Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventually weeks later an actual leak came out.
>That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked?
Yes, did you? It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say they do, and just released the information. And then never took responsibility. I mean, look at their own responses to that tweet. They're denying that anything they did was even bad.
I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors.
>Stop reading the Huffington Post; it's a rag.
Stop complaining about sources when you are getting basic facts incorrect.
Wikileaks linked to the information; it was hosted on the Internet Archive, who took it down[0].
> And then never took responsibility.
It wasn't theirs to take down. The parties responsible took it down, responsibly.
> They're denying that anything they did was even bad.
They denied that members of the APK are an at-risk group.
> I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors.
Because that's not the example you used. I wasn't aware you were refering to DNC donors with your accusation.
0: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...
This is what I said
>And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people.
Sorry if that wasn't clear what I was referencing
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/22/12259258/wikileaks-leaked-...
Yikes.
The persons who need to defend their actions are the DNC, who sent personal information over plaintext. Don't shoot the messenger.
Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers.
Nothing is assured to remain safe.
>Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers.
You have stopped trying to defend WikiLeaks and put all the blame on the DNC. Even if I grant you all of this, that still doesn't abdicate the responsibility of the people who took the data, or the people releasing the data. Taking someone else's private data, even if they made it easy for you to do, and broadcasting it to the world, putting people at risk and exposing their private information unrelated to any government transparency goal you may have, is irresponsible and dangerous.
The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result.
Wikileaks provided the information when it received it; but in no way can the donors be certain that Wikileaks is the only party who received the stolen information.
Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC.
Every one of those donors should now immediately contact the proper authorities to protect themselves from credit card and identity fraud. That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC, and it is only because of the actions of Wikileaks that they are now aware that they are at risk.
And I have pointed out that they actively put people at risk. Of course, you deflect it onto the DNC, as evidence by:
>The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result.
And WikiLeaks made that information publicly available, without any effort made to protect individuals. That is dangerous and irresponsible. If I leave my wallet on the sidewalk, whatever claims of negligence you want to level at me it's still morally wrong (and illegal) for you to take it and use it to steal my identity.
>Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC.
We're on Hacker News, so I'm hoping you're at least somewhat familiar with the term Responsible Disclosure? If someone discovers a vulnerability in a banking website, you think the best way to help their customers is to make the vulnerability immediately available to the whole world? They "helped" these donors by making their private information public? That's just straight up delusional, to completely flip reality on it's head just to support a group you like.
>That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC
And the irresponsible actions of WikiLeaks.
I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present.
Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them. It's unkind, but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them. Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks.
Not at all. They broadcast it to the world. They are an accessory.
>I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present.
That's... just ridiculous. You could get the same result by just redacting all the private info except names. Then everyone knows but no one is put at risk. But they didn't even bother to do that.
>Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them
What you personally consider to be secure has no bearing. They took private sensitive data that was not public and made it public. Just because you think that maybe it probably was already at risk is irrelevant.
>but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them
How can you even try to make this point? It makes no sense. If I know your credit card info, all I have to do is assume that other people already have it so it's fine if I publish it?
>Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks.
EXACTLY. Who knows? Not you, so it's irresponsible and damaging for them to release them when it's possible no one had them.
So they promised releases well in advance and then released them.
> And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people.
That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked?
From Michael Best himself:
> @WikiLeaks didn't upload the #AKP files with the private info on Turkish women - I did (and they've been removed)
https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/758059030527021056
Stop reading the Huffington Post; it's a rag.