Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks Plans To Make the Web Leakier

Posted by kdawson on from the assuming-the-risk dept.

itwbennett writes "At the Hack In The Box conference in Kuala Lumpur, Wikileaks.org announced a plan to enable newspapers, human rights organizations, criminal investigators, and others to embed an 'upload a disclosure to me via Wikileaks' form onto their Web sites that would give potential whistleblowers the ability to leak sensitive documents to an organization or journalist they trust over a secure connection. The news or NGO site would then get an embargo period in which to analyze the material and write the story, after which Wikileaks would make the leaked material public. At the same time, the receiver would have greater legal protection, says Julien Assange, an advisory board member at Wikileaks 'We will take the burden of protecting the source and the legal risks associated with publishing the document,' said Assange. 'We want to get as much substantive information as possible into the historical record, keep it accessible, and provide incentives for people to turn it into something that will achieve political reform.'"

15 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome! by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Screw my last mod point for the day, this sounds really fucking cool.

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    1. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One day, someone is going to get killed because of a leak on Wikileaks.

      I hope that if it ever happens they find a way to hold the killer accountable.

      Fixed that for you.

    2. Re:Awesome! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because *clearly* the whistleblower is at fault for bringing nefarious information to light. *rolls eyes*

    3. Re:Awesome! by ITMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes - quite probably. some*one* will.

      However, as it stands at the moment, it is quite probable that *many* people are already dying because of corporate or government activities or negligence; and that the reason why any situation goes unchallenged by the democratic voters is often because that they are unaware that the situation is occurring.

      Lets face it - when there is a cock-up, and the person or organisation responsible is 'shielded' by corporate cover-up, do you really think that anyone is held truly accountable then?

      If you want to live in a world where 'reality' is dictated to you, then I'm sure you can go and find a country that will pander to your requirements. If you choose to bury your head in the sand, and deny that it is in fact *you* as a voter, that are responsible for the actions of your government, and prefer instead to abrogate your democratic role, and instead to put blame on anyone you can point a finger at, then I suppose that is your choice. I hope you are happy with it, and the consequences that could ensue.

      Unfortunately, Wikileaks is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Yes, someone, somewhere will end up being harmed by information released through the process. But the alternative is far, far more dangerous.

  2. Political reform? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. Most of the time it is used to float trial balloons, but sometimes it's used to mislead the public for purposes of control.

    The American government is particularly good at this.

    Up to this point Wikileaks has been an unbiased (as far as a left-wing org can be) third party. However reporters are typically not so neutral. By giving leakers the ability to target specific reporters simply means that the leaks will lose credibility. We know Olbermann and Matthews love Obama, so anti-neocon leaks are most likely to be reported there. OTOH, Drudge and Hannity will be much more likely to report anti-democrat leaks. Since the same old same old is reported by these guys, the leaks themselves lose a lot of their steam.

    I don't think this is a good idea at all.

    1. Re:Political reform? by LitelySalted · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it.

      This implies that the government is competent, which in turn implies that the members of the government are competent.

      I don't mean to come across as flame bait, but have you read the news in the last couple years? Political corruption or scandals happen all the time. You don't honestly believe that people each time our government reveals one of these occurrences it was done on purpose, do you? There isn't a conspiracy at every turn, people just do stupid things. That is the nature of government and of humanity.

      But I do have to agree with you on the reporters; they tend of have an agenda.

    2. Re:Political reform? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. Most of the time it is used to float trial balloons, but sometimes it's used to mislead the public for purposes of control.

      From the article:

      "At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," he said. "Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."

      What does a Bank of America CEO's hard drive have to do with the government? Leaks happen all the time that are not "trial balloons" by the government--whether it be to the public or another country. Look at Aldrich Ames, do you think he was a trial balloon?

      I don't think this is a good idea at all.

      You're turning this into a partisan issue when it's just about getting things out there. Most of the world doesn't care about our petty political differences here in the United States. I have learned a lot about Scientology and even things that are supposed to be available to me through Wikileaks. When these guys have a new idea, I would listen up and give them a chance.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Political reform? by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In some cases, yeah. Millions of people have affairs across the country every year, many of them never get caught.

      How is it that every other time a politician cheats on his wife we hear about it? Leverage for their opponents. When they don't get what they want, they leak the news about their opponents. Information is the ultimate weapon in the struggle for power.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    4. Re:Political reform? by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. " - This is not true at all

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
  3. Who verifies the source? by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the benefits of the current system is that the journalist verifies the source. Think Deep Throat and Watergate. The journalist then aims to protect their source but the validity of that source is bound up in how much you trust the journalist.

    In this new approach the problem is that Wikileaks are unlikely to verify the validity of the source and the journalist will not know who they are. This makes it more open to subversion and political manipulation as the original source now feels protected even if what they are saying is completely and utterly wrong.

    This might be a good step but a very important check and balance has just been removed.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Who verifies the source? by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      generally journalists spend significantly more time trying to verify the information rather than verifying the source. Even in your example, Woodward and Bernstein spent their investigation verifying Deep Throat's information, not his personal credibility, since his any information about him obviously couldn't be used in the article.

    2. Re:Who verifies the source? by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I cannot imagine anyone worrying about verification in today's climate.

      If it is a good story, it is going to make it out on the Internet. Period. If the "newstainment" on TV wants to pick it up, they will do so. If it is a good story, it is going to get lots and lots of exposure.

      Truth? Has almost nothing to do with it. Truth today is in the eye of the beholder and it is all relative. If you believe that the World Trade Center towers were demolished by Israeli agents working for George Bush, nothing is going to deter you, and you will only listen to "news" that confirms this. If you believe that Obama is "the One" and can do no wrong, nothing is going to deter that opinion. There are believers for everything, no matter how wrong-headed it might seem.

      Truth? Wikipedia might actually have a good idea. Truth is whatever the majority believes at the moment, and the majority can always edit the story to make it fit the latest fad.

  4. Re:This is cool by dintech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would indicate that the recipient isn't interested. After it's made public domain, it might be picked up by someone that IS interested. This is also the elegent solution against collusive or untrustworthy recipinents.

    The main roadblock, at least for newspapers, is that there is no longer be a trusted or verifiable source. That might mean that leaked documents aren't taken as seriously as they would have been otherwise.

  5. Re:This is cool by Phisbut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main roadblock, at least for newspapers, is that there is no longer be a trusted or verifiable source. That might mean that leaked documents aren't taken as seriously as they would have been otherwise.

    That is why there would be an embargo period, to give the journalist time to verify the claims, and do his own little inquiry into the matter to check the facts. I know it's kinda weird asking journalists to actually check facts, but hey, it's worth a try.

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
  6. Straw Man by ITMagic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everything should be published. Obama's travel schedule/routes, secret codes, locations, troop movements, etc. Everything...

    This is a straw man fallacy, and completely irrelevant to the discussion, or to the purpose of Wikileaks.

    Go to the about wikileaks and have a read. Look at the slashdot article itself. Both use the work 'embargo'. The Advisory Board, and the staff of Wikileaks, are not going to release the information you are suggesting. It's not the purpose to reveal future troop movements, travel plans or secret codes. They reveal what has happened in the past, and how it was ignored, or hushed up, and allowed to continue.