evils"), and an absolute dirtbag lying to your face and saying he's perfect about everything and always succeeds.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 250

Wikileaks should of course not issue instruction to anyone, that is a technical faux pas. The only thing allowed is an editorial with regard to how those working at Wikileaks feel about the digital conflagration. The only public response should be to send more secrets to Wikileaks to be exposed to the public, so the public can start acting upon them and investigate and prosecute the corrupt or at the very least embarrass the crap out of investigatory agencies failing to do their job, failing their oaths and failing their countries, shame, shame, shame.

In that light Wikileaks should send a copy of the information to the applicable agencies and record and display their response, each and every time, information is sent to them regarding corruption, so the public can watch as those agencies corruptly fail to act upon the evidence of corruption provided.

So, here's the problem with that.

How do we trust that the information from Wikileaks is valid information?

Back when most of what Wikileaks published was actually *leaks*, given to them by people who saw injustice from the inside and wanted to expose it such as Snowden and Manning's leaks, it was a lot easier to take them at face value. But now, you have outside entities stealing documents and handing them to Wikileaks as genuine. Those entities have motives for it, and those motives may not be as pure as you might like. So information can be doctored, information can be falsified, and how do you know when that happens?

There are markers for it, but those markers aren't always perfect and will almost certainly be overcome with time.

Additionally, you have Wikileaks making statements attacking the target of said hack, and publishing documents that have been shown to be modified. (a user toward the top of the thread mentioned one possible way to detect modified files, but was rated 0 as an anon or possibly brigaded down)

In principle, I agree with your idea of an approach for Wikileaks to take. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any kind of realistic way that anyone can trust the organization anymore. I half expect them to release something that says Hillary did 9/11. but have the metadata show it was created on a copy of Word registered to . They've just utterly and completely blown any pretense of unbiased work, and that was the shield that made the entire thing worth considering.

Comment Re:Doesn't really matter who fired the shot (Score 1) 250

That 'cure' is going to be worse than the disease. Maybe most people around here are too young to remember, but the internet has had these growing pains before. What was it, MyDoom? Sasser? I forget. This was early 2000s, and there was a month or so when things were a lot worse than they were today.

In the early 2000s, it was possible to live life without worrying about whether the internet was down. Today, so many services of various degrees of sensitivity have moved to a place where they require the internet be up and running in order to function. In 2004 when those both hit, you also didn't have anywhere near the number of computers online 24/7 as you do today, given that many people were still on dialup services. 2004 was the year that broadband finally got close to surpassing dialup service for most users online, and everything was still quite new. The total population of internet users was also 1/3rd of today's total.

Slashdot Top Deals

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke