Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by mabramo on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:41PM
(#12858547)
I don't think they're government run, but I've been seeing quite a lot of information recently from Wikileaks that seems to be fabricated. Maybe I'm not doing enough research and the information I'm reading is just made up by underground conspiracy sites that tag the Wikileaks name on it for attention. Whatever the case, Wikileaks from 5 years ago seems a lot more reliable than Wikileaks today. At least to me.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by frozenport on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:53PM
(#12858652)
Let's be clear. Even if they are run by the KGB this does not discredit their content.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by Spooky23 on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @04:09PM
(#12858772)
Sure it can. How do you prove that you didn't say something?
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by zaroth on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @04:23PM
(#12858884)
It's actually pretty hard to create convincing email headers across thousands of emails.
Many of these highly eyebrow raising emails are CC'd to gmail accounts, for example. If it was fake, you could ask Google for the logs to prove at least it wasn't received.
And if there are DKIM headers, then that's certainly strong evidence that the header and body are legit.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by Spooky23 on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @06:56PM
(#12860140)
Most leaks that I've seen are not PSTs with full metadata.
The whole problem with this sort of thing is that there's no chain of custody.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by tedks on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @11:41PM
(#12861432)
The web interface does show some of these things, but I think with Wikileaks you can always get a torrent of the raw files they've obtained. At least, that was usually the case. The DKIM information is verifiable, and if Wikileaks was overtly fabricating something, people would love to be able to attest to that fact. Hillary Clinton could say that Wikileaks is overtly lying, but doesn't, because there are multiple ways of verifying this particular leak and it would be nonsensical to try to outright deny it. Instead, she tries to Putin her way out of any discussion involving this. Do you think she would do that if she could just deny?
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by qq66 on Thursday November 03, 2016 @12:59AM
(#12861714)
You'd never fake thousands of emails. You'd fake one email and insert it into a set of thousands of real emails.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by stale2002 on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:06PM
(#12859267)
Well, you can start by denying it. But as far as I know, nothing wikileaks publishes really ever gets denied.
If the people don't deny it, then it should be assumed to be true.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by rezashirazian on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:30PM
(#12859484)
I meant US government.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by ryuker16 on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @09:00PM
(#12860776)
I suspect governments voluntarily leak them data about other nations.
That big tax cheating leak that mostly leaked famous non-usa figures....particularly Russian and Chinese.
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by guelo on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @04:58PM
(#12859204)
Are you truly the only person that makes up conspiracy theories without proof that fit perfectly with your desired world view?
Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email
by rezashirazian on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:30PM
(#12859478)
I'm not stating it as a fact but a mere possibility that I draw from what is publicly available. I'm sorry if it offends your renegade-hackerman world view but it is hardly farfetched or beyond the capabilities of the US government to set up and control a honeypot that intercepts real leaks.
US government takes security very seriously. A real organization like wikileaks would not even see the light of day.
Of course I don't have any substantial evidence but just looking at it, it seems like a contrived apparatus with a James Bond like villain at the top, branding that looks like it came out of a B rated movie and 'leaks' that seem serious enough to get the media up in a frenzy and attract anyone with any real leaks.
I wouldn't be surprised to read about its conception by some mid-level CIA agent in 30-40 years.