Jump to content

Talk:Vault 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.185.4.21 (talk) at 18:50, 10 March 2017 (removed last paragraph as it was not on the subject of Vault 7). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiLeaks' assassination claims

I don't think we need to repeat everything WikiLeaks claims in its press release, especially since they've recently started promoting conspiracy theories to promote their leaks. Accusing any organization of murder is a serious deal, and hacking a car does not automatically mean the CIA uses hacked cars to kill people. In addition, we should add more details on UMBRAGE beyond what WikiLeaks claims; so far I see the Daily Dot has examined what the documents say about the group and what they don't. FallingGravity 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just hyperbole for a press release. The claims were bracketed by could etc. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new Vault 7 revelation about hacking vehicles warrant another look into the Hastings’ car-crash-accident-theory? Michael Hastings - one of the fiercest critics of the surveillance state and the Obama administration’s response to whistleblowers, particularly efforts to coerce journalists into revealing their sources. His final story, “Why Democrats Love To Spy on Americans,” was published just weeks before his death; Hastings perished in a fiery single-car accident in Los Angeles. Hastings was working on a profile of CIA director John Brennan, which never went to press. Hastings' family can now demand subpoenable evidence from the CIA, proving who murdered him. --87.159.126.239 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a forum. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swan, how much is the CIA paying you to shill for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.93.186 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping us safe

We should probably add a "reactions" section. Ralph Peters was just saying on Fox News that the CIA was doing this to keep US citizens and allies safe.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is't that pretty much always a government entity's go-to excuse violating the rights of the very people they claim to be protecting? Seems seems irrelevant/redundant b/c this is what the government claimed about the USA PATRIOT ACT, putting German & Japanese-American citizens into internment camps, the TSA, the NSA, the DHS, etc. It'd be more noteworthy to find an instance where the government didn't use the same b.s. excuse to cover it's ass while grossly violating the bounds of power entrusted to it by the taxpayers. It's not like they're actually gonna come right out & admit something like "yeah, we're just being Orwellian dicks who wanna destroy everything America stands for - we don't actually care about protecting any of you plebes, haha, no - this was always about the power, suckers."CitationKneaded (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above user. It is the norm for the government to default to the "but we were keeping you safe" excuse when they are caught breaking the law. If ANY other organization were found to be doing this, they would either A) Be forced to sign a contract with the government to purchase their exploits, or more likely B) Be charge with multiple felonies, and all their exploits taken and hoarded for the US Gov't.... When Gov't branches are caught doing something wrong, they are not going to say Whoops! My Bad US!! How many amendments/laws did we break? Were Sorry... Theyre going to say Muh Security!!99.185.4.21 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's our job to omit the CIA's response because we believe it's the "usual" or "expected" response. It's kind of like saying, "Well of course John Doe pleaded 'not guilty', he just said that because he doesn't want to go to jail. Therefore, we shouldn't include John Doe's statement." That's not the way WP:NPOV works. FallingGravity 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FallingGravity makes an interesting point, I must admit. However, as with any case making an analogy between discrete individuals & governments (or components thereof), there are limitations to this thought-model. For instance, no matter how rich & powerful John Doe is, as an individual, when accused of breaking the law, he can, at most (legally), hire a lawyer - he does not have a built-in bureaucracy to do various circus acts of ass-covering on his behalf, including refusal to prosecute or outright ignoring his alleged crimes. John Doe certainly does not get to partake in countless acts of international terrorism[1] & drug trafficking[2] over the decades, fight against US forces[3], and then come home to a chorus of "DinnduNuffins".CitationKneaded (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious relevance image

Hi @Pantherfly: Please stop re-adding your image to the article. It is of dubious relevance and seriously does not belong in the article. If you keep adding it, you could end up getting blocked from editing. So I'd recommend stopping. Thank you. -Kamran Mackey (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms that the exploits don't break encryption apps are absurd because the payloads keylog and screengrab

I strongly object to this revert. How should I cite the descriptions of most if not almost all of the attack payloads performing keylogging and screengrabing? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources. We don't add unsourced text and original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is [1], throughout sufficient? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to use a reliable secondary source (e.g. the Washington Post, the Guardian). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. Do you personally doubt the primary sources? Why do you think the critique of unrelated Wikileaks releases is appropriate here? How is your section header neutral? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiLeaks agenda"

Is it either "notable" or the purview of Wikipedia to be a platform for speculation on the motives of a given article subject? o_O? I know this is a "hot-button issue"/current events, but do we regularly do this for other articles, say, historical ones? The whole bottom paragraph taking quotes from Zeynep Tufekci cites no outside sources but an opinion piece (twice), which seems rather flimsy Wikipedia editing, IMO. CitationKneaded (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. if anything the quotes by Zeynep Tufekci should be moved over to the wikileaks artice. The content had nothing to do with the Vault 7 release as it was wholly on the subject of Wikileaks, it had nothing to do with Vault 7 specifically. As such, I deleted the section and I suggest that it be moved to the wikileaks article somewhere. It was simply to broad to be here in the Vault 7 article. Simply put, Zeynep Tufekci's quotes were not about Vault 7 whatsoever.

99.185.4.21 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_UbAmRGSYw&ab_channel=michaellevine53
  3. ^ http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vault_7&oldid=769631354"