World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Do leaks and hacks accomplish what agencies fail?
date
newest »
newest »
Law enforcement agencies are hobbled by, well, the law. Thankfully, hacks and leaks tell us what government agencies can't or won't tell us.
Does the mainstream media have an interest in genuine investigative journalism, or are they more mouthpieces for the presentation of the agendas of the powerful, the established, the status quo?When was the last time that the mainstream media brought a story to the public's attention that unsettled, destabilised, exposed, or attacked the establishment?
Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "When was the last time that the mainstream media brought a story to the public's attention that unsettled, destabilised, exposed, or attacked the establishment? .."So, they are effectively harnessed, you think?
Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Does the mainstream media have an interest in genuine investigative journalism, or are they more mouthpieces for the presentation of the agendas of the powerful, the established, the status quo?W..."
Daily Telegraph exposure of MPs' expenses scandal comes to mind. The Guardian's publishing of Snowden. The problem is that law enforcement is often the source of the scandal e.g current cover up following whistle blowing in Met Police
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-27234...
In terms of leaks and hacks, WannaCrypt has done something the agencies seem incapable of doing. Trouble is, it is criminal.
Graeme wrote: "When was the last time that the mainstream media brought a story to the public's attention that unsettled, destabilised, exposed, or attacked the establishment?"Answer: Yesterday, and every day since Trump was elected, mainstream media in the U.S. have attacked the establishment. It's laughable to think that the media here is unbiased, when every news report about the President's actions is followed by biased commentary.
Huh. That is a great question. I shall have to ponder. 1st, I think there needs to be consensus on what a 'win' is for each side, or we will be arguing different ideas right off. --Jen from Quebec 0)
Ian wrote: "In terms of leaks and hacks, WannaCrypt has done something the agencies seem incapable of doing. Trouble is, it is criminal."Yeah, that's exactly the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, where you can't act through illegal means to obtain evidence. On the other side - we as a public have interest in these revelations...
Then maybe make them legal? If laws like Patriotic Act can allow things that allegedly infringe personal liberties, why can't people disclosing to the public corrupted or illegal practices within the establishment can't have immunity for example?
Leaks & hacks are sometimes publicly beneficial at the expense of organization and individuals, who are exposed. On the one hand, we need whistle-blowers to forewarn the public, but on the other - we also need confidentiality and secrecy. So, where is the fine line?
I think if the line is fine, it should not be crossed. But sometimes, if it is a gross chasm, such as using the state for personal benefit, or for unstated political purposes that are unstated because they would become criminal, not counting the whistle blowing, then leap.
Graeme wrote: "Does the mainstream media have an interest in genuine investigative journalism, or are they more mouthpieces for the presentation of the agendas of the powerful, the established, the status quo?W..."
Just mouthpieces. Look at the non-coverage of Jeffrey Epstein.
Scout wrote: "Graeme wrote: "When was the last time that the mainstream media brought a story to the public's attention that unsettled, destabilised, exposed, or attacked the establishment?"Answer: Yesterday, ..."
Someone recently leaked a conversation from a former ABC reporter caught on an open mic decrying how she had an interview with one of Epstein's victims and ABC refused to air it 3 years ago. The implication is that since Epstein was closely linked to the Clintons, the story would be harmful to Hillary during the campaign.
Back to the present, ABC identified the person they thought leaked the tape as a staffer who currently works for CBS. They contacted CBS and got the staffer fired. The media is all for leakers and whistleblowers until they shine the unfavorable spotlight on them.
How else is the public to know what's really going on without leakers and hackers? Those in power certainly aren't going to expose themselves (Anthony Weiner excepted :-)
This summer ABC obtained, through an employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections, footage of prisoners getting out of their locked cells and attacking each other and guards. The locks not being repaired and being nonfunctional had been reported many many times to the higher ups and the Director without anything being done. Inmates and guards were being harmed. ABC investigated further and discovered there was a building fund for these things but that money had gone elsewhere. DOC's response was to put padlocks on 1,000 doors, which violates fire code. ADOC finally moved the inmates elsewhere and are now fixing the doors and locking system. The Director claimed hid didn't know and a former deputy warden revealed in 2013-2014 he sent 703 reports that 25% of the locks didn't work. Subsequently Director Ryan announced his resignation. If it hadn't been for the leak of the video surveillance it would obviously still be ongoing since it had already been a problem for 5 years. Who knows if the new director will be any better, but without the leak Ryan would still be in charge.
I think the line is when there is harm and the person who is responsible refuses to do their job, especially when that person is at the top of the totem pole of power.
Yes, I'm all for leakers who expose corruption. I thought hacking the DNC emails was fine. Hillary's people were stupid enough to put into writing their plans to derail Bernie's campaign, despite public avowals to the contrary. It seems to me that the DNC were the conniving bad guys, not the hackers. The hackers exposed something about the DNC that needed to be made public.
Scout wrote: "Yes, I'm all for leakers who expose corruption. I thought hacking the DNC emails was fine. Hillary's people were stupid enough to put into writing their plans to derail Bernie's campaign, despite p..."I largely agree, but one thing about the DNC leaks I found troubling, (and I'm shocked, no one to this day has taken issue with it) is that in the blanket release was the personal information of every donor. If you donated as little as $5 to the DNC, your personal information was up there on Wikileaks alongside all the other DNC "business."
What kinds of personal information was disclosed?
Scout wrote: "What kinds of personal information was disclosed?"In June 2016, the Gawker stated:
... although nothing we’ve reviewed contains any credit card or other banking information, the hackers appear to be in possession of a large number of spreadsheets rife with names, cell phone and office numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, occupations, and contribution histories of hundreds, if not thousands, of Democratic donors.
July 2016, Brietbart stated, "A 38-page long excel file found in the leaks contains the names, addresses, occupations, employers and amount of money donated to the Trump campaign of over two thousand republican voters."
I can't see anything good coming from that.
And it all ended up on Wikileaks where everyone could see it, not just those specific individuals who deal in this kind of information.
J.J. wrote: "And it all ended up on Wikileaks where everyone could see it, not just those specific individuals who deal in this kind of information."A 'collateral damage' that those who leak, if they truly do it with some benevolent intent, should avoid
I guess the recent major leak of US secret doc-s, some of them apparently doctored before release, may have wide ramifications: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...So far, we get a new "portion" of revelations daily. Some say it's a PsyOp, accusing in it different actors. What do you think?
I find this latest leak getting more and more bizarre by the day. They have arrested the leaker, but it raises the question, what was actually leaked? There is the allegation that he leaked the fact that the US doubts that the Ukraine war will change much this summer because neither side have the capacity to do much, but General Mark Milley has publicly stated that anyway. Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, you can't leak something in the public domain. If the allegation relies on detail that is not in the public domain, the young man could simply say he made them up and got lucky because the US is not going to disclose genuine fine detail..He leaked that the US is spying on its allies, but we all knew that well before his efforts. He leaked that Egypt was contemplating a billion dollar deal of rockets for Russia, which Egypt denies. Of course they would anyway, but evidence?
Then if the leaks are really genuine, how did this guy get access to the documents? He is so junior that if the allegations are true and he really did it, surely professional spies from elsewhere could have done what he did? Or there is something truly weird about the handling of "top secret" stuff in the US so that he actually did get access to stuff that only the very top level guys are supposed to get?
You know how when a bad manager takes over your favorite store, things fall apart and you don't shop there anymore? That's what's happening here. We have a really incompetent president, and things are falling apart at all levels.
Personally, I think whoever was supposedly in charge of this young guy should be charged with dereliction of duty. He might as well have been AWOL.
But heck they seem to bring to the public eye quite a lot of illegal and equally questionable stuff of secret services, people in power and so on.
Once it was investigative journalism, now - it's hackers and leakers.
Sometimes it seems they are much more successful in doing the job of police and other agencies, responsible for guarding liberties and citizens, clean-handedness of politicians and so on.
Not saying it's Ok, but maybe law enforcement authorities should be a little less dormant? What do you think?