20 Mar 17
I fully agree with DeepThought that Wikileaks should not be blindly trusted. It is, however, notable, that the US did not publicly deny the allegations as far as I am aware. I am open to being corrected on that. If that is the case, then it suggests they are guilty. But it must be noted that although it was distasteful, it was probably not illegal as the US considers all foreigners fair game for wire taps. On that note any calls Trump made to his russian friends from Trump tower, were probably recorded (just as the calls by some of his staff to the Russian diplomat were recorded).
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou stated that we have no way of knowing and you were wrong, email dumps can be verified.
What has the authenticity of emails to do with whether documents on Wikileaks, the bulk of which are not emails (at least last time I looked), are genuine or not?
by unveiling another 1,135 emails in the latest, Part 26 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 43,104.
Thats 43,104 documents that can be verified to be precise and that only the Podesta dump.
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on March 3, 2017.
That's another 50,547 pages that can be verified.
In its 10 year history, not one single leak has ever proven to be false, something WikiLeaks prides itself on. If the leaks were false, everyone implicated in them would have immediately and aggressively denied their claims rather than simply change the subject in speculating if Russia did it.
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnfortunately, in this particular case, it could be 10 billion emails that were verified and it wouldn't change one iota the fact that Deepthought is right and there are many submissions to Wikileaks that cannot be verified because, by their very nature they come from anonymous sources and are so top secret that there is no way to independently verify them. Nor does the quantity of verified emails give any significant credibility to Wikileaks in general. If anything the timing of those leaks suggests an intent to interfere with the US election process on the behalf of Wikileaks.
Thats 43,104 documents that can be verified to be precise and that only the Podesta dump.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain it proves of nothing. That certain documents cannot be verified does not mean they are false or doctored or fabricated. Its not entirely clear what point you are trying to make other than they cannot be verified? So what? Furthermore emails can be verified making the assertion that we have no way of knowing at least in part, demonstrably false.
Unfortunately, in this particular case, it could be 10 billion emails that were verified and it wouldn't change one iota the fact that Deepthought is right and there are many submissions to Wikileaks that cannot be verified because, by their very nature they come from anonymous sources and are so top secret that there is no way to independently verify the ...[text shortened]... e leaks suggests an intent to interfere with the US election process on the behalf of Wikileaks.
The fact is that in ten years of releasing documents not a single iota has been shown to have been false, no not a single one.
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat the US has not commented is probably to avoid a game of twenty questions.
I fully agree with DeepThought that Wikileaks should not be blindly trusted. It is, however, notable, that the US did not publicly deny the allegations as far as I am aware. I am open to being corrected on that. If that is the case, then it suggests they are guilty. But it must be noted that although it was distasteful, it was probably not illegal as the ...[text shortened]... robably recorded (just as the calls by some of his staff to the Russian diplomat were recorded).
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLooking at the email header tells you what is written there, and that is all. If it has been tampered with then what you are reading is a false trail. To verify the header you have to check the list of machines actually exist and then query each of those servers. If the server allows you access to its records then what you are reading is what it says in the database. Email database records can be altered in such a way that one can only tell if they have been modified by forensic examination of the hard drive.
You stated that we have no way of knowing and you were wrong, email dumps can be verified.
by unveiling another 1,135 emails in the latest, Part 26 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 43,104.
Thats 43,104 documents that can be verified to be precise and that only the Podesta dump.
On March 16, 2016 Wi ...[text shortened]... mply change the subject in speculating if Russia did it.
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou believe whatever you want.
Looking at the email header tells you what is written there, and that is all. If it has been tampered with then what you are reading is a false trail. To verify the header you have to check the list of machines actually exist and then query each of those servers. If the server allows you access to its records then what you are reading is what it says ...[text shortened]... way that one can only tell if they have been modified by forensic examination of the hard drive.
DKIM Overview
DKIM provides a mechanism for verifying the integrity of a message. The message is signed before sending by encrypting a hash of its headers using public key encryption and then verified upon receipt by decrypting the signature using a public key (provided by the sender in a DNS record) and comparing the hash. This provides extremely strong assurance of a message's fidelity and authenticity, since any change to the message's headers or body will cause verification to fail.[/b]
https://www.mailenable.com/documentation/9.0/Enterprise/Domain_-_DKIM_(DomainKeys).html
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy point exactly.
Again it proves of nothing.
That certain documents cannot be verified does not mean they are false or doctored or fabricated.
But they could be. We just don't know.
Its not entirely clear what point you are trying to make other than they cannot be verified? So what?
So they can't be verified. So we shouldn't overly trust them.
Furthermore emails can be verified making the assertion that we have no way of knowing at least in part, demonstrably false.
Given that I never said we have no way of knowing about emails, I really don't know why you are trying to prove false an assertion you invented.
The fact is that in ten years of releasing documents not a single iota has been shown to have been false, no not a single one.
But that doesn't demonstrate that all released documents are to be trusted.
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhatever
My point exactly.
[b]That certain documents cannot be verified does not mean they are false or doctored or fabricated.
But they could be. We just don't know.
Its not entirely clear what point you are trying to make other than they cannot be verified? So what?
So they can't be verified. So we shouldn't overly trust them.
Furtherm ...[text shortened]... t a single one.
But that doesn't demonstrate that all released documents are to be trusted.[/b]
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtActually email when sent securely is like SSL, it is not easy to tamper with. To forge it you need either some significant technical work, or access to certain information from the sending domain. Not impossible, but unlikely in this case.
Looking at the email header tells you what is written there, and that is all. If it has been tampered with then what you are reading is a false trail.
20 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf an email is digitally signed then that is a different matter. To fake that one would need to have a copy of the private key. That however is irrelevant if an email was not authenticated in that way. It is also utterly irrelevant to any content Wikileaks has which is not in an email.
You believe whatever you want.
DKIM Overview
DKIM provides a mechanism for verifying the integrity of a message. The message is signed before sending by encrypting a hash of its headers using public key encryption and then verified upon receipt by decrypting the signature using a public key (provided by the sender in a DNS record) and comparing ...[text shortened]... .
https://www.mailenable.com/documentation/9.0/Enterprise/Domain_-_DKIM_(DomainKeys).html[/b]
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou are simply looking for some kind of pretext to undermine the integrity of wikileaks content and nothing you have proffered so far casts any doubt on it.
If an email is digitally signed then that is a different matter. To fake that one would need to have a copy of the private key. That however is irrelevant if an email was not authenticated in that way. It is also utterly irrelevant to any content Wikileaks has which is not in an email.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWikileaks is certainly now (more than ever) an enemy of the state. The powers that be will do everything they can to get false information through their system and they probably will succeed at some point. The perpatrators will expose the planted falshoods, and the credibility will then be called into question. The citizens glimpse into the "seething casm of evil" that is world politics will be hazed over with a dense fog of misinformation. The outcome is inevitable, its just a matter of when it will be realized. The question is what is the 5th estates next move?
You are simply looking for some kind of pretext to undermine the integrity of wikileaks content and nothing you have proffered so far casts any doubt on it.
Is DeepThought an actor of the state that is begining the attack on its credibilty, or does he value the the 5th estates cloud of amonymity and it's government stymying exposés? Who knows...but I'm afriad what he is saying "can or may have already happened"..."will happen".