undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNatsu9y ago0 comments

First, good if you don't watch CNN, it's junk food news. But regarding that story, you do LSAT testing, so you have to actually know a thing or two about the law. But how many normal people are in a position to contradict someone who is both a lawyer and an attorney when he tells them that? (Yes, I know enough to know the difference.)

As for who is better on document security, I wouldn't go down that rabbit hole to begin with. Have you read Assange's rationale for creating Wikileaks? The gist of it is that creating a leak culture raises the cost of conspiracies. This means that it's more difficult for any small group in power to plot against the public. So it's not really about document security, but closer to the opposite: to promote leaks so that nobody can control the flow of information.

So it's not about Trump or Clinton or any such short-sighted political machinations, but rather to ensure that nobody can get away with conspiring against the public.

It doesn't matter if the conspirator is Hillary or Flynn or whoever else. The point is to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can see how much this is hated by both sides these days, each calling the other hypocrite when they decry leaks against themselves. You can also see how those in power hate this from the Todd & Claire site, which I've seen very little press regarding.

Speaking of that, it's funny how a bunch of people on different continents coordinate with a sham of a porn site / UN "partner" to frame someone as a pedophile, but it barely warrants any mention, no? You read a lot of news, no? How much coverage have you seen? How much do you know about that? Doesn't it seem like a rather odd thing to ignore?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

graeme9y ago· 1 in thread

Fair enough. No, I hadn't heard anything about Assange since hearing his internet was cut off.

Current US political news is sucking up all thr oxygen. So there's a lot of stuff I imagine I'm not hearing about.

NatsuOP9y ago

Yeah, you won't find stories about that one in the news. But assuming it didn't get purged (and these things are wont to vanish), there were plenty of discussions / archives of the site. They used an obscure UN program to claim "partnership" with the UN by agreeing to abide by some set of principles, posted something to a UN website by virtue of that program and later got dumped when they were exposed.

The site itself was fake. The profiles were clones of each other, the images were mirrored images harvested from the web (to hide from reverse image search, but they weren't that clever because the mirroring was obvious).

The whole thing was basically a scam to make out JA as a pedophile, after which they ran off claiming to have been threatened. However, no part of the story held together.

Given how much work went into framing someone as a pedo and it got blown up publicly, it's kind of weird that it never hit the news.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse