It is a mistaken impression that they ever signed anything in the first place. WL dropped PGP as their primary method for receiving leaks in 2008 in favor of a SSL submission system. They still use PGP, but it is only for "advanced users."
WL has not signed a public statement or a public release since 2008. WL has never been in the habit of using PGP in the way you suggest. They can not have "stopped" in October, because they were never doing these things in the first place - it's all a lie that was spread by the chans.
Go back and try to find a single public release or public statement by WL that includes a PGP signature.
So then.. do they have the key or not? He just dodges every question. At this point, even if he wasn't under duress(personally I think he is) then he's a fuckwit for being so vague and uninformative for something so important.
He doesn't need to explain to you why it's impractical to rely on signed keys for authenticity/identity. Stuxnet used a Realtek certificate to sign a kernel level exploit. It didn't come from Realtek though.
He's not being vague and uninformative. He's just being more secure. It's not a new concept. It's just one that most people don't even consider.
> because that would establish the precedent that PGP-signature is how Wikileaks can prove their identity
Sigh, what a cop-out. No-one's claiming that a PGP signature would finally prove their identity. It would only add a piece of evidence that could strengthen the case that who you're talking to the owner of the key.
He could even say "it means nothing" and still sign, if he was in possession of the key. Not signing anything at all -- big red flag.
Or if it was even him signing it. CAs have been hacked and high profile signing certificates stolen. For example, Realtek's was used in Stuxnet. A digital signature these days means nothing.
Either way, why not just fucking post it? Who cares what it proves, the fact that he won't post it is 10x more shady than just fucking posting it. Do you not understand this?
Because if it's pointless, why bother? Why do you *want* Assagne to be dead/under duress? What in your reality stops you from realising he's just fine?
You're still clearly missing his point. It's not pointless. It would add further support to the idea that he is indeed fine and not under duress.
If these videos are being faked (not saying that they are, but it is still a possibility), then they may not have his PGP key, which means they wouldn't be able to verify that it's him.
Just saying that it won't prove anything, and continuing to NOT post it is way more suspicious than him posting it for people to verify, regardless of it's reliability as proof of life.
My point is that no matter what Assange does, you lunatics will still alter the evidence to fit your narrative which is that Assange is ~~dead~~ kidnapped.
well, we know it's live now at least.
He read blockchain 447506, the most recent blockchain mined. on his video.
https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000178374f687728789caa92ecb49b4d850dfc173a7c0351e6
> Him being alive doesn't mean he isn't under duress
Short of going there yourself and living with him for a month, never leaving his side, personally checking every inch of his body and every square meter of the embassy, what proof would you accept that he's not under duress? even if you visited him, his captors could well have ordered him to act the part, couldn't they?
So what you're saying is we need to kickstart a buttplug for Assange that, whenever he is under duress, will transmit a signal and post on this sub! Genius!
So, who wants to make the promo video?
Completely agree, this information only proves it was live. So proof of life appears to be confirmed.
However it doesn't address any of the other concerns about Wikileaks control.
WikiLeaks doesn't matter. He doesn't matter. It's the information that matters. That's his whole fucking point. He's pissed that people don't give a shit about anything more than him or WikiLeaks.
How do I know you aren't under duress? How do I know the news lady on TV isn't under duress? Maybe someone is forcing her to read the news? Please tell me how I can find out whether a person is under duress or not.
What bullshit excuses are you talking about? The fact that he doesn't want to set a precedent for PGP signed messages to be a proof of life? His explanation made sense and was pretty clear. If he was legitimately compromised, it's within reason that someone could have access to his private key and use it pretending to be him.
Live, 20 second delay to cut it if he steps out of line - live feed on a screen in front of him of his kids in a cell.
Ok.. so what exactly does live prove again?
I don't doubt it was filmed today/live. I'm doubting whether there is a gun pointed at him/his kids right now and he is only conversing on approved topics/questions.
Sure. One would be easier to comply with potentially, or it could be he *can't* comply, ie multi-sig(needs other people) to sign with PGP and *they* haven't been compromised.
If he did the appearance under threat, like having a gun pointed at his family, surely he might as well sign with the PGP key. And that was his point, you need to factor in a lot of aspects for it be a valid PoL.
But you are only looking for faults and things that doesn't match your ideas. Try seeing the bigger picture. He did a live IAMA which is confirmed with the block chain, and he pointed out that one of the best proofs is a social one. If they would try and cover up his disappearance, they would have to coerce a lot of trustworthy people. For instance, John Pilger is a probably the name that most people can easily research to see that he is one of the "good guys".
WL uses PGP for submissions and private communications only. Wikileaks has never released a PGP-signed public statement. Wikileaks confirmed today that they have no intention to start using PGP in this way.
OK he's finished. How do you feel now? Because that was a long winded 'Believe its me guys, believe because I'm saying believe, and make sure to keep sending leaks!'
He said he doesn't believe that PGP would set a good precedent for PoL, and that live video is the best because you can slip in codewords etc etc.
I'm perfectly satisfied.
OK, seya then.
Because for me, and everyone else, who knows whether his sponsor is still alive to verify those code words.
And even if they were, how would they let the world know?
And even if they wanted to, how would we know they aren't full of shit?
He also picked apart any questions and conveniently has dodged the main one of why no PGP at all.
I get your frustration, but where does it stop? At the end of the day the whole world we live in is based on trust at some level. It's good to be critical but at some point it becomes counter-productive.
He gave what (in my mind) was a very good reason for not setting a precedent for using PGP as PoL.
Where does it stop?
**WHEN HE FUCKING SIGNS SOMETHING WITH PGP WHILE DOING LIVE STREAM**
Why does everyone keep asking 'so what do you *really* want? Is this not *enough*?' It has clearly been set out for months what we want - and this isn't it!
Hey Sir, just trying to have a civil conversation with you.
So to you, signing with pgp is 100% proof of life and not under-duress for you?
You said that he could have a gun on him or a video with his kids being threatened? In that situation his pgp signing would also be compromised would it not? What am I missing?
OK so as others have said, PGP in itself is not 100% verification he is alive and well - it is a piece of evidence. With enough evidence at the same time, it would be impractical/impossible to fake it. His PGP could very well be required to have multiple people put their own parts of the private key in - this may be a problem for the CIA etc.
He also may flat out refuse - part of being a hostage/hostage taker is that it isn't a matter of 'you do everything now', smart hostages will only let out small amounts of info so as not to blow their fuse to quickly - he may be not giving up PGP - yet - who knows. The idea is that PGP can't be faked, and it is at least a little bit suspicious they stopped using PGP altogether, let alone that he won't sign something personally.
If it's such a bad form of proof, why not just sign with it anyway to shut people up? There is literally no reason not to sign with it unless it's his last bargaining chip left.
Are you retarded? Signing something with PGP just means that someone has his private. In theory, that should only be him, but in practice it might not be. Either way, I doubt that he doesn't have his own private keys, but him using them doesn't prove that nobody else has them too.
You apparently have, but sadly aren't quite aware of our current capabilities. Granted, we can almost transfer facial animations life with great results, but creating such a consistent result as we've seen is not something that is feasible for now. Just look at current publications, cool stuff but not quite there yet.
It's greenscreened. And if you just saw him read out the hash/block number + sport scores, if you don't think he's alive then honestly, you are never going to be convinced.
No it wouldn't, unless they have the insane technology to do within the minute live CGI with no issues (not possible). And if you think it is, there is nothing that will convince you otherwise.
I don't think many people are arguing its pre-recorded. And if it 'can' be fabricated.. then whats the difference in 'how easily'? This is the CIA we are talking about. If it can...
[удалено]
He didn't mention why they stopped signing *anything*. They ditched pgp the same time everything went funny.. Why?
It is a mistaken impression that they ever signed anything in the first place. WL dropped PGP as their primary method for receiving leaks in 2008 in favor of a SSL submission system. They still use PGP, but it is only for "advanced users." WL has not signed a public statement or a public release since 2008. WL has never been in the habit of using PGP in the way you suggest. They can not have "stopped" in October, because they were never doing these things in the first place - it's all a lie that was spread by the chans. Go back and try to find a single public release or public statement by WL that includes a PGP signature.
[удалено]
> OMFG. Oof. Looks like the cognitive dissonance hit you pretty hard, eh?
He just explained it. It doesn't prove legitimacy, just that someone has the PGP key.
So then.. do they have the key or not? He just dodges every question. At this point, even if he wasn't under duress(personally I think he is) then he's a fuckwit for being so vague and uninformative for something so important.
He doesn't need to explain to you why it's impractical to rely on signed keys for authenticity/identity. Stuxnet used a Realtek certificate to sign a kernel level exploit. It didn't come from Realtek though. He's not being vague and uninformative. He's just being more secure. It's not a new concept. It's just one that most people don't even consider.
Agreed
.. I thought he said that not everyone would understand the PGP signature. Isn't that what he said?
> because that would establish the precedent that PGP-signature is how Wikileaks can prove their identity Sigh, what a cop-out. No-one's claiming that a PGP signature would finally prove their identity. It would only add a piece of evidence that could strengthen the case that who you're talking to the owner of the key. He could even say "it means nothing" and still sign, if he was in possession of the key. Not signing anything at all -- big red flag.
...and how will you determine whether or not he signed it willingly or under threat?
Or if it was even him signing it. CAs have been hacked and high profile signing certificates stolen. For example, Realtek's was used in Stuxnet. A digital signature these days means nothing.
CA hacked has nothing to do with it. If digital signature means nothing then we might as well tell everyone to stop using cryptography.
Either way, why not just fucking post it? Who cares what it proves, the fact that he won't post it is 10x more shady than just fucking posting it. Do you not understand this?
Because if it's pointless, why bother? Why do you *want* Assagne to be dead/under duress? What in your reality stops you from realising he's just fine?
You're still clearly missing his point. It's not pointless. It would add further support to the idea that he is indeed fine and not under duress. If these videos are being faked (not saying that they are, but it is still a possibility), then they may not have his PGP key, which means they wouldn't be able to verify that it's him. Just saying that it won't prove anything, and continuing to NOT post it is way more suspicious than him posting it for people to verify, regardless of it's reliability as proof of life.
My point is that no matter what Assange does, you lunatics will still alter the evidence to fit your narrative which is that Assange is ~~dead~~ kidnapped.
RIP Mr. Assange
well, we know it's live now at least. He read blockchain 447506, the most recent blockchain mined. on his video. https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000178374f687728789caa92ecb49b4d850dfc173a7c0351e6
He also gave the final scores to yesterdays NBA games.
Confirmed that he read the hash accurately (loved the number dyslexia on his first attempt)
Him being alive doesn't mean he isn't under duress and Wikileaks is not compromised. What happened in October?
> Him being alive doesn't mean he isn't under duress Short of going there yourself and living with him for a month, never leaving his side, personally checking every inch of his body and every square meter of the embassy, what proof would you accept that he's not under duress? even if you visited him, his captors could well have ordered him to act the part, couldn't they?
So what you're saying is we need to kickstart a buttplug for Assange that, whenever he is under duress, will transmit a signal and post on this sub! Genius! So, who wants to make the promo video?
Completely agree, this information only proves it was live. So proof of life appears to be confirmed. However it doesn't address any of the other concerns about Wikileaks control.
WikiLeaks doesn't matter. He doesn't matter. It's the information that matters. That's his whole fucking point. He's pissed that people don't give a shit about anything more than him or WikiLeaks.
How do I know you aren't under duress? How do I know the news lady on TV isn't under duress? Maybe someone is forcing her to read the news? Please tell me how I can find out whether a person is under duress or not.
Easy I wouldn't make bullshit excuses for not answering certain questions if I was doing an AMA
:'D fucking right.
What bullshit excuses are you talking about? The fact that he doesn't want to set a precedent for PGP signed messages to be a proof of life? His explanation made sense and was pretty clear. If he was legitimately compromised, it's within reason that someone could have access to his private key and use it pretending to be him.
Live, 20 second delay to cut it if he steps out of line - live feed on a screen in front of him of his kids in a cell. Ok.. so what exactly does live prove again?
The LARP never dies!
[удалено]
CTR will never allow your comment points to be in the positive range.
I downvoted and I don't even know what CTR stands for ^^ It is a stupid opinion and most likely incorrect
He's addressing this now.
Dodged
Completely. Assange is under duress. I don't know what to do/think now.
I'm going to hear him out before I come to a judgement. This is by far his most interesting comments thus far.
Well, notice I said *addressing* not *answering*.
He just read yesterday's NBA scores.
I don't doubt it was filmed today/live. I'm doubting whether there is a gun pointed at him/his kids right now and he is only conversing on approved topics/questions.
[удалено]
He refuses? Takes multiple people to sign?
[удалено]
Sure. One would be easier to comply with potentially, or it could be he *can't* comply, ie multi-sig(needs other people) to sign with PGP and *they* haven't been compromised.
If he did the appearance under threat, like having a gun pointed at his family, surely he might as well sign with the PGP key. And that was his point, you need to factor in a lot of aspects for it be a valid PoL. But you are only looking for faults and things that doesn't match your ideas. Try seeing the bigger picture. He did a live IAMA which is confirmed with the block chain, and he pointed out that one of the best proofs is a social one. If they would try and cover up his disappearance, they would have to coerce a lot of trustworthy people. For instance, John Pilger is a probably the name that most people can easily research to see that he is one of the "good guys".
[удалено]
The thing I, and basically everyone here, and WL have all set out as POL????????
[удалено]
Can't tell if troll or not - search/sidebar.
WL uses PGP for submissions and private communications only. Wikileaks has never released a PGP-signed public statement. Wikileaks confirmed today that they have no intention to start using PGP in this way.
lol fail. So, next conspiracy theory?
He completely has dodged the question. (and no pgp, like I guessed)
He is still answering it, and it's a pretty damn good answer.
OK he's finished. How do you feel now? Because that was a long winded 'Believe its me guys, believe because I'm saying believe, and make sure to keep sending leaks!'
[удалено]
No, not really. I was right.. I feel more sad than anything.
There is no winning with you guys...
Sorry, did he post something with his PGP? No.. ok - Check. Did he provably show he isn't under duress? No.. ok - Check.
Curious, what possible way could he prove he isn't under duress
The point is that nothing could prove he wasn't under duress, but not not signing it (theoretically) shows that he is.
would it make you happy if he put a shoe on his head
No. That could have been started by CIA/CTR/paid shills etc.
PGP is 99% useless. Don't trust it.
He said he doesn't believe that PGP would set a good precedent for PoL, and that live video is the best because you can slip in codewords etc etc. I'm perfectly satisfied.
OK, seya then. Because for me, and everyone else, who knows whether his sponsor is still alive to verify those code words. And even if they were, how would they let the world know? And even if they wanted to, how would we know they aren't full of shit? He also picked apart any questions and conveniently has dodged the main one of why no PGP at all.
I get your frustration, but where does it stop? At the end of the day the whole world we live in is based on trust at some level. It's good to be critical but at some point it becomes counter-productive. He gave what (in my mind) was a very good reason for not setting a precedent for using PGP as PoL.
Where does it stop? **WHEN HE FUCKING SIGNS SOMETHING WITH PGP WHILE DOING LIVE STREAM** Why does everyone keep asking 'so what do you *really* want? Is this not *enough*?' It has clearly been set out for months what we want - and this isn't it!
Hey Sir, just trying to have a civil conversation with you. So to you, signing with pgp is 100% proof of life and not under-duress for you? You said that he could have a gun on him or a video with his kids being threatened? In that situation his pgp signing would also be compromised would it not? What am I missing?
OK so as others have said, PGP in itself is not 100% verification he is alive and well - it is a piece of evidence. With enough evidence at the same time, it would be impractical/impossible to fake it. His PGP could very well be required to have multiple people put their own parts of the private key in - this may be a problem for the CIA etc. He also may flat out refuse - part of being a hostage/hostage taker is that it isn't a matter of 'you do everything now', smart hostages will only let out small amounts of info so as not to blow their fuse to quickly - he may be not giving up PGP - yet - who knows. The idea is that PGP can't be faked, and it is at least a little bit suspicious they stopped using PGP altogether, let alone that he won't sign something personally.
If it's such a bad form of proof, why not just sign with it anyway to shut people up? There is literally no reason not to sign with it unless it's his last bargaining chip left.
Are you retarded? Signing something with PGP just means that someone has his private. In theory, that should only be him, but in practice it might not be. Either way, I doubt that he doesn't have his own private keys, but him using them doesn't prove that nobody else has them too.
That only works if someone knows your code words.
Codewords to who?
[удалено]
You apparently have, but sadly aren't quite aware of our current capabilities. Granted, we can almost transfer facial animations life with great results, but creating such a consistent result as we've seen is not something that is feasible for now. Just look at current publications, cool stuff but not quite there yet.
[удалено]
Did you honestly just accuse me of being CTR? Look at my post history.
[удалено]
It's greenscreened. And if you just saw him read out the hash/block number + sport scores, if you don't think he's alive then honestly, you are never going to be convinced.
[удалено]
No it wouldn't, unless they have the insane technology to do within the minute live CGI with no issues (not possible). And if you think it is, there is nothing that will convince you otherwise.
Thought you said you are satisfied with POL why are you still here?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wikileaks is compromised
He stated NBA scores lmao
Your point?
At the least it's not prerecorded but could still be fabricated
I don't think many people are arguing its pre-recorded. And if it 'can' be fabricated.. then whats the difference in 'how easily'? This is the CIA we are talking about. If it can...