Freelance Isn't Free Act Passes in NYC

Re:Freelance Isn't Free Act Passes in NYC by erichocean on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:44AM (#13028668)

Since Wikileaks is publishing other people's private information—as opposed to "news" or "journalism"—the only thing to "watch" is if what they are publishing has been altered or not (or was made up out of whole cloth).

To the best of my knowledge, there are no known instance of Wikileaks publishing fraudulent or altered information.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Freelance Isn't Free Act Passes in NYC by eivarv on Thursday November 24, 2016 @05:55AM (#13029650)

Outright lies isn't the only danger, though.

What they hold back, what they publish and when they publish it can potentially be abused - for instance to present or enhance one narrative, and obscure another.

And Wikileaks itself could be used as a tool by other actors ( e.g. for political gain) via strategic leaks or somesuch…

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Freelance Isn't Free Act Passes in NYC by phereford on Thursday November 24, 2016 @12:07PM (#13031332)

While Wikileaks may not alter any of the information they are given, it is plausible that their sources have the ability to alter documents before sending to Wikileaks.

The only newsworthy item I have seen was this: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Y2WY

Of course nothing has come of this speculation, so it may end up being nothing.

My last $.02, given the sensitive nature of some of the information that Wikileaks releases, there is probably no avenue for corroborating the materials other than, maybe, how the source received said materials.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Freelance Isn't Free Act Passes in NYC by jk563 on Thursday November 24, 2016 @03:47AM (#13029111)

It would be suicide for them to do that.

Not ruling it out, but if they get caught one time it calls into question everything they've ever released.

[ Parent | on HN ]