News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by k-mcgrady on Friday March 31, 2017 @06:04PM (#14008742)
So what's the solution? Stop publishing until they've caught up on Russian and Chinese leaks? Why just Russia and China? Should each country get a leak until we get back to the start of the cycle again? Why should Wikileaks care who's interests any leaks serve?

They should leak interesting material they are given - that's their purpose.

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by dredmorbius on Friday March 31, 2017 @06:32PM (#14008954)
One action that's been at least partially effective for combatting clear bias in the past and other contexts has to make clear that you are openly inviting contributions (or applications, involvement, etc.) from previously under-served or unaddressed quarters.

A current example would be STEM outreach to underrepresented groups: disadvantaged minorities and women in particular. Housing, employment, and educational opportunity efforts would be other examples that come to mind.

Can you point to any active solicitation Wikileaks have made, say, for materials specifically addressing political oppression within Russia or concerning its foreign policy?

Sincere question. I'm not, though I've not particularly looked.

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by k-mcgrady on Friday March 31, 2017 @06:46PM (#14009060)
I understand your point. Mine is bias does not matter when it comes to this stuff. As long as the leak is factually accurate (and it seems like Wikileaks mostly jump dump the data they get) I want to know if a government is doing something shady and I don't care whether information is also getting leaked at the same rate about another government. Maybe they're not doing anything shady, or maybe they're just doing a better job with information security. Either way it doesn't take away from the fact I should know the information I can as long as it's factual.

As an analogy when the US/UK/other western gov criticises Assad or Kim Jong Un over human rights abuses we don't generally complain that it's unfair because the US/UK also have plenty of human rights abuses under their belt. Yes that's a problem but it doesn't take away from the original complaint which is still valid.

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by dredmorbius on Friday March 31, 2017 @07:01PM (#14009163)
If Wikileaks tells me the sky is blue, I'd be inclined to believe them.

But I'd wonder who wants me to know that, and why.

Wikileaks is a spotlight. It shines brightly, and exposes much, but only where it shines.

And if I notice that it's shining only in specific places ... well, that's a curious fact in itself.

And I absolutely disagree with you that bias doesn't matter. Ultimately it's the only thing that matters. Much as, say, US print and broadcast news was conspicuously silent on matters concerning advertiser interests, or government interests in contexts in which the government had leverage over the press.

Wikileaks themselves are no different in that regard, though the business model and relationships are slighly rearranged.

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by travmatt on Saturday April 01, 2017 @12:23AM (#14010407)
If Wikileaks didn't actively censor and threaten leakers of Russia related information you'd probably have some validity to your argument.
Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by throwaway2048 on Saturday April 01, 2017 @01:12AM (#14010567)
any links to evidence of this?
Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by k-mcgrady on Saturday April 01, 2017 @07:07AM (#14011557)
Source?
Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by travmatt on Saturday April 01, 2017 @09:03AM (#14011903)
Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report. If true, the report will likely have a lasting negative impact on Wikileaks’ credibility. The report alleges that the transparency organization betrayed its own core values of “pristine leaking,” and did so in a way that protects Russia’s public image.

...

The report claims batch of emails were not included in the cache of documents Wikileaks published under the name the “Syria Files”in 2012. The emails allegedly show correspondence between the Central Bank of Syria and Russia’s VTB Bank. When the Daily Dot asked Wikileaks for comment, the transparency organization denied removing the batch of emails and vaguely threatened the journalist, saying, “You can be sure we will return the favor one day.”

It’s entirely possible that the hackers removed the email batch from the data dump it provided to Wikileaks. But it also seems very unlikely. As Daily Dot reporters Dell Cameron and Patrick Howell O’Neill point out in their story, they received 500 pages showing every step the hackers went through to infiltrate the Syrian government’s networks. The reporters say, “the court records leaked to the Daily Dot reveal the Moscow bank’s emails were, in fact, part of the larger backup file containing numerous emails currently found on the WikiLeaks site.”

https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-wi...

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by belorn on Saturday April 01, 2017 @03:00PM (#14013560)
So its a speculation by a forth-party. Why is this small news paper from Texas, 4,343 rank on alexa, credible for the claim that Wikileaks got everything in the backups but hiding parts of it? For example, do those 500 pages include any details to give the story validity that Daily Dot even got documents from "the hackers"?
Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by travmatt on Saturday April 01, 2017 @03:59PM (#14013850)
I love the cognitive dissonance needed to ignore the 'court case has shown' but and instead find the need to attack a source based on its Alexa rating, ignoring the other sources who reported the same story. It's exemplary of most Wikileaks supporters I've found.

Oddly enough, they never question why Assange, after bragging about his intention to dump 'kompromat' on Putin in November 2011, suddenly changed his mind in doing so and then signed a tv deal with Russian state media 2 months later. It surely didn't have anything to do with the death threats Russian intelligence issued against Wikileaks, nor with Assange's meeting with Putin in December 2011.

Re:Wikileaks releases CIA's Marble: Malware obfuscation tools by belorn on Sunday April 02, 2017 @04:25PM (#14018866)
Name calling is such a quality sign...

All the other sources wrote attributed the claims to Daily Dot. If they have independent verification of the hacker data we would have multiple independent claims and it would be a different matter. As it stand, it is only a single small news site from Texas that is staking their reputation behind this claim.