Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

Could you share this decent evidence for us who haven't seen it before?

Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...

This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.

Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.

You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.

Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error.

> Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them.

WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.

This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.

You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?

To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.

sauce?

Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password.

Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well.

https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html

That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.

The Guardian has to admit that it was horribly irresponsible to publish a decryption key, and that they are the ones who actually made the unredacted cables available to the public. They've denounced WikiLeaks for the release, without acknowledging that it was The Guardian that actually made the unredacted cables public.

The Guardian journalist who published the decryption key to the unredacted cables has subsequently acted in bad faith towards WikiLeaks. He's the same guy who wrote the false story about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, which The Guardian has still not retracted, despite it being almost certainly false.

I take it that you have no evidence of malicious intent, since if you did, you would have linked it.

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that Julian just punked them? It's easy enough to pull off, and honestly more believable from someone who otherwise has impeccable opsec.

Just look at the order of events:

1. Julian gives an encrypted file and its key to The Guardian.

2. In February 2011, the key gets published in a book by The Guardian's journalist.

3. In September 2011, it's discovered that the encrypted file is available via BitTorrent, with the key already public in said book.

4. WikiLeaks "helpfully" publishes all the unredacted information later that month, to "ensure" that no "malicious" actors would "selectively" publish it.

I have a very hard time believing that security professionals like those who run WikiLeaks would let this happen by accident. Step 4 was probably their end-game all along.

Lol @ “actual journalists”

You do know there is no such thing as journalistic licensing or certification, right? They went to college. They have nothing above anyone else who break news because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That makes me trust them less actually.

Panama papers were released with names by the same newspapers.

You quote The Guardian, who published the decryption key? That's an interesting choice of source.

The two I'm aware of are https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-... and https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he..., which published the names of afghan informants to the us military, and the names, phone numbers, and addresses of half of the Turkish population, respectively.

The first clearly endangered people, the second contained basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of pii

Reply on news.ycombinator.com