Julian Assange AMA
reddit.com
reddit.com
As opposed to answering Reddit questions that were formulated after his potential capture by US intelligence, and then later uploaded to the AMA to make the answers appear real-time?
- live video where the person can interact with a live feed e.g. reddit
- social proof, e.g. all his lawyers/friends say that he is ok (the cost to fake this would be too high)
- reading a recent blockchain hash (he did this on the livestream but in general dislikes this method as most people won't understand it)
- reading sports results from recent matches, he did this for some US sports results, this is simpler to understand and verify for most people, stick to higher scoring sports to avoid doubts over enumerating all possibilities
Edit: all of this becomes much more difficult as tech improves because you can CGI someone in real-time. But (!) this is not possible yet.
Take a good look:
Really if you don't believe he's alive for the reasons I posted above, it's likely that nothing will convince you!
Our concern is that that would reduce the proof of life to a specific methodology. Key management is complex. Primary proof is social proof, lawyers, Pilger, et al. It would be extremely costly for adversary to create conspiracy involving all these actors.
Edit: in the twitch stream 1:35:30 he starts talking about it but he doesn't actually read a hash
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...
I see your edit. Can you give an example of a statement that would qualify as proof of life?
Example: commenting on a news event from today.
Umm, yeah. Why bother leaking documents straight into the trash?
> It's one thing to release the documents in a fair, unbiased method.
Wikileaks can only leak whatever is given to them. Did you send them Trump email that they refused to leak?
> He and wikileaks took sides and that is not something I consider ok.
The point of a vote is literally for everyone to take sides.
> He had/has a vendetta.
I'd have a vendetta against a politician (in a position of military command) who asked if I could be killed extra-judicially. How can you fault someone for this?
They built a legitimacy and reputation for releasing documents in big dumps and this time was different.
> Wikileaks can only leak whatever is given to them. Did you send them Trump email that they refused to leak?
No I did not. The fair and unbiased method I was referencing is the way they had handled things in the past.
> The point of a vote is literally for everyone to take sides.
He's Swedish and leaking information gained from a politically adversarial country. Neither of which get a vote in our election.
> I'd have a vendetta against a politician (in a position of military command) who asked if I could be killed extra-judicially. How can you fault someone for this?
You think trump is going to be any different? I think both were awful candidates, personally.
No, they built a reputation doing the exact opposite. The diplomatic cable leaks for example, were drip-fed out in the exact same way. It prevents the meat of the leaks from getting buried.
The Hillary Campaign and the DNC (which is behind much of the smearing of Assange), for example, tried to bury the podesta email dump by timing the leak the pussy recording on the same day.
It likely was a little personal though. Clinton has joked about murdering him to shut him up and I doubt she was being entirely unserious.
Can you show that they do different things based on the content of the leaks, or the identity of the leaker? Not that having a bias is a crime, even if you could prove it.
> You think trump is going to be any different?
The goalposts were fine where they were, thanks.
> He's Swedish
No, he's not.
> and leaking information gained from a politically adversarial country.
I know for a fact that you don't have any evidence for that statement.
> Neither of which get a vote in our election.
And yet he's entitled to an opinion, and to share any information he has with others, to influence their opinion.
What's surprising is that the distribution of upvotes doesn't imply any kind of controversy - instead there's near-unanimous condemnation.
1 point by scrolib 7 minutes ago | flag | vouch | hide | past | web
52 points by eternalban 3 hours ago | flag | hide | past | web | 31 comments | favorite
Another example with no "vouch" link ('[flagged]' only):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13366275
Perhaps until it's dead, up-votes are expected to be used.
> Perhaps until it's dead, up-votes are expected to be used.
If they manage to find it :))
If you use Chrome, you can make sure that reddit.com always gets a reddit referer with this extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...