Home / Robert Farley / Hold Off on “Verified”

Hold Off on “Verified”


Well this, from Julian’s “support” account, is not freakishly creepy in any way:

And the mission of the WL Task Force:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Cheerfull


    • Hayden Arse

      Yeah I saw that, it does seem a bit like a prank.

  • pillsy

    I am shocked to my core that WikiLeaks is stepping up to do the dirty work for the worst sorts of authoritarian shitbirds.

  • humanoid.panda

    Protocols of Elders of Zion+ dime store anarchism + corporate speak+ sexual nangups= Wikileaks.

    • wjts

      I couldn’t tell you why, but “sexual nangups” strikes me as a felicitously apposite typo.

      • N__B

        That’s like, just your opinion, mang.

      • los


    • Morbo
    • mpavilion

      I saw you tweet this earlier! Busted!! ;)

      • humanoid.panda

        Time to construct a thinkfluencer map for my nefarious influence.

        • los

          I’m in!
          Irresistible Concept!

  • FlipYrWhig

    Hey, maybe they can find out some stuff about Donald Trump’s family, job, finances, and housing!

  • LWA

    I keep wondering when some person within the IRS or Trump Organization with access to his tax records will drop the dime.

    • Brad Nailer

      I’d love to see it, but five years and five thousand bucks is a hell of a deterrent.

      • tsam

        I’m positive wikifreaks would take all possible steps to protect the id—HAHAHAHA I can’t do it without laughing.

    • mpavilion

      What would it matter now?

  • Hercules Mulligan

    The cease and desist tweets to anyone calling Assange a rapist are the real cherry on top.

    These guys are now officially a 65-year-old SuperPAC lawyer who threatens to sue anyone who insults them online. God bless.

    • Cassiodorus
      • Just_Dropping_By

        I think Woods’ pursuit of this case was stupid and vindictive, but the reactions of people to it are even more stupid. An individual client or witness’ identity is virtually never protected by attorney-client privilege since it’s typically a fact issue, not a matter of legal advice, and it require pretty exotic circumstances for revealing a client or witness’ identity to also expose (even implicitly) the substance of legal advice that was provided.

        • Cassiodorus

          I was think more along the lines of it’s absurd the case wasn’t tossed.

          • Sophia

            Calling James Woods a cocaine addict does seem like it should be at the opposite end of “can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” in First Amendment analysis.

        • los

          James Woods triggers bigly.

  • I guess they thought that sounds nicer than We want to stalk the hell out of everyone.

    • tsam

      Funny how they’re starting to look exactly like what their purported mission was said to be combating.

      Also: AI software. LOL. K.

  • tsam

    Other suggestions?

    OH, I got suggestions, bro. I got ’em.

  • leftwingfox

    Apparently the best defense is a good assault.

  • Frank Wilhoit

    A very wise friend of mine once said, “to discover is to overestimate”. The whole field of humint data mining, going back to the Renaissance, has consisted largely of connections and correlations being discovered — and then promptly and irreversibly overestimated. Modern technology allows this to be done a little more quickly and recklessly. It also lowers the barriers to entry. But, of course, the real problem is the demand for exactly this kind of inherently-compromised “intelligence product”.

    Bottom line: there is nothing qualitatively new here, and looking at the storytellers instead of at the audiences is still the same fatal mistake that it always has been.

    • brewmn

      I’ve been amusing myself on Facebook by asking all the nutjobs, left wing and right wing alike, what exactly in the WL releases during the campaign proves Clinton’s corruption, that the DNC rigged the primaries, etc. I’ve yet to receive a substantive response.

      Apparently the mere fact that they were private proves their authors and recipients were irredeemably corrupt.

      • los

        what exactly in the WL releases during the campaign proves Clinton’s corruption

        If there’s something significantly corrupt
        1. it’s lost in the haystack, and in the magatwits’ megafied haynation.
        2. the corruption doesn’t come close to GOP/Koch/ALEC/etc SOP corruption.

    • humanoid.panda

      Bottom line: there is nothing qualitatively new here, and looking at the storytellers instead of at the audiences is still the same fatal mistake that it always has been.

      That’s really missing the forest for the trees. The point of this database is not to “expose networks of influence.” It’s to provide harassers with an easy directory of targets.

  • Latest tweets:

    WikiLeaks Task Force ‏@WLTaskForce 34m34 minutes ago
    [email protected] @kevincollier As we stated the idea is to look at the network of *relationships* that influence — not to publish addresses.

    WikiLeaks Task Force ‏@WLTaskForce 40m40 minutes ago
    Dishonest press reporting our speculative idea for database of account influencing *relationships* with WikiLeaks doxing home addresses.

    And what’s with tweeting “cease and desist” notices?

    • Dudefella

      “Dishonest press”, huh? I feel like I’ve heard that line before, but I can’t put my finger on it…

      • Some think it sounds better in the original German…

  • Gary K

    Is it just me, or are others seeing this post next to an ad from the Sound Money Defense League?

  • The whole tone of the tweets is that of someone launching an online harassment campaign.

  • Morbo

    I know this will make me look like a horrible nerd who spends too much time on the internet, but sometimes I wonder what Motoko-chan from Balloon Juice would think about her beloved Wikileaks these days.

    • Davis X. Machina


    • rachelmap

      Thinking was not Motoko-chan’s strong suit. When she was right about something, it was pretty much by accident.

  • Murc

    Goddamit, wikileaks.

    I’ve been defending your work for years, I really have, but why did you have to turn into a bunch of nutbags?

    What the fuck is wrong with other civil libertarians that turns them so quickly into narcissistic political nihilists? Is this just something that’s going to happen to me at some point? I hope not.

    • pillsy

      They somehow come to believe that authoritarianism is flaw that specifically resides in particular political actors who are therefor evil and tainted, rather than a tendency and temptation that afflicts the good and the wicked (not to mention the hapless, the self-interested, and the mediocre) alike.

      • LWA

        This is very perceptive.
        We do have a tendency to personalize flaws that are pretty much universal; as if power wasn’t some equal opportunity corrupter.

      • Barry_D

        “They somehow come to believe that authoritarianism is flaw that specifically resides in particular political actors who are therefor evil and tainted, rather than a tendency and temptation that afflicts the good and the wicked (not to mention the hapless, the self-interested, and the mediocre) alike.”

        I disagree; that would have led them to really dislike Putin.

        • brewmn

          No, I think it still applies. In their world, VP is one of the good guys fighting against Western neoliberal tyranny.

          • pillsy

            Right. They replaced commitment to the principles of their civil libertarianism with the same sort of tribalism that’s rife in any sort of partisan politics, often taking the perceived hypocrisy of their opponents as license to engage in gross hypocrisy of their own.

    • Hob

      You’re assuming that Assange started out as a good guy and then turned into what he is now. Maybe, but I think a more common situation is that someone who already has severe character flaws gets into a field of work that has a small but passionate following… and the followers have an incentive to ignore the character flaws, because their cause needs all the help it can get, and also maybe because they have lots of experience of being dismissed as cranks (let’s say unfairly – this works the same whether the cause really is worthy or not) and are therefore inclined to give someone with a similar reputation extra benefit of the doubt. And Mr. Flaws also has an incentive, at first, to tone down his worst impulses a bit because the excitement of being part of this thing and getting attention for it is rewarding enough… for a while.

      In other words, I don’t think it’s necessarily anything specific to this particular political ideology. I think you’re seeing something that can easily happen in any kind of activist or activist-ish organization… especially if the scope of concrete work that can be done is much smaller than the scope of publicity. Someone who’s really comfortable with being a celebrity leader figure in that setting may seem like the natural person to rally around, but they’re not unlikely to turn out to be bad people.

      (Also, when you say “turn into a bunch of nutbags,” that’s sort of glossing over the almost total lack of information about how many people actually work for Assange, and to what extent they’re the same people who started out with him.)

      • Origami Isopod

        This sounds right.

        It’s also one reason abuse goes unreported in various subcultures that are looked down upon by the mainstream.

    • Bruce B.

      Murc, you have two crucial features that make it less likely you’ll go that way.

      #1. You are okay with change, including changes of priority and tactics, to suit changing realities.

      #2. You’re willing to ask “Have I screwed up?”, and listen honestly to the answers. Like all of us, you like to be right, but you like being right because that’s where the evidence and good reasoning go, as opposed to being right because of course you’re right and it’s just a matter of selecting the bits that fit.

      As a professor friend puts it, “It’s important that you be all about the truth, not the truth being all about you.”

  • JMP

    So Wikileaks is basically trying to become Big Brother. Remember when they claimed to be defending freedom, instead of the opposite?

    • Davis X. Machina

      They’re not defending your freedom to be wrong, because that would be very, very bad.

  • Origami Isopod

    So they doxxed the wrong guy. Total surprise. And WL is spinning it as proof there needs to be a database.

    • XTPD

      Fuck ’em.

      Also, OT: I love Shark Jumping.

      • Origami Isopod

        If you read the thread, Zoe Quinn and a few other people are comparing WL tweets to @dril tweets. It’s hilarious.

    • Murc

      I’m not sure that’s actually a doxx? I mean… there is a David Keye, he is a former state department official. That’s public information, surely?

      I would, in other situations, be entirely in favor of something that let me go “that name sounds familiar.” And I punch it in and find out “oh. They’re the son of the one of the biggest dirtbag lobbyists to ever lobby and the brother-in-law of a shitstain Senator.”

      But I just don’t trust wikileaks to set that up at this point.

      • Hob

        WL was saying “this handle on Twitter is the same person as this State Department official”. If @davidakaye had actually been that person, and had not identified himself as such, WL would have been revealing something that’s not public information. Instead, they fucked up and told everyone that these two totally unrelated people (not even spelled the same) are the same.

  • thebewilderness

    How very 4Chan of them.

  • Taylor

    It would be great if they could set up a database for doxxing FBS-sponsored Twitter trolls.

    Uncle Vlad has the information, they just need to set up overnight updates from Moscow.

It is main inner container footer text