Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday January 09 2017, @07:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-go-first-wikileaks-task-force dept.

WikiLeaks wants to start building a list of verified Twitter users that would include highly sensitive and personal information about their families, their finances and their housing situations.

"We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships," WikiLeaks tweeted Friday.

The disclosure organization, run by Julian Assange, says the information would be used for an artificial-intelligence program. But Twitter users immediately fired back, saying WikiLeaks would use the list to take political vengeance against those who criticize it.

Twitter "verifies" certain users, such as world leaders, nonprofit organizations and news outlets, with a blue check mark beside their names so that other users of the service can be confident about the posters' identities. WikiLeaks, which has a verified Twitter account, did not say whether it would subject itself to the scrutiny it was proposing. (It was also unclear whether, under its plan, WikiLeaks would seek to uncover information about the financial lives of Russian President Vladimir Putin or President-elect Donald Trump, both of whom are verified on Twitter.)

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @08:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @08:33PM (#451610)

    So what?
    You linked to an article that you intend as some generic support for some non-specific criticism you are trying to make.
    What is your POINT?
    State your arguments up front and directly so that people can engage with them.
    To do otherwise is to admit your arguments are too weak too survive examination.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @08:49PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 09 2017, @08:49PM (#451615) Journal

    WaPo. MSM. A tweet was posted, and subsequently deleted. I look at the scant evidence, and wonder WTF it was all about. And, I wonder WTF MSM even cares about Wikileaks. I'm fairly sure that Wikileaks isn't going to mandate that a database be kept on all verified accounts, along with the financial records, family and other affiliations of those accountes, blah blah ad nauseum.

    My point is, there has to be more to this story, and trying to draw any conclusions at this point amounts to pure speculation. People who hate Assange and Wikileaks are going to speculate some wildly crazy stuff. People who like Assange and Wikileaks are going to dismiss most of that wildly crazy stuff.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:23PM (#451645)

      > And, I wonder WTF MSM even cares about Wikileaks.

      Really?
      So now reporting on wikileaks isn't newsworthy.

      > trying to draw any conclusions at this point amounts to pure speculation

      WIkileaks has had plenty of opportunity to elaborate. That they did not is itself newsworthy.
      If an organization chooses to communicate through twitter then reporting on what they say on twitter is fair game.