Wikileaks ReleasesTrove of CIA Hacking Tools

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:12:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Wikileaks released a trove of documents about CIA hacking tools used to break into "smartphones, computers and even Internet-connected televisions."

What it means (according to Edward Snowden)"[it's the]first public evidence [of]USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe."

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

...Why is this dangerous? Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world.

Although Wikileaks says Signal and WhatsApp were compromised, Snowden says the released documents show "iOS/Android are what got hacked - a much bigger problem." Others say if you're worried about being hacked, Signal is still the safest option.

Check out Sam Biddle at The Intercept, Wikileaks Dump shows CIA Could Turn Smart TVs into Listening Devices.

< Where Will ISIS Fighters Go If the Caliphate Fails? | Tuesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wikileaks ReleasesTrove of CIA Hacking Tools | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Anybody (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:33 PM EST

ever wonder why Wikileaks never seems to have any hacked information from the Russians?

Because (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by smott on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:42:15 PM EST

It is a Russian propaganda machine


And Ed and his Bestie Glenn (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by smott on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:43:19 PM EST

Would not like you to know that


: Putin (none / 0) (#10)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:54:18 PM EST

wakes up every morning, smirks at himself in the mirror and says to himself "so many useful idiots, so little time".

Obviously (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:22:35 PM EST

I can't even believe the media reports anything that comes out of Wikileaks. You think they would have learned.


i must be missing something... (none / 0) (#22)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:11:21 PM EST

because...

wikileaks, a site devoted to leaking information... leaked mildly embarrassing emails from the DNC servers.... THUS...

It is a Russian propaganda machine

really?


: Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:23:53 PM EST

Really. You can even check Wikipedia.
According to a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, "By dribbling these out every day WikiLeaks is proving they are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Kremlin with a political agenda doing Vladimir Putin's dirty work to help elect Donald Trump.
BTW - That's not all that Wikileaks did.

Because Assange (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:19:54 PM EST

Would be dead, and any other known Wiki associates.
And anyone who handed Wiki hacked Russian secrets would be dead as well.
Russians do not play nice or civilized, they play for keeps.
Manning and Snowden would both be dead if they did what they did to Russia


: Assange (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:24:02 PM EST

has no worries on that account. He's doing Putin's dirty work for him. Yeah, kind of funny how many people in that Steele dossier seem to have died isn't it?

How convenient -- for the Kremlin. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:01:03 PM EST

Are we to therefore assume at this point that Wikileaks has resumed its former role as an independent and honest broker, and is not still acting as a tool -- unwitting or otherwise -- of the Russian intelligence services?

I'm sorry, but given everything that's happened thus far and considering the present and rapidly destabilizing state of our national politics, I don't think so. Julian Assange & Co. sheared their last bolt of credibility a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned.

And Aspidistra, if Kim Dotcom really said that, then he is truly as big a fool and tool in this matter as both Assange and Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald. That anyone would still take the Russians' word as good at this point is asinine.

Admittedly, I've often looked at the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies with a grain of suspicion, but I've no reason at all to believe that they would act to subvert our country's own democratic institutions. Seriously, what would be the point?

This crackpot notion that the CIA and other related agencies would conspire to fake a Russian intelligence hack of Democratic Party information systems makes absolutely no sense, logically or otherwise.

And exactly where that sort of thinking runs aground on the misty shores of anti-U.S. lunacy is on the question of motive. That is, what in the world do we as a nation gain with a manifestly irresponsible man like Trump in the White House? Just look at the chaos and divisiveness that's since come to pass just in the first five weeks. Who benefits from any of this?

More to that point, what does Russian President Vladimir Putin potentially stand to gain with Trump in place in the Oval Office, and right-wing nationalism on the rise in places like Britain, France and Germany, aided and abetted by the Kremlin's material and financial support?

Putin seeks a termination of the West's ruinous economic sanctions regime that was imposed on his country, and a resumption of Western capital investment. And he wants a free hand militarily and politically in Ukraine, the Caucasus and likely elsewhere in eastern Europe, which requires the destabilization of both the NATO alliance and the European Union.

Now ask yourself, who's likely to deliver on that particular agenda - Donald Trump and right-wing nationalists, or the CIA?

Speaking for myself only. Aloha.

i dont understand (none / 0) (#19)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:47:23 PM EST

.acting as a tool -- unwitting or otherwise -- of the Russian intelligence services

why you feel wikileaks had an obligation to suppress documents that were mildly embarrasing to the American Democratic Party. do you feel wikileaks should operate on a rule to never embarrass foreign political parties?


Political parties are private organizations. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:24:54 PM EST

They are not public entities, even though they operate in the public realm. As such, any private internal communications, electronic or otherwise, between various party officials and members are considered both privileged and confidential, unless otherwise or later specified by the immediate parties.

And unless they themselves are conspiring to commit an unlawful act, people in these private organizations ought to be able to enjoy both the expectation and the right to talk and communicate freely amongst themselves, without fear of eavesdropping by an unauthorized third party.

Hacking somebody else's computer and server for the purpose of obtaining personal information is a federal crime. By publicly disclosing the contents of privileged communications without permission of the parties in question, WikiLeaks facilitated criminal conduct and thus made itself a party to that crime.

If you feel otherwise, well, that's both irrelevant and amoral on your part, given that you very likely wouldn't appreciate it at all, were the same thing done to you personally.

As the late Nobel laureate and humanitarian once observed, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself."

That is, we are guilty of adhering to a rather odious double standard, whenever we seek to deny to others the same rights and privileges which we would otherwise demand for ourselves.

If you expect your private communications with others to be kept in confidence, then you ought to grant to others the exact same courtesy.

Think about it.


"unlawful act" (none / 0) (#28)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:49:37 PM EST

as an argument doesnt go any where. every country that has national secrets exposed, even when those national secrets expose criminal endeavors, would consider those who exposed it to be commiting an unlawful act. also, i could be wrong but i dont believe wikileaks publishes private personal information like Gawker.

i do see your point of political parties vs. public entities and upon consideration agree with you. wikileaks should only publish official government documents.


"Could be"? Nope (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:58:04 PM EST

You are wrong. No idea what your "belief" is based on, but Wikileaks absolutely DOES publish private, personal information. This has been well published in numerous media outlets previously.

Also, there were no "criminal endeavors" being exposed by Wikileaks and its hacking of private emails, so your analogy "doesn't do anywhere".


Maybe not (none / 0) (#29)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:56:29 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/hwp922k

I believe both Manning and Snowden stole documents that put informants lives in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Assange himself is under fire from gays in Saudi Arabia, dissidents in Turkey, and nonconformists elsewhere who complain that WikiLeaks' unredacted release of their names and personal information has exposed them to persecution from the very authorities that Assange claims to oppose.

: i agree it was best (none / 0) (#31)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 09:15:31 PM EST

Meanwhile, Assange himself is under fire from gays in Saudi Arabia, dissidents in Turkey, and nonconformists elsewhere who complain that WikiLeaks' unredacted release of their names and personal information has exposed them to persecution from the very authorities that Assange claims to oppose

when wikileaks published materials after having then reviewed and redacted by their previous partner news sources (The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, et alia).
re: Manning and Snowden
i dont believe i have ever commented on either.

Unplug your TV set when not in use! (none / 0) (#1)
by Aspidistra on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:34:04 PM EST

That Intercept article was very good. Here is Kim Dotcom's take on this:

"CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state. It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE."

So (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:59:31 PM EST

the CIA hacked the DNC and Podesta in order to discredit Hillary, all while blaming the Russians. Now they turn around and are using the Russians to discredit tRump. Makes sense to me.


Sounds crazy... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:12:36 PM EST

but so did MK-Ultra and a slew of other maniacal and/or lame-brained plots originating outta Langley...I have no clue what to think anymore, but I'm cool with the CIA and our entire national security/intelligence cartel being disbanded and rebuilt, just in case. Sh*t maybe the plan was to discredit Democrats and Republicans in one fell swoop to pave the way for a coup de tat!


: I bet (none / 0) (#4)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:22:30 PM EST

it's Jill Stein and the Greenies behind it all.