Wikileaks Attacking during an Election

[idav]

I'm not so sure.
It might depend upon which truth is withheld, which truth is divulged,
the timing thereof, & is it on whole wheat or rye?

It shouldn't be like that unless it isn't about the truth as wiki claims. The source clearly is partisan and the holding of information for months sometimes years is clearly partisan. We can handle the truth, the sooner the better. We've been talking of the DNC hack since June, and wheres the RNC hack. I guess for me its all or nothing, and they should stay out of meddling which is what it amounts to instead of helping the broader corruption. II saw some of the same type of stuff happening earlier this year with anonymous, when some anti-clinton or ant-trump, forget which is which anymore. Anonymous quickly came out condemning partisan BS. Thats what I'm talking about, the likes of anonymous is anti-establishment, not trying to help one party over another. Some hackers have ethics apparently lol, I know how that sounds, just saying what I read.

 

[Scuba Pete]

After all this there will be drama no matter who is elected. Kinda sad to think about. Email scandals or sexual assault scandals.

Trump U law suit starts Nov 28th. That will be fun.

It's my opinion that wikileaks is unethical and probably breaking the law. It's one thing to reveal dirt legally obtained, but this is cyber terrorism. To date, Assange hasn't really leaked anything significant. He keeps alluding to "the next release", but then there's nothing to it. This is political extortion at it's worst. He is pretending that he has something he does not possess so we can add fraud on top of extortion and cyber terrorism. No wonder he's hiding in the basement of some embassy somewhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

BS only about 2% of NPRs funding comes from the federal government, not exactly "largely funded by".

Oh, one should not be so quick to quote funding statistics to an avid listener.
I just endured long bouts of fundraising wherein they claim 7% federal
funding, & 50% state income tax credits. Would you or they be correct?

 

[Lyndon]

Thats still not "largely funded by".

 

[Revoltingest]

It shouldn't be like that unless it isn't about the truth as wiki claims. The source clearly is partisan and the holding of information for months sometimes years is clearly partisan. We can handle the truth, the sooner the better. We've been talking of the DNC hack since June, and wheres the RNC hack. I guess for me its all or nothing, and they should stay out of meddling which is what it amounts to instead of helping the broader corruption. II saw some of the same type of stuff happening earlier this year with anonymous, when some anti-clinton or ant-trump, forget which is which anymore. Anonymous quickly came out condemning partisan BS. Thats what I'm talking about, the likes of anonymous is anti-establishment, not trying to help one party over another. Some hackers have ethics apparently lol, I know how that sounds, just saying what I read.

Think of Wikileaks as just another biased source which presents info for political effect.
It's a lot like the women emerging after many years to accuse Trump of sexual misdeeds.
This isn't wrong....just ordinary sneaky snarky politickering
Democrats now taking great umbrage would instead be chortling with glee if Trump were the target.

 

[Lighthouse]

It shouldn't be like that unless it isn't about the truth as wiki claims. The source clearly is partisan and the holding of information for months sometimes years is clearly partisan. We can handle the truth, the sooner the better. We've been talking of the DNC hack since June, and wheres the RNC hack. I guess for me its all or nothing, and they should stay out of meddling which is what it amounts to instead of helping the broader corruption. II saw some of the same type of stuff happening earlier this year with anonymous, when some anti-clinton or ant-trump, forget which is which anymore. Anonymous quickly came out condemning partisan BS. Thats what I'm talking about, the likes of anonymous is anti-establishment, not trying to help one party over another. Some hackers have ethics apparently lol, I know how that sounds, just saying what I read.

I don't know if they have anything on the RNC. I'm not even sure how the DNC can be hacked in the first place if not from the inside or from irresponsible people allowing it to happen.

 

[Lyndon]

Hacking emails is against the law, and a felony, I believe. What I don't understand is if its a felony to hack emails, why is it legal for media to release hacked emails if they were hacked by someone else??

 

[idav]

Think of Wikileaks as just another biased source which presents info for political effect.
It's a lot like the women emerging after many years to accuse Trump of sexual misdeeds.
This isn't wrong....just ordinary sneaky snarky politickering
Democrats now taking great umbrage would instead be chortling with glee if Trump were the target.

I don't agree with the timing of women thing. Just like with what happened with Cosby. Once one person comes out the rest get courage to go after a multi-billionaire who will likely sue. Cosby wasn't running for anything and thats the nature of sexual allegations especially in a culture whom demonize womens misdeeds more than mens

I don't know if they have anything on the RNC. I'm not even sure how the DNC can be hacked in the first place if not from the inside or from irresponsible people allowing it to happen.

They clicked into a fake gmail giving away their credentials, so then the hackers spent months just going through the victims emails.

Hacking emails is against the law, and a felony, I believe. What I don't understand is if its a felony to hack emails, why is it legal for media to release hacked emails if they were hacked by someone else??

Don't know if its so much illegal for media to release it, but I'd wonders if it would be legal to use in a court of law.. Courts would normally throw that sort of stuff in the garbage, now anything they release on Hillary or the DNC is tainted.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't agree with the timing of women thing. Just like with what happened with Cosby. Once one person comes out the rest get courage to go after a multi-billionaire who will likely sue. Cosby wasn't running for anything and thats the nature of sexual allegations especially in a culture whom demonize womens misdeeds more than mens

I agree.
But Hillary & fans shouldn't object to the same process when it becomes to her detriment.

 

[idav]

I agree.
But Hillary & fans shouldn't object to the same process when it becomes to her detriment.

Totally different things considering espionage in order to gather and release intel is the crime in this case. It would certainly behoove hackers to point it to a foreign body. Its the partisan espionage which I'm talking about here. Even anonymous has come out saying they don't approve of such tactics regardless of the candidate, they would sooner get all of their emails and burn the whole thing down.

 

[idav]

People in the US have been jailed on grounds of treason for turning information over to wikileaks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Totally different things considering espionage in order to gather and release intel is the crime in this case. It would certainly behoove hackers to point it to a foreign body. Its the partisan espionage which I'm talking about here. Even anonymous has come out saying they don't approve of such tactics regardless of the candidate, they would sooner get all of their emails and burn the whole thing down.

I'm in favor of illegal hacking when such whistle blowing alerts us to crime & corruption.
Of course government will make otherwise ethical behavior illegal when it solidifies their power.
(It's like cops who arrest people for recording them beating up citizens.)
Go Wikileaks!

 

[idav]

I'm in favor of illegal hacking when such whistle blowing alerts us to crime & corruption.
Of course government will make otherwise ethical behavior illegal when it solidifies their power.
(It's like cops who arrest people for recording them beating up citizens.)
Go Wikileaks!

I'm in favor of the way anonymous has come out on the situation. Wikileaks are just pawns depending on their sources. They are meh.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm in favor of the way anonymous has come out on the situation. Wikileaks are just pawns depending on their sources. They are meh.

You call them "pawns", but one could just as easily say they're major players.
Now we get to see how DNC elites determine who is selected in advance.

 

[idav]

You call them "pawns", but one could just as easily say they're major players.
Now we get to see how DNC elites determine who is selected in advance.

Their sources who shall not be named are the major players.

We already knew there was all that stuff. Nice to see some truth but we want all the truth not the partisan crap we are seeing in order to give conservatives a boost. I'm not going to act naive as if RNC are angels and saints.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm in favor of illegal hacking when such whistle blowing alerts us to crime & corruption.
Of course government will make otherwise ethical behavior illegal when it solidifies their power.
(It's like cops who arrest people for recording them beating up citizens.)
Go Wikileaks!

Would I rather have information made available to the world illegally rather than it not?

Indeed, I would. Especially coming from those in power and control, in relevance to crime and corruption.

Granted, illegally obtained information will be discarded in the justice system.

 

[McBell]

If Wikileaks wanted to publish my emails, the first thing I'd do is release all of my emails personally if I had nothing to hide.

Not that easy when you have emails that are illegal to release to the public.

 

[Lighthouse]

Their sources who shall not be named are the major players.

We already knew there was all that stuff. Nice to see some truth but we want all the truth not the partisan crap we are seeing in order to give conservatives a boost. I'm not going to act naive as if RNC are angels and saints.

Any truth is good, even if partisan in my opinion.

I doubt this will have an impact on Hillary supporters. But at least it gives another excuse in case Hillary loses to Donald Trump.

I think that there are decent people from the Dem's and Repub's in power, and I also think there are corrupt people from the Dem's and Repub's in power. I'm not going to name names on which ones I think.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not that easy when you have emails that are illegal to release to the public.

Agree, it's not like I'd have classified government emails that I'd be allowed to release.

 

[McBell]

Agree, it's not like I'd have classified government emails that I'd be allowed to release.

Medical records are protected.
Financial records as well.

From a non-legal point of view...
I have several email conversations that include private personal information from others that was revealed to me with the trust and understanding of my discretion.

So though I have nothing to hide, am I not still bound to the trust and understanding of others to maintain my discretion?