> Because the data is sensitive and full of PII, DDoSecrets is only sharing it with journalists and researchers.
Yeah I'm normally a big proponent of responsible disclosure, but in this case, I think the more painful, damaging leak is required.
Firstly, autocrats, fascists & oligarchs don't care that much if you hack them. They will just keep using these tools (or another one just like it) ignoring the correct procedure their government already wants them to use. The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. Their incompetence put their nations at risk, and now it's clear they have failed to keep their intel safe. They have failed hard, let them fail hard.
Second, journalists and researchers have almost completely lost their power. In a non-democratic world (we're nearly there, just give them a little more time), when a journalist exposes corruption or incompetency, that journalist/researcher is simply silenced by the government. Silence the journalists and nobody knows what's going on so oppression can continue unchecked. Every person who gets silenced has a greater chilling effect on the whole society; nobody wants to be next. This is how authoritarians gain power. Oppression with no resistance or consequence legitimizes the oppression.
If we were just talking about typical corporate incompetence re: security, and the only thing at stake is a single stock or individuals' data, I would say disclose responsibly. But when it comes to stopping autocracy, the gloves have to come off. They sure as shit aren't gonna play by any rules, so neither should we.
They don't need to "silence journalists", since a large number of people were duped to think real truth comes from random anonymous accounts on social media or from some charismatic political influencer they follow. It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that.
Journalists being a "check on the government" is a tale for the gullible. That's why there doesn't need to be any silencing of them. Glory to the exceptions, of course.
>It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that.
Especially in conditions when you don't have to lie at that.
It's not because voters are so gullible that they are ready to believe any word of a charismatic leader. The loss of trust to the mainstream media and to the scientific community is a natural phenomenon in environment when they only tell lies to push their political agenda.
> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions.
This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have to get Americans to really feel the pain, and to do that I need to <horrible violence> to them to wake them up and make them see how things are bad."
Hurting people in order to make them see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.
This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have lie and cover up the truth of the <horrible violence> being done to them so they'll never see how bad things have gotten."
Lying to people in order to make them never see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.
If we really think about the issue, then it is clear that 99.99% of the government information can be public with zero consequences to the citizens. I'm guessing the only few exceptions are active military ops, active spy ops and ways to access secure systems (passwords etc.). Everything else is more or less safe. Embarrassing to the politicians, but safe.
You need to account for the risk of blackmail, persecution, and embarrassment (e.g., evidence of infidelity, refugee status, medical condition). Most of the time, citizens have the right to keep secrets or lie.
Citizens - yes. Politicians outside of the job, using whatever comms they wish - also yes. Politicians on the job - no. All their job communications can be public, and humanity and citizens of the country would be actually much safer than now. Outside of the military/intel ones, of course.
I imagine that any dump of government communications will contain sensitive information about citizens or government employees who didn't directly engage in the chats. Soldiers, contractors, patients in a database. Especially if Congressional Representatives have their chats leaked. One of their roles is helping constituents work through red tape. Mine sends a weekly email tooting his own horn, including how many people he helped with social security or getting VA benefits.
I'm not saying these chats shouldn't be released. But I'd hope the names and other identifying info of people who weren't uninvolved would be redacted, just keeping the context to show what kind of information was being carelessly shared. Of course, given the admin's shamelessness, they'd claim anything with redacted info was faked. It might be better to leave it verifiable.
I feel like it's valuable to not flatten the context here. We are talking about leaking texts by the Trump admin (and I guess some law enforcement agencies using this?).
There is a lot of daylight between dropping a bunch of texts for government officials and committing horrible violence against people as a whole! These are not the same thing! One could be good/fine while the other is bad!
Having said that I would worry for a WikiLeaks-style "oh now this random person's info is out there because it was in one of these e-mails".
That quote does not say anything about citizens inflicting pain on others. That’s such a strange way to read it. It’s saying to vote shitty leaders out. I’m not sure what you think any other possible alternative there could be.
> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions.
The consequences likely wouldn’t be felt by those leaders though. Who knows what info is in those logs about informants, agents etc etc. Leak it openly and they’re dead.
The national broadcaster picked 2 things to report on, then gave the rest of it back to the government.
The act of helping cover this shit up likely changed the course of politics in this country for decades. Theres likely stuff in that cabinet that was well in the public interest and needed disclosure.
Signalgate or whatever is likely the same. And I dont care which party it harms or whatever. It seems relevant that people should have more information, not less considering everything that is happening.
Yeah I'm normally a big proponent of responsible disclosure, but in this case, I think the more painful, damaging leak is required.
Firstly, autocrats, fascists & oligarchs don't care that much if you hack them. They will just keep using these tools (or another one just like it) ignoring the correct procedure their government already wants them to use. The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. Their incompetence put their nations at risk, and now it's clear they have failed to keep their intel safe. They have failed hard, let them fail hard.
Second, journalists and researchers have almost completely lost their power. In a non-democratic world (we're nearly there, just give them a little more time), when a journalist exposes corruption or incompetency, that journalist/researcher is simply silenced by the government. Silence the journalists and nobody knows what's going on so oppression can continue unchecked. Every person who gets silenced has a greater chilling effect on the whole society; nobody wants to be next. This is how authoritarians gain power. Oppression with no resistance or consequence legitimizes the oppression.
If we were just talking about typical corporate incompetence re: security, and the only thing at stake is a single stock or individuals' data, I would say disclose responsibly. But when it comes to stopping autocracy, the gloves have to come off. They sure as shit aren't gonna play by any rules, so neither should we.