To be honest I'm not entirely sure what the point of the article is at all. He freely admits that the FBI had cause to be suspicious about his travel to Iceland, it coincided with a massive breach of information and he definitely fit the bill to warrant investigation. He and his associates all were afforded the right to counsel etc, in terms of US law enforcement stories this is more of an example of how things should be done within the context of the law as it stands.
All he did was download a file. The FBI knew he was politically motivated but treated him like a criminal.
Sure his first employer is within their rights to fire him. But the hedge fund only fired him (despite him already giving notice to leave) after the FBI showed up to harass and disrupt his life.
This is not how law enforcement should work.
"THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE" is an easy and natural philosophy to have, until it happens to you and your family.
And then still, many people are subtley and/or overtly pressured (terrorized) into not joining any kind of activist or opposition movement
1: Downloading controversial data on a work computer is a bad idea.
2: When a agency like the FBI is targeting a person its very likely to cause significant harm. They do not harm minimize and can/will go after everyone you know, have meet, scare a company to fire you, ectra. The movie version where a single investigator is asking people nicely and discreetly can be a far cry from the real thing.
3: Because of the way those government agencies operate they are likely to push people into polar opposite political activity of the very goals the agency is trying to reach. Katz could likely been a tech founder here on HN, but because of the way FBI operated he now instead founded a large foreign political party with some very strong feelings about the US and the FBI.
To throw mud at Wikileaks, as if there aren't substantive criticisms they could be making.
Surprise, not all journalism is outrage porn and propaganda :)
I don't think many people understand that lying to Federal officials, even innocuous ones can be prosecutable, depending on zealous they want to be.
I'm tempted to joke that the TL;Dr for all such encounters is Authority Cannot Afford Being Wrong But Isolated From Social Function Unable To Evaluate Reputation Risk.
 "You represent and warrant that you have all the rights to the Content and that none of the Content: (a) infringes, misappropriates or violates any Intellectual Property Rights; ..."
Using Reader-Mode in FireFox works, though.
"I don't regret my actions, because they led me on a really interesting journey."
I have made many mistakes in my life - some I regret, others I do not.
edit: disregard this.
I find this whole story very confusing. Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worked for them? That would either put these conspiracy theories to rest, or provide significant evidence for them. Instead they seem to strongly hint that he might have been a leak, but won't outright confirm it. It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them.
1. They have a general policy of not confirming or denying such matters.
2. He worked for them, and they do not want to further conspiracy theories (or aid in bringing possible murders to justice).
3. He didn't work for them, and they do want to further conspiracy theories rather than eradicate them.
Given the way that they've operated recently, the third option does tend to seem more plausible than option #2.
Because they have a lot to gain politically by hinting at it and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories while being able to say "we didn't actually say he was our source" if the actual data comes out proving he wasn't.
>It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them.
They do and your vouching this above comment is just helping these people smear a dead mans life.
As for this guy's claims:
1) Assange all but confirms it: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
2) Seth Rich's parents want the truth and justice as well, instead of the coverup that was done so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
As for the 'smearing a dead man's life', I don't see how it's smearing - if it gets proven to be true, that man is a national hero. And as for 'causing hardship to his family', which is probably the next angle you're gonna try to use, the dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death:
>I don't see how it's smearing
You're saying he isn't trustworthy and that he is a criminal.
>he dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death:
That video was thanking people for supporting the gofundme campaign and has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories. This fact has been posted everywhere the video has for days now so given your obvious interest I can only assume that you're posting it knowing this.
His family have threatened to sue fox and his brother wrote quite the letter to Hannity asking him to stop.
As for the threats to sue, they were issued by a DNC spokeperson, and not by the family: https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png
It's nice to see the DNC supporting his family. Search for his brothers letter.
What do you think should happen to trump leaker?
Foxnews corespondent: The family is begging me for help.
The family: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare...
You're ignoring the inverse of that statement: if it's false, then you're actively trying to use a regular murder for pure political ends and abusing the justice system to do so.
edit: and I forgot the main point, they need to keep the status/image they have, that they will NEVER give up leaker's identity, so they don't scare off future leakers.
And like I said, I believe their main motive is to keep the trust of possible future leakers, in the sense of insisting that they will never officially confirm identity of their sources for any reason.
The fact that they have but aren't actually confirming it says it all really.
Nevermind their track record interfering elsewhere.
Cue the whataboutism WRT the US meddling in other's elections.
Edit: I was downvoted for kindly asking for a source?
At this point it's essentially impossible to make a credible claim that Russia did not compromise the DNC network. At best you could try to argue that they weren't the only ones to do so, but that feels like grasping at straws.
To be fair, the criticisms were that they were hired by the DNC after the DNC dragged their feet on giving the FBI access. For some reason they gave this firm the right of way. The original report has also since been revised and had portions retracted... So it wasn't a gold standard of evidence to begin with.
To be fair there are many respectable people (who are strongly anti-Trump) questioning this.
Source: I'm a member of the security research community.
There's no definitive proof, there's evidence. This is as definitive as it gets, we've got a report by some of the best people in the field that's also been corroborated by the US DHS.
I'm sure this is far better evidence than anything that exists to the contrary, people get convicted on shakier grounds every day.
It is not disputable that DNC servers were infected by Russian government malware.
Last time I checked the DHS hasn't seen the server yet.
Because the signatures of 'Russian government malware' were found? Same signatures we recently found CIA can (and does) easily fake?
Was the initial report they retracted more or less definitive?
Remember the Iraq War was also started with lies corroborated by the US Gvt and the courts did not pose an obstacle to it...
I dont care if men eith epilletes tell me so. I want to see the proof.
At this point you're just trolling.
>The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
The founder of Crowdstrike, Dimitri Alperovitch is a Senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council is funded by a guy named Victor Pinchuk who is a Ukrainian (and dislikes Russia), and he donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (story found here: http://archive.is/DUtMN ). Furthermore (read the first link) the DHS report about the DNC hack given after a FOIA request amounted to TWO PAGES with information anyone could have googled from the internet.
If you just look at the wikipedia for the Atlantic Council ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council ) it states several members have left the organization to work for the Obama Administration including Susan Rice. Susan Rice as you all know illegally unmasked members of the Trump campaign to hinder his presidency.
Finally I believe this article is very important: http://archive.is/DUtMN it shows the cozy relationship Victor Pinchuk had with the Clinton state department.
DNC, Podesta and Hillary's got totally fucking pwnd by NSA's stolen virus arsenal. They were the Shadowbrokers very first target.
The whole "muh Russia" narrative is a big fat lie to cover for NSA's ass blowing in the wind.
Because what would happen if folks discovered it was NSA's direct fault for the election getting rigged on both sides?
NSA has gone so far in their extremism that now they can't let anyone blame them for their actual fuck ups that endanger all of us.
The weirdest thing about Guccifer isn't what he did, nor how he did it, nor why, but that he's is still, today, tweeting in public, mocking NSA, which I know they know, and yet they do nothing.
I won't tell you who. If you're smart, you'll find him. He loves puzzles, and he's the best I've ever seen at it. Think of it as a meritocracy. If you're worthy, you'll figure it out on your own and join the club.
The real story behind Guccifer is why NSA covered up for Guccifer. I don't know if Guccifer the Shadowbroker is ex-NSA or even active NSA, but whoever he is, there is no way to separate what he did from what NSA did.
Think I'm larping?
Then why do I have screenshots of Podesta's Gmail password reset 3 months before it happened, and the Clinton Foundation's Exchange admin panel and the CMS for their backup vendor?
Everything Crowdstrike has said is laughably wrong. They're so shitty at cyber they deserve to get popped like Sony.
Maybe it already happened, who knows? ;)
Crowdstrike won't exist in less than 2 years.