WikiLeaks Insiders Resign

Americano writes "Wired reports that at least six WikiLeaks insiders, including Daniel Domscheit-Berg, WikiLeaks' spokesman in Germany, have resigned in the past few weeks. Those who have spoken with Wired cite differences and disputes with Julian Assange, and his autocratic leadership style, as the motivation for their departure. From the article: 'Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers — far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of US collaborators and informants in Iraq.'"

Comments

Then again, this is from

[Anonymous Coward]

...Wired, known for its constant barrage against wikileaks.

Re:Then again, this is from

[Abcd1234]

So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.

Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.

Right?

I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...

Re:Then again, this is from

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC, for obvious reasons.

I don't think anything has been fabricated, but the coverage from WiReD has been consistently, if a bit subtly, negative to Wikileaks in general, and Assange in particular.

It is no surprise to anyone who spent time in the parts of the hacker community that they showed up in that Assange and Poulson are not exactly good pals. Check the bylines on the articles about Assange.

No citations from me, but I'm sure you can pick up the whiff of the tiff via googling around a bit.

Re:Then again, this is from

[DJLuc1d]

Why is this marked troll ? He is spot on. These people left because of an egomaniac in charge - which by all accounts, Assange is just that. Just because wikileaks provides a overall needed service, doesn't mean that the people in charge are above reproach.

Re:Then again, this is from

[interkin3tic]

Posting as AC, for obvious reasons.

Those being that you don't want to offend the powerful staff of "wired?" You want to continue to be seen as completely neutral about wired? Your statement was pretty qualified.

Re:Then again, this is from

[mkiwi]

Assanage is a terrible leader for Wikileaks. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Wikileaks is an important organization and we cannot allow Assenage's ego to drive the entire project.

I've been modded "-1 Censored" a few times because I've stated a similar viewpoint as the GP. Took away my moderator points :-P

If the partisans think they are doing free expression a favor by modding down valid, insightful posts, they need to stop drinking the kool-aid and realize that censorship is not a valid response for someone stating their honest opinion.

Re:Then again, this is from

[conspirator57]

but they are, unfortunately, an interested party:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks

Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together. Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking: Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into The New York Times. When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen. That's because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.

And Poulsen is the author of the latest piece on wikileaks. I smell a rat. Not that Assange isn't a jerk. Clearly he is. But there are far bigger egos in the news editing business than his. You don't see stories about their tirades and autocratic impulses that often.

I think it'd be better to get wikileaks news elsewhere, given that the Wired well appears to have been poisoned.

Re:Then again, this is from

[sustik]

I do not read wired, whatever. But could it be that these insiders just did not wanted to be targeted like JA? Not that I have info to support that, but it would make sense to look at
1. how long these people have been involved and
2. whether JA's leadership style really changed recently.
So we could know why now? Of course it could be that the last straw was right now for all of them.

Re:Then again, this is from

[KillerLoop]

So why not do it yourself?

It was Assanges ego that brought us wikileaks in the first place.

I'm quite with you about wikileaks being an important organisation and all, but Assange took it upon himself to actually see this through. I for one wouldn't feel so comfortable with US agencies getting interested in my whereabouts.

Oh really

[RMH101]

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

Re:Oh really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the CIA has infiltrated WikiLeaks. Their agent is destroying the organization from the inside by posing as an attention-hungry egomaniac with an autocratic leadership style.

Re:Oh really

[epiphani]

I doubt it. At this point it would appear the governments of the world don't need to do anything to deal with wikileaks - they simply need to wait.

Something like this is _very_ delicate. If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on".

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

Re:Oh really

[fictionpuss]

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities, and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function.

Re:Oh really

[dkleinsc]

When an organization has been publicly demonized by a government, it's hard to avoid thinking that if it falls apart, it's due to the actions of that government.

One piece of why this explanation may be BS: If these volunteers wanted to continue working for the cause Wikileaks represents, but without Assange, they could fairly easily set up their own servers, see if Assange is interested in releasing the Wikileaks data to them, and even if not set up a forked project. If they're worried that it's become too autocratic, their forked project could be formally more democratic. These volunteers probably have the skills, experience, and cajones to make this sort of thing work. So not doing anything like this suggests that this is similar to a politician wanting to spend more time with his family.

At the same time, I've run voluntary organizations before. Volunteers come and go all the time, sometimes over policy disagreements. That's just the way it is.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

NYT:'The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down'

So there is some precedence, there is a plan and a 120 strong department working around the clock to make it happen. Does not sound far fetched to me.

Re:Oh really

[CasperIV]

That would make for a great conspiricy theory, but the my guess is that Julian Assange is probably just an ego maniac douche bag, who sucks to work with. Reality is usually far less interesting than fiction, and I can almost guarantee most people working at wikileaks were doing so because of moral reasons, which conflict with Assange's money making goals.

Re:Oh really

[LWATCDR]

Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic is so abhorrent to you that you first reaction is that the US government got to them.

This is the worst kind of hero worship. If you keep this up there can only be two results.
1. I life of mindless devotion to Assange.
2. Deep depression when you finally find out the Assange isn't perfect.
I suggest you read the story first. Even if you think Assange is right then it comes down to a simple battle of egos which Assange as a leader didn't handle correctly IMHO. And that is the best case for Assange.
Assange I feel that Assange is a publicity hound and shows no journalistic integrity.
That is my take on things you are of course free to disagree.

Re:Oh really

[digitig]

Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic

No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him. Now, it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head, but it's a slightly more complex idea than yours.

Re:Oh really

[Duradin]

'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

Re:Oh really

[RobotRunAmok]

'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

uh, no. Especially not 'round those there parts. I know what happens to sheeple 'round those there parts...

Re:Oh really

[Liquidrage]

No way. Impossible. And no way anyone associated with wikileaks would be against his showmanship and partisanship. They're in for the fame, not the freedom of information.

Re:Oh really

[LWATCDR]

Not really. As the publicity and mindless fandom increases so will narcissism. Also people can and do get feed up with dealing with a jerk after a while. I suggest you read the story.
Slightly more complex? Not really. A lot more paranoid? Yes.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

Very Interesting stuff, from the point of view of the wikileaks surrounding EU's Open Source Initiative. This AC post below point out that the wife of Domscheit-Berg works in the political department of Microsoft Germany. The plot thickens...

Re:Oh really

[RobotRunAmok]

Do you also hold the Kennedys responsible for your favorite band never having a hit song?

Re:Oh really

[magical liopleurodon]

not if the conspiracies are real.

Re:Oh really

[Americano]

Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here.

SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

....there is a plan....

Pop quiz; what is the plan? Have you actually read that document? The most direct "plan" in the leaked document is as follows:

(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by
protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful
identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the
information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org
would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar
actions.

In summery, go after whistle-blowers / leaks. That's it. No grand government conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks staff. No grand plan to get Assange personally. Yet every time anything remote touches on Wikileaks or Assange, we get post after post about how it is the latest evidence of powerful enemies pulling strings all in accordance with The Plan.

Seriously folks, where that skepticism that prevents you from swallowing everything fed to you by your government? Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?

Re:Oh really

[mweather]

It's a site that leaks classified information. I think the chances of their being no conspiracy against it are pretty slim.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

What would you call this then? - it was even linked to? You do know the meaning of the work "conspiracy", don't you? i.e. "a plot involving two or more actors to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)"

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

What Everyone Needs to Know About Wikileaks and Microsoft Lobbyists Like Anke Domscheit-Berg, Zuck, and Maybe Florian Müller

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

Let's see... once again, according to the material you've linked:

In his battle against Assange, officials say, Carr’s central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.

The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

Carr’s team was given an important head start with the arrest in June of a 23-year-old Army intelligence specialist in Iraq, Bradley Manning of Potomac, Maryland, who is suspected of leaking the Afghan war logs to WikiLeaks and whose computers have been seized.

So his job is to analyze Wikileaks' activities and prepare a case for prosecution if the Government wants to go that direction? And that's the evidence of Government leaning on Wikileaks staff? Investigation.

Furthermore, the article does fall in line with what I've already pointed out. They were given a lead on an accused leak. And presumably have been involved in putting together a case against Manning. Which is exactly what that leaked document outlines; going after the leaks.

Once again - I have to ask if you even READ what you're linking to. You even quote a definition for conspiracy that hardly fits the material you're providing.

Re:Oh really

[inKubus]

Actually, this is probably wikileaks decentralizing. These guys aren't idiots, there's quite a few PhDs and other savants on the team.

It rose from pretty much nothing, just a domain name. It can rise again as governmentleaks.com, etc. That's the internet. The site is too high profile now to be below the radar of politics. Instead they will release via bittorrent.

It's sad that the media still isn't doing their job and instead acting as shills to tarnish wikileaks. They are being used by the spin doctors. The media response is predictable. They could either go "why didn't we do that" or they can go "we would never do that, we're too professional". Which is the problem--this idea that educated journalism just rehashes what everyone else and the government is saying.

But when you look back in history you see the truely groundbreaking stories that really changed things (like tobacco, watergate, etc) were almost snuffed out by national security and governmental interference, put the reporters at risk of jail, and possibly even assassination attempts.

Yet they prevailed because the printing press enables them to copy their report and send to everyone and there's no way people can call it back. Now, obviously this great power requires responsibility, but in a case where the information is really telling about a war that they are asking us to vote for each year--telling in that it shows the government has lied to us to keep us voting for the war--I think that should come out. If soldiers should die because of the information release, remember who sent them over there to begin with. If they were safely at home it wouldn't be a problem now would it? Furthermore, if the information release leads to the war ending sooner, what about all the lives that will be saved?

Thus it's a bullshit ad-homium argument. "What about the troops?!" I can't believe we're so ignorant in this country that we believe we can have a war where no one dies except the enemy. And I have lots of friends in the military in various capacities, and none of them want to die, and most of them don't want to be there but they also know that it's their job. But the majority of them would give their life to end the war right now and bring all the rest home. I guarantee that.

So, wikileaks needs to decide if this is information that will help end the war, and cause political support for it to buckle in the US or not.

Now my little rant against: I, for one, want to know if I've been lied to. They are spending OUR MONEY (and our kids) on the war and they are asking for me to vote on it again. I want my vote to be based on the most true facts possible.

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities ...

We have? Example, please?

and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function

Oh, I see. More paranoia. NM then.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

If you really believe that pulling together 120 spooks, propaganda specialists, FBI and military personal with (one) of the public aims:

to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

is not a "plot"/"plan" to get wikileaks - then I really don't know what would qualify as such in your books. Perhaps it is because you think that the Espionage Act of 1917 should apply to Wikileaks - so it is all legal and therefore not a plan/plot to get wikileaks in your books? Perhaps you do not understand how far fetched and ridiculous it is to even cite the Espionage Act against wikileaks. One favorite from that link:

Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics -- such as myself -- found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling. There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them. In sum, anyone (such as Carroll) declaring that WikiLeaks clearly broke U.S. law -- as though there is no real dispute about it -- reveals that they have no idea what they're talking about.

If your still adamant that there is no plot to get wikileaks, then I hope at least that your also not Ok with the Pentagons double standards Vs Wikileaks when it comes to them leaking sensitive information.

Re:Oh really

[interkin3tic]

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

Are you kidding?!? The psychiatric organization is the worst of them all! They're the ones at the forefront of trying to take away my tinfoil hat to establish a new world order!

Seriously though. There -are- conspiracies to shut down wikileaks. Not really that shadowy though: like many conspiracies that are real and not just paranoia, they're much less secretive than the imagined conspiracies. The actors aren't concealing their dislike of wikileaks.

No one is accusing anyone of plotting literal assassination, but to deny that some people have an interest in shutting down wikileaks is naive.

Re:Oh really

[commodore64_love]

>>>If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

I found the following interview with the Wikileaks founder interesting. In it the host (Judge Andrew Napolitano) says during the Veitnam era the government tried to sue the newspaper for publishing classified info, but the Supreme Court found them to be protected by the "free press" clause of the Constitution. Probably the same is true for Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Google, and other publishers. (shrug) You can make your own judgment.

Interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FkRHSaQ4aI

Re:Oh really

[Antisyzygy]

Reminds me of this guy I knew who was perpetually brain-torched on marijuana. He had these wild delusions of how the illuminati, free masons and skull and bones were planning to take over America. I think the pot use was a side effect of his mental condition.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

And that's all a fine argument once we get to the point of the US Government attempting to prosecute. But they're not (at least not yet). And while investigation can lead to prosecution, they're not the same thing.

If the Government does attempt prosecution, then I'd be behind your argument in most cases. But the only one they've started prosecution on is Manning. And the Espionage Act of 1917 clearly applies there.

What fails to come to light in this thread is any evidence of a conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks agents. Yet you've invoked all this as proof. And that proof fails to deliver. Just as it fails to deliver when all the other conspiracy theorists invoke it to explain away criticisms of Wikileaks and anything else that touches Wikileaks or Assange in a negative light.

As an aside, the article described this supposed dedicated group as "nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others" - not sure where you get "propaganda specialists" out of that although I think you're counting "spooks" twice naming the FBI. The problem I keep having in these threads is that there's supposed to be clear proof, yet every time a little digging is done, we discover that the bias of the individual has produced fictions and presented them as fact.

Re:Oh really

[couchslug]

"Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?"

Yes.

Re:Oh really

[Red Flayer]

Interesting piece. Napolitano is the only host on Fox that I think has the balls to call out the Republicans when they are wring.

Probably the same is true for Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Google, and other publishers. (shrug) You can make your own judgment.

Well, no we can't. I mean, we can make our own judgment, but it will have *zero* impact on what happens in this situation. It's the judgment of the CIA, the Pentagon, etc, that will determine how this plays out. In the long run, the best we can hope for is that after the fact, any bad actions by the government are found to be in error -- but the die was already cast. That's how free speech and other personal liberties are handled in the US... they are violated, and after the fact, it's decided that the violations were Bad. And hopefully the government restrains itself the next time around. Which seemed to work fine and dandy until the Neocons were able to implement their plans in the wake of 9/11, rolling back some of the gains made in the second half of the 20th century.

Re:Oh really

[Znork]

Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?

In the case of TLA agencies, their proven track record means they've got a reversed burden of proof. It doesn't matter whose politics it matches; such actions by these agencies would merely be a continuation of an established pattern of behaviour, and to assume any significant change without proof would be naive. Of course, should they allow enough transparency to establish any such reasonably reliable proof, there probably wouldn't be any reason for a site like Wikileaks to exist...

Re:Oh really

[fictionpuss]

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities ...

We have? Example, please?

Sure

and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function

Oh, I see. More paranoia. NM then.

There is evidence for that, too.

But judging from your condescending tone, I don't expect fact to sway your opinion, so please continue.

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

Sure [telegraph.co.uk]

Misleading headline is misleading. Next time, RTFA. However, even if we stick with just the title, it's a big strech to go from "evidence suggests" to "OMFG DEY CUVERED UP STUFF!!!!".

So ... once again ... example?

There is evidence for that, too [v3.co.uk].

Again, I think your inability to get past the title/subtitle is a serious problem. Nothing in that article suggests that the US government is looking to discredit wikilieaks, let alone that they have actually done so; it only speaks about taking legal action against those who leak classified information. And if the only complaint you can come up with is that they're charging people who violate the terms of their contract and break the law ... well, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Paranoia and poor comprehension abilities are a horrible mix. You'd fit right in with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

In the case of TLA agencies, their proven track record means they've got a reversed burden of proof. It doesn't matter whose politics it matches; such actions by these agencies would merely be a continuation of an established pattern of behaviour, and to assume any significant change without proof would be naive.

The problem with that line of thought is that all one has to do is frame oneself as being in opposition of said TLA agencies. Then anything that happens or any criticisms can be chalked up to the shadow workings of a TLA agency conspiracy.

What's further troubling about this line of thought is the demand to prove a negative.

Re:Oh really

[fictionpuss]

Misleading headline is misleading. Next time, RTFA. However, even if we stick with just the title, it's a big strech to go from "evidence suggests" to "OMFG DEY CUVERED UP STUFF!!!!".

So ... once again ... example?

I'm sure that you're not as ignorant of this event as your sarcasm suggests - they refused a FOIA request to release the video on grounds of political expediency.

That's a cover up.

Is it Watergate? No. It's worse. Innocent people were murdered.

Again, I think your inability to get past the title/subtitle is a serious problem. Nothing in that article suggests that the US government is looking to discredit wikilieaks, let alone that they have actually done so; it only speaks about taking legal action against those who leak classified information. And if the only complaint you can come up with is that they're charging people who violate the terms of their contract and break the law ... well, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Paranoia and poor comprehension abilities are a horrible mix. You'd fit right in with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

The military report described in that article identifies Wikileaks as an operational threat, and describes several methods which could be used to "damage or destroy" the trust and reputation of Wikileaks.

That report is two years old and the military have been using those tactics against Wikileaks since.

But nice attempt trying to discredit me as a truther. And fuck you, too.

Re:Oh really

[digitig]

Oh yes, the people working with him won't have noticed something like that until they read it in the press, would they?

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

I'm sure that you're not as ignorant of this event as your sarcasm suggests - they refused a FOIA request to release the video on grounds of political expediency.

The article doesn't say anything about a video, nor does it talk about "political expediency". So you're just talking out of your ass now.

The military report described in that article identifies Wikileaks as an operational threat, and describes several methods which could be used to "damage or destroy" the trust and reputation of Wikileaks.

Yes, and? You said that "some of those groups" are "actively trying to discredit wikileaks". I asked you for evidence - just like I asked for evidence that wikileaks has exposed "conspiracies to cover up illegal activities". Instead you linked to two articles which make vague accusations and provide no evidence to support your assertions.

But nice attempt trying to discredit me as a truther.

I'm starting to think that you don't actually understand what the word "discredit" means. For the record, I'm simply pointing out that your conduct (paranoia) and "research" methods are identical to theirs.

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

No one is accusing anyone of plotting literal assassination, but to deny that some people have an interest in shutting down wikileaks is naive.

Sure, but what's that got to do with the price of cheese?

The fact that some conspiracies exist is completely irrelevant to whether or not any given event is caused by a conspiracy. It's also irrelevant to my analysis of his psychological condition :) If a bunch of guys make a statement saying "we quit because we don't like our boss" and your first thought it "OMG CONSPIRAZI!!!!" .... well, it's safe to conclude that you could benefit from a few sessions with a psychiatrist.

Re:Oh really

[slashdot_commentator]

Assange is a guy who thinks if the US gov't slaughters hundreds of thousands civilians by the Afghan occupation, then its okay if Assange kills a few thousand Afghan civilians by releasing their names in a 190K document drop. I have ZERO doubts about his narcissism.

Re:Oh really

[poity]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Or in this case..
Never attribute to nefarious machinations that which is adequately explained by douchebaggery.

Re:Oh really

[poity]

You're right, sudden fame could never change a person.

Re:Oh really

[digitig]

That would mean I was wrong, because I said " it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head". I don't think that is wrong, though.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

What fails to come to light in this thread is any evidence of a conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks agents. Yet you've invoked all this as proof.

It all depends how trustworthy you think the nytimes reporting is. I admit, that can be shaky at the best of times... but they claim to have interviewed a source that was only suspected of being a Wikileaks agent - who was "leaned on" by the Army’s criminal division to rat out on Wikileaks (where leaned on in this case meant “a considerable amount of money"). If they do that with just a suspected wikileaks insider "agent" - it is not a far stretch to ask what are they trying to do with confirmed insiders like Domscheit-Berg. Especially when they know that his wife works as a Microsoft political lobbyist. Lots of pressure points to lean on there.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

It all depends how trustworthy you think the nytimes reporting is. I admit, that can be shaky at the best of times... but they claim to have interviewed a source that was only suspected of being a Wikileaks agent - who was "leaned on" by the Army’s criminal division to rat out on Wikileaks (where leaned on in this case meant “a considerable amount of money").

First - the NYT is not this leaked intel document that you referred to as a plan. Secondly, I'll trust your quote as the NYT article is beyond their gateway that I don't feel like jumping around at this point. :P

Having said all that - I'm sure the NYT is faithfully reporting what was told to them. The question is who this source is. And if the source is accurate - so what? Army intel wanted to hire themselves an informant. We already know that they intend to assess Wikileaks as a threat. That's not going to end with pointing a browser to the Wikileaks site.

If they do that with just a suspected wikileaks insider "agent" - it is not a far stretch to ask what are they trying to do with confirmed insiders like Domscheit-Berg. Especially when they know that his wife works as a Microsoft political lobbyist. Lots of pressure points to lean on there.

Recruiting an informer is hardly the kind of leaning on that the parent is talking about (or what you're implying). And it's a far cry from the kind of discrediting that's being theorized.

Re:Oh really

[commodore64_love]

Glenn Beck has also ripped into Bush and the current Republicans several times, although not as often as Libertarian Napolitano.

I try to catch his show every week by going here: http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

Re:Oh really

[TheMeuge]

That's not "Insightful" in any way. There is no absolute "end the war", not only because the conflict in question is not nearly as cleanly delineated as many other wars we've fought, but also because "end the war" could be via win, loss, or truce.

I have to say, releasing information that would "end the war" by virtue of losing the war (by having the last few Afghans that are trying to build a better future beheaded and their families killed), is defined simply as "treason" for a soldier, and an "act of military counter-intelligence in the course of a war" by anyone not. Considering that the documents do little other than show the chaotic state of affairs in Afghanistan, and are in no way revealing of any atrocities committed by American presence there, this exercise in publicity doesn't qualify as whistle blowing in any way shape or form. Anyone with the intelligence of a tree stump can see that the war isn't going well. But it takes a real asshole to doom the few non-insane Afghan leaders left to painful death.

If the US military wants to court martial the soldier(s) who leaked the info and have him(them) shot, c'est la vie. If they want to hunt down Assange and get the passwords via thermorectal cryptanalysis, well... he knew the game he started.

If the documents revealed something truly appalling, I'd be the first in line to defend them... but since that's not the case, the people involved can burn in hell.

Re:Oh really

[Thing 1]

In summery [...]

Sorry, it's Autumny in these parts. Leaves have started changing even!

Seriously folks, where that skepticism that prevents you from swallowing everything fed to you by your government? Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?

Matching politics? How quaint. Politics is darkness; wikileaks (and the thousands that will spring up, now that these people have departed to work on their own) is light.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

Matching politics? How quaint. Politics is darkness; wikileaks (and the thousands that will spring up, now that these people have departed to work on their own) is light.

I've heard those religious tones sung before.

Re:Oh really

[uninformedLuddite]

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

And when you can't or you stop seeing them then you are beyond all fucking help.

Re:Oh really

[tehcyder]

And, conversely, never explain away as stupidity something that is actually malicious.

Re:Oh really

[richie2000]

My favorite band is the Dead Kennedys, you insensitive clod!

Re:Oh really

[Americano]

I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which one of the participants gets modded to the top and another one stays at low score comments.

Happens all the time, I'd say you're not reading very closely. Perhaps you meant to say "I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which a participant I disagree with gets modded up, while the person I agree with stays at low score comments." I'd believe that.

But, what you see as evidence of "astroturfing," looks to most of us like Sprocket making cogent, well-argued points, while FriendlyLurker responds with "Nuh-uh, it's all a conspiracy," coupled with assorted paranoid FUD and innuendo.

Re:Oh really

[Americano]

Thus it's a bullshit ad-homium argument.

I'm sorry, a what?

Do you even know what an ad hominem argument is?

Here, I'll help with an example:

"inKubus can't be insightful. He can't even spell 'ad hominem' right, much less use it correctly in a sentence. And look at that foolish nickname spelling."

Note the formation of the argument: I'm using a completely unrelated mistake you made to say that your proposal or position is untenable - attacking YOU to discredit your POSITION. This is an "ad hominem" fallacy.

Saying "What about the troops?" has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack. It might be a straw man, or a red herring, or some other fallacy, but it has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack.

Re:Oh really

[Americano]

Yes, Nixon was unable to get a restraining order preventing the release of that info. (If you're talking about NYTimes v USA, at least).

However, the decision was more nuanced than that - they didn't offer blanket protection of publication of any classified information, they said that there was a heavy burden of proof that the government had to provide to show WHY the information couldn't be published, and that they had to demonstrate that publication of the information could cause "grave and irreparable" harm to US interests.

This has, historically, been interpreted quite narrowly, to be on the order of "posting sailing dates & planned troop movement routes," and things of that nature - actual plans that are (or soon will be) in motion that could give an enemy some sort of additional capability to harm US interests. The court found that the First Amendment creates a strong bias towards saying that "publication of this information is protected by the first amendment," but it did not categorically state that publication of anything is fair game. It's not impossible that the government could prosecute the case, but precedent creates a huge burden of proof they must offer to show why publishing the info caused 'grave and irreparable' harm.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!

I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which one of the participants gets modded to the top and another one stays at low score comments. Also I had never seen in slashdot so many people come to argue in favour of restricting information flow.

Why, thank you. I take it that I have managed to challenge your beliefs. I can only hope that at some point this will cause you to re-engage your critical thought process.

The way I see it, slashdot astroturfing is part of the US plot to discredit wikileaks. The tone of discussions changed completely once the US declared war on wikileaks.

I've always thought Wikileaks was an interesting project. But I honestly didn't dig too deeply in to it beyond the cursory stories that graced Slashdot. However, the "Collateral Murder" leak really got my attention. I view it as a modern propaganda piece (somewhat lower on the scale than Fahrenheit 911 and FOX News). Politics aside, propaganda is interesting stuff - in a disturbing way.

But what really got my attention was when criticisms started being attributed as a US Government conspiracy. That has echoes of propaganda. And it implies that Wikileaks (et al) is untouchable and beyond criticism. I find anything that can not stand criticism suspect.

So there you go, AC. Full disclosure. Probably not as interesting as me being part of a shadow conspiracy. But we'll always have The X-Files for that.

Re:Oh really

[c6gunner]

Well, yeah. That's like saying the guy who just set the world record for the 100m sprint is beyond all help when compared to a person with a broken leg. Technically correct, but completely pointless.

Re:Oh really

[Thing 1]

Compromise means accepting a little evil into your life; therefore the darkness. Transparency lets the light through. Your mind is focused on religion. Enjoy being in that skull!

There can be only 1!

[rabidjoe]

God Complex

Re:There can be only 1!

[Idiomatick]

Highlander complex? To be fair, I've not heard of anyone accusing Assange of beheading any opponents.

Re:There can be only 1!

[BrettJB]

...I've not heard of anyone accusing Assange of beheading any opponents.

I keep trying to get that evidence up on Wikileaks, but for some reason they won't take my submission...

Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2...

[Rogerborg]

If there's one thing Freedom Fighters can't stand more than the Romans^W Military Industrial Complex, it's each others' company.

Note: this is +1 Sadly Insightful, not Funny.

Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

So I ask what is MS doing supporting wikileaks? An organization that released MS's own disclosure policies for xboxlive and other services.

If MS supports wikileaks how is that not a security violation and a conflict of interest?

Furthermore, Daniel's wife is in a POLITICAL ROLE for microsoft, does anyone question what this could have to do about the the leaks of the EU's OSS initiative which Microsoft et al. probably ran off of the rails?

There are legitimate questions about Daniel's role in Microsoft's EU presence, especially with respect to Wikileaks.

Remember the EU OSS leak was detrimental to FLOSS but not to behemouths like Microsoft who are FLOSS's main competitor.

I'm not saying anyone was involved in anything, it just looks really bad.

Typical

[MyLongNickName]

As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin), I find this type of thing fascinating.

This type of situation happens a lot in small business. Most successful smal businesses face failure when they make the hurdle to medium-sized businesses. They either end up folding,or going back to a smaller company.

To get a company up and running requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling. To successfully grow you need a staff around you that shares in the power and is trusted to make decisions. The original personality type fails in this regard. Either the person in charge must change his leadership style or the person in charge must change (i.e. get rid of him).

So from the 50.000 foot view, it seems like we have this situation at wikileaks. This is a shame as I think this type of organization can truly be a benefit to freedom and democracy.

Re:Typical

[geminidomino]

As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin),

What, did you find your "handjobs in the YMCA parking lot" enterprise left you with too much self-respect?

Sorry, sorry... but you DID invite it. ;)

Re:Typical

[MyLongNickName]

:)

Actually, a decade as a developer. Some projects made the whole YMCA parking lot seem like a step up :) It is fun to actually be in management and get to have an impact on the culture rather than be the victim of it.

Re:Typical

[lxs]

So you're saying that their little rock band has had their first number one, and the lead singer and the bassist struggle with artistic differences? Sounds plausible to me. Besides, Julian gets all the groupies.

Re:Typical

[gorzek]

I've seen this sort of transition occur firsthand. It's not pretty. The company was better for it in the end, though--they just had to shed a lot (and I mean a lot) of people. Over a third of the company was gone by the time it was all said and done and virtually the entire leadership structure was changed.

Re:Typical

[idontgno]

Besides, Julian gets all the groupies.

No matter what it takes.

Clarify one point

[MyLongNickName]

As I reread my post, the "requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling" is not stricly true. However, the vast majority of small businesses that do not fail and actually grow tent to br run by these personality types. There are cases, of course, of other types. I only wanted to point out that WikiLeaks appears to fall into this majority case.

Flameware

[FriendlyLurker]

Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below), it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question. You'd be hard pressed not to fire an employee like that, in any organization. I guess the bags of money from the WWR is finally beginning to pay off dividends.

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him." Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me? Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from? Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you? Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already. Domscheit-Berg: what messages? Domscheit-Berg: and what three people? Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says Assange: Was this you? Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other Assange: who, exactly? Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what? Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue? Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there Assange: those are the only persons? Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007 Assange: how many people at the club? Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents Assange: How many people at the club? Assange: In what venue? Domscheit-Berg: in private chats Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answe

Re:Flameware

[luis_a_espinal]

For the love of God,

tags!!!(10+1)

Re:Flameware

[Inda]

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are

Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."

Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.

Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

Assange: who, exactly?

Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

Assange: those are the only persons?

Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

Assange: how many people at the club?

Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

Assange: How many people at the club?

Assange: In what venue?

Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

Domscheit-Berg: go figure

Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

Domscheit-Ber

Re:Flameware

[Abcd1234]

Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below

Dude, that's not all they're basing it on. There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization. If this were an isolated incident with a single individual, I might believe you, but it's clear there's far more to it than this.

Re:Flameware

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm safe in assuming that the CCC is the CCC.

I'm not up on my Wikileaks history other than that it was founded in 2007. Big question here seems to be what happened in 2007 that would anger (the CCC || people in the CCC)?

Re:Flameware

[Americano]

it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap

Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."

For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.

You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.

Re:Flameware

[digitig]

But he did admit that he had passed it on to others, and got annoyed and refused to cooperate when he was pressed on the question of who the others were. If this were anything but Wikileaks then we'd expect that to be a disciplinary matter. Because this is Wikileaks, of course, Assange shouldn't be surprised that the team don't take leaks of information seriously. I think he's yet to learn the lesson of the goose, the gander, and their respective sauces. It's not a management-style failure, it's a sense-of-irony failure.

Re:Flameware

[mcgrew]

Indeed; I can't be bothered reading a mess like that. Hell, he doesn't even need a <p> tag, all he has to do is select "Plain Old Text" and hit "enter" after every line.

If he can't be bothered to make his comment readable, I can't be bothered to read it.

Re:Flameware

[Abcd1234]

So you're saying this quote:

At least half a dozen WikiLeaks staffers have tendered their resignations in recent weeks

And this:

Snorrason, the Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.

Are lies? Alright, where's *your* proof? I mean, if this is an outright fabrication, there must be published quotes countering these statements somewhere. Right? So where are they? The only thing I've found is a twit from Assange where we confirms that Domscheit-Berg was suspended, which only serves to confirm the contents of the transcript.

Re:Flameware

[Americano]

No?

That's right, NO.

Assange asked him directly, "did you speak to Newsweek about this."

Domscheit-Berg responded directly, "I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this."

I'd hardly call that weasel language, or refusing to answer the question. As far as him leaking this information for "political and financial advantage," what advantage at all is there for Domscheit-Berg in this? Please explain how he's going to reap rewards out of... leaving Wikileaks?

It's funny, apparently when we criticize Assange we need ironclad proof, and even with video we're not sure that it wasn't heavily doctored by the CIA/MSFT/Barack Obama/UN/UK/Germany/Swedish Prosecutors/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/et. al., but when anybody else is involved, a bit of baseless conspiracy theory and a few twists of innuendo ("I'm not SAYING he leaked it for financial gain, but he's never specifically DENIED it, either!"), and that's good enough to assume the people we disagree with are guilty.

Double standard? I think so.

Re:Flameware

[molnarcs]

That's very interesting - it seems to me that Assange is the right person for the kind of job he does. He's like a vulcan in that chatlog, refuses to get into any emotional exchange. In fact that's not really a flamewar, because Assange avoids completely a who said what/did what kind of back and forth bickering. Instead, his only concern is the leak itself: how many people and who exactly heard the information. Domscheit-Berg comes off as a typical forum prick, likening Assange to a slave trader, king, emperor...

Re:Flameware

[Abcd1234]

Gotcha, mindless denialism is the name of the game, here.

Wait a second... Julian? Is that you??

Re:Flameware

[Abcd1234]

Instead, his only concern is the leak itself

Which is deliciously ironic... apparently the seekers of transparency, themselves, need not be transparent. Nice.

Meanwhile, Assange's paranoid need to root out this defector is clearly preventing wikileaks from actually doing the job they exist to do, as evidenced by that very transcript.

Re:Flameware

[jollyreaper]

Which is deliciously ironic... apparently the seekers of transparency, themselves, need not be transparent. Nice.

Meanwhile, Assange's paranoid need to root out this defector is clearly preventing wikileaks from actually doing the job they exist to do, as evidenced by that very transcript.

If you're putting together an army to fight for freedom and liberty, you can't run it like a democracy. There's a reason why decisive leadership is important in times of crisis. Interesting bit of history, many pirate crews operated under a form of limited democracy. They'd elect captains. Once in battle, the man's orders were obeyed as if from God. After the battle, they could decide if they had faith in him.

An operation like Wikileaks has to present a cohesive, united front. They can have all the internal debates they want but they can't appear to be bickering and disunited in public. Having poor message discipline, not clearly declaring goals and working to accomplish them, all of this results in chaos and sabotages the mission.

So this guy may well be a prick but the question is whether he's getting the job done. I've seen wonderful people who can't lead and I've seen people who are such assholes nobody will follow them. I've seen leaders who can be friendly and get things done and I've seen ones who can motivate while being hard-asses. There's no one way to do things and we'll see how this story plays out.

Re:Flameware

[JustSomeProgrammer]

That's not how I read it. In my reading Assange sounds very angry. I read it like an authoritarian dictator demanding to get exactly what he wants. I'd actually hate to work for that kind of person. I don't like to be dictated to as much as worked with. And if I was straight up accused of a breach I would start looking for a new job just on principle. I'm obviously not trusted there.

I also think it is quite bad style to completely ignore the original topic of conversation "Agreements about Iraq" and change topics to accusing the guy. Do you really feel that would be the type of person you want to work for?

Example:
You: "Excuse me, I need to know what kind of plans we have regarding the new guest site redesign. When will I be getting mocks et cetera?"
Your boss: "Our site was hacked last week. Did you tell someone our passwords?"

Re:Flameware

[boxwood]

yeah you can have an honest internal discussion and King Julian suspends you on the spot if you give any criticism.

And apparently everyone is jumping ship.... so yeah Julian's management style sucks.

Re:Flameware

[Abcd1234]

An operation like Wikileaks has to present a cohesive, united front. They can have all the internal debates they want but they can't appear to be bickering and disunited in public.

Why? Because you say so?

Please.

WikiLeaks is an interesting organization, but they aren't an army. Frankly, I'm baffled you even made that comparison...

Re:Flameware

[boxwood]

were you reading the same chatlog?

All Assange was saying was basically "who dares speak against ME??" And the other guy was just trying to get some work done. Assange refused to give the guy the answers he needed to get his work done.

He was acting like a douche and the other guy got pissed off and told him he was a douche. And then Assange proves it by unilaterally suspending the guy.

Face it Assange is a douchebag, and he's going to bring down wikileaks.

Re:Flameware

[Achromatic1978]

Huh what?

it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question.

From the interview:

Assange: Was this you?
Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Very invasive, indeed. What a weasel.

Re:Flameware

[kevinNCSU]

If you're putting together an army to fight for freedom and liberty, you can't run it like a democracy. There's a reason why decisive leadership is important in times of crisis.

I'm sorry, are you arguing in favor of Assange or President Bush serving a third term to continue the fight terrorists in Afghanistan? The rhetoric has suddenly become indistinguishable.

Re:Flameware

[idontgno]

Excellent trollage. Wow. That has the absolute ring of sincerely-held and honestly-stated opinion, while simultaneously being so completely out there that it has to attract massive energetic flamage.

Simply brilliant.

WTF, you're serious?

My bad.

Re:Flameware

[Rich0]

WikiLeaks is an interesting organization, but they aren't an army.

Ironically enough, they also don't think the US Army should be able to present a "united front" and leak their documents anytime they can. If transparency is good for everybody else, then it is good for WikiLeaks...

Re:Flameware

[Achromatic1978]

And precisely what does that say? That he's not allowed to express his opinions. In fact, this is more creative editing from you. What in fact happened in the "little while later after dodging the question" was Domscheit-Berg saying "the three people I named above" (which he did, in the same transcript).

Like someone else said, I'm more suspicious of your motivations than I am of Domscheit-Bergs.

the cause is greater than the man

[circletimessquare]

assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him

he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man

this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind

Re:the cause is greater than the man

[the Atomic Rabbit]

> assange did a good thing starting wikileaks,

Assange did not start Wikileaks.

Ahh...the Sweet Irony

[smitty777]

FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

Re:Ahh...the Sweet Irony

[rhizome]

FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

Which is when Domscheit-Berg tries to change the subject, gets all pissy and starts whining about how nobody likes Assange.

You know, FTA...

Sounds like

[KnownIssues]

Sounds like WikiLeaks is leaking.

I can't say I'm surprised...

[Millennium]

The idea behind Wikileaks is a good one, but Assange has an agenda (as the Collateral Murder site clearly showed). I hope these people are heading off to form their own organization, with perhaps something closer to neutrality.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

"but Assange has an agenda"

What's wrong with having an agenda?

Many prefer the old format (present the public with raw data and allow them to decide), Assange should be acting as curator, not hype or spin man.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised...

[Yvanhoe]

Good luck staying neutral when it takes more than one year to dig around one facet of truth. Someone digging info about how USA wage a war, will find facts that accuse USA of wrongdoings. Someone who digs around Hezbollah will find Hezbollah's wrongdoings, someone who digs around Tsahal, will find Tsahal's wrongdoings. Neutrality comes from the variety of news source. But you can't ask to a journalist that finds a scoop about one fact, to release it only accompagnied by a scoop about a blancing fact that gives a "neutral" point of view.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised...

[cdrguru]

Everyone knows that Hizbollah is pure, true and good and it is only Israel that is evil.

If it where any other way we would hear about it on CNN.

See, it is clear that there is no point to trying to expose any wrongdoings of Hizbollah. Just as it is clear that there is plenty of wrongdoing to find in anything the US does. What possible good could a country do that has created McDonald's?

Re:I can't say I'm surprised...

[TheoMurpse]

Many prefer the old format (present the public with raw data and allow them to decide), Assange should be acting as curator, not hype or spin man.

Journalistic impartiality is 100% impossible. Even by selecting which news to report (as you must, since resources are finite), you display bias. Do you spend your $ to report on the atrocities in Darfur, or do you talk about the Iraqi conflict in-depth?
Selecting one over the other is a bias. You think either Iraq or Sudan is more important than the other.

how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[Lehk228]

tell me again how leaking to wiki leaks is safer than just firing up a proxy chain / tor and posting to 4chan?

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[nedlohs]

Because they hopefully some expertise whereas the random guy who wants to leak something probably hasn't even heard any of the terms "proxy chain", "tor", or "4chan".

Because wikileaks claims to do some checking which will give the leak more weight than some random post to 4chan.

Because wikileaks has media contacts and can push the leaked data out to them, which would be very hard for most people to do anonymously.

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[RivenAleem]

And because the admins of 4chan might just out you for the lulz

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[RivenAleem]

Because you might have to, umm, provide some assurances that the information you leaked is correct? People who give information to wikileaks are guaranteed their identity will be kept secret. Otherwise I could cook up anything and submit it anonymously. Nobody would give any credence to anything leaked via proxychain/tor anonymously to 4chan. That wikileaks protects the identity of its sources is what makes them special.

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[lightversusdark]

Posting through Tor you may well be leaking to Wikileaks anyway.
That was how they got started.
Do you know who runs your exit node?

Short memory

[dbIII]

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy.

It was only about two months ago that people in government were demanding his head. Reacting to this event may well be unfounded paranoia but that does not change that powerful people do want to get him. Now what should happen is that it should stop at the noise of unprofessional weasels demanding his head, but it may go furthur and somebody may be sent on the pointless useless and deplorable task of stirring up trouble from him to "teach him a lesson". It would be as unprofessional as outing a CIA agent because her husband pointed out a blatant and stupid lie, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Re:Short memory

[evilviper]

It was only about two months ago that people in government were demanding his head.

The US Government wanted to talk with him, and discourage him from posting more classified material.

Who is it you speak of who "were demanding his head"?

Re:Short memory

[dbIII]

You don't even poke your head outside of Slashdot to find it. There was an article on Tuesday August 03 about Marc A. Thiessen calling for action against wikileaks, and there was plenty of other stuff in the press. Google will help.
It may all be noise mostly from the recently disenfranchised but you can see where the paranoia comes from. If a formerly influential member of the US government is publicly calling for your head it's going to make you worry.
Real or not, we can at least be sure he won't suddenly develop Polonium poisoning or get killed by a death squad on fake UK, Canadian and Australian passports.

Re:Autocratic?

[Idiomatick]

"..he's as bad as the leaders he's trying to expose.."

Came off a bit trollish maybe?

Rest was interesting though. /. mods just being oversensitive I guess. Though maybe you pissed off some lefty in another thread that is exacting unjust revenge. But then why they'd go for overrated as opposed to troll I don't know. Could also be the sig, It reads like spam ... seriously, I wouldn't open an e-mail with that title. The all caps are sorta sad too.

I guess what I'm saying is thanks for the link to the interview.

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa

[FriendlyLurker]

A picture and article on the Anke and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at end of this interview

Stand Tall and Proud WikiLeaks

[CitizenPlusPlus]

May WikiLeaks long continue to embody the tradition of: raising hell and getting the facts out; which a free press has a duty to honor.

Not surprised.

[MaWeiTao]

Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.

One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.

I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to leak information. It's nice to have a single, organized source, but it also makes for a convenient target.

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa

[lxs]

She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!

Or perhaps people aren't always blind slaves to the corporations they or their family members work for and personal motivation can be both varied and complex.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wiki leaks is all about media whoring.

[Theovon]

The US government has too many secrets. Certainly, they need SOME, otherwise they can't have a tactical advantage over enemies. But there's stuff decades old that just should not be closed up in some government filing cabinet. I think the excessive government secrecy, cover-ups for mistakes, and all sorts of other crud need to be blown wide open by those who care more for the American people than for their government (which should be for the people, by the people, of the people, etc.).

The problem currently is that those people doing the blowing-open appear to be kindof shallow on ethics themselves. Assange comes across to me as a serious ass-hat who get's a kick out of doing this stuff more because it's "naughty" than because he really cares about freedom of information. Of course, this impression, along with the sexual misconduct charges, could all be the result of Pentagon brainwashing. But if you're going to take the "moral high ground" against government secrecy, you have to be above reproach, and you have to use tactics much less douchy than the ones we've been seeing, what with the "I'm going to release this stuff in two weeks, so I can get lots of personal attention, up the suspense, etc. Maybe I'll be arrested for not having yet released anything, which will be a high profile embarrassment for the government. Strisand Effect."

Wikileaks seems to be more about media whoring than truly doing good things.

Re:Wiki leaks is all about media whoring.

[kangsterizer]

Unfortunately if it wasn't like that I doubt we'd get any leaks and secrets would just stay secrets.
That "agenda", whoring, whatever you wanna call it is the nerve that push them hard enough to actually do something about it.

Fully moral, ethical people cannot convey such tasks because they'll be blocked by their own ethics pretty quickly, and have only low scale events no one will get informed about.

Ideally, it takes a smart - bad - guy to convey the task in the best way possible. The bad guy has his agenda too, but successfully deceive people into thinking his ethics, moral, etc are perfect and untouchable. In the end, while he'd prolly have done a lot of bad, he'd have done a lot of good too, a lot of good that would stay as he would have gained a strong unbreakable trust.

Re:Wiki leaks is all about media whoring.

[jd]

I'm unclear about the need for secrets. If they assume that said information is secret and it has actually been obtained by an enemy, then they're vulnerable. (See: Germany and Japan, after codebreakers successfully broke their secure lines of communication.) On the other hand, if they don't assume that said information is secret, then it doesn't matter whether it is actually secret or published. The third option, of them assuming it is secret and it being secret is something that a government can never prove. If it really is secret, then they will see nothing. If it is not secret but the other side is hiding how much they know (as the allies did during the war), then the government will also see nothing. There is no way to tell the difference.

Thus, the only sane strategy is to assume that everything that is currently secret is potentially knowable by others, and therefore not rely on it being secret in the first place. That should be a bonus, nothing more.

Re:Wiki leaks is all about media whoring.

[TheoMurpse]

So when the government announces in advance its troop movements in wartime, and the enemy bombs the region and we lose the war, THANK GOD WE DIDN'T KEEP A SECRET.

You're an ideologue trapped in a universe where pragmatism is necessary.

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa

[FriendlyLurker]

More on Domscheit-Bergs role in leaking details of the EU's OSS initiative to wikileaks (to the detriment of OSS and Microsofts gain. Probably to the Domscheit-Bergs financial gain as well, I would imagine...

Fork already!

[LordFolken]

Just fork the whole thing. Build a new org and run it from there. 1. The world needs more whistle blower sites. Redundancy is key. 2. The service is too valuable to fail because of any number of persons. just my 2 cents.

In other news...

[DrYak]

In other (completely unrelated) news, Wired also reports that an "unspecified anonymous whistle blower" has revealed to the press, that a vast corpus of proofs and other material has been given by anonymous sources to the Swedish justice, proving irrevocably and beyond any doubt that in fact, Julian Assange is an evil Pedo-Terrorist Pirate.
The anonymous whistle blower insists that the source of the material has absolutely nothing to do with three-lettered US agencies. And it's completely coincidental if these proves were provided on 17. Oct.

Meanwhile, the Swedish judge who where contacted all commented "Looks photoshopped. Like the previous batch"

People's Front of WikiLeaks

[DrYak]

Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2...

WikiLeak's Liberation Front : "You splitters !"

redacted?

[Snodgrass]

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

And here I thought that no secrets were worth keeping.

In the same way US having spies is ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way US having spies is ironic. After all, the US HATES their secret and military secrets being taken, but they employ MASSES of people to do just that!

Re:Autocratic?

[colinrichardday]

== Tyrant? If true it sounds like he's as bad as the leaders he's trying to expose?

President Obama has argued that he can have American citizens assassinated and that the courts aren't allowed to intervene, as that would violate state secrecy. Call me when the corpses start piling up in Mr. Assange's bedroom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html?hpid=topnews

apologies, you are correct

[circletimessquare]

regardless, assange exercises too much power in the organization. how that came to be might be valid but that it continue like that is obviously not compatible with the organization's mission

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

Call me when there isn't spirited debate in this country on the ability to put a known terrorist, who does want to take down the US government and has helped kill US civilians in the past, on a capture dead or alive list.

I agree with taking him out to be honest. He's not a nice guy IMO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

But see, in this great country that zealots like you continually crap on, we don't just nuke the whole of the Middle East or even get an asshole like that on a capture/kill list without debate. What a great nation I live in.

Angels dancing

[ThatsNotPudding]

on the head of a pin. In two years or so, Wikileaks will either not exist, or no one will be able to access it - especially US citizens. The Internet was a grand, glorious accident, but unfettered information threatens the Three Pillars: Government, Corporation, and Religion. Oh, there will be something like the Internet that will be made available, but the P in ISP will stand for Panopticon - and that right soon.

Re:Jimmy Wales brought into the story...

[Achromatic1978]

Well, I guess a story about "self-important attention whores" just wouldn't be complete without a quote or two from Jimbo "self-important attention whore" Wales...

Re:Autocratic?

[Omestes]

Sure, it might be justifiable in that single case, but allowing that much power is scary. The US government hasn't really proven itself trustful, so I think we have the right to be deeply skeptical any time it claims power without the culpability for misuse. The ability to silently assassinate people has generally proven bad in the case of the US government. Look at the mess we made of South America for three decades (or more). Look how much unbridled power the CIA had to do nasty things to people who we deemed bad for mere political, and economic reasons.

Sure, targeted killing (assassination, to be blunt) of direct threats might be slighter towards the whiter shades of grey, but the Government hasn't really proven itself trustworthy with that power. We have a very long history of very bad choices.

Also, I (who am not a Libertarian, or any other minimal government type) am deeply skeptical of giving the government any power over life and death without extreme civilian oversight involved. Our government has a problem with calling any who doesn't agree with it a "bad guy", or "terrorist", even if they are not a threat to the American homeland.

In the end, only fools trust their government when it shows itself distrustworthy again and again. I sure as hell won't trust it just because they are my government, and they "know better".

Re:Autocratic?

[Atzanteol]

The "red coats" were a much larger threat to the United States than this terrorist. Yet the officers involved in the "Boston Massacre" were given a trial. They were defended by a man who would become one of the United State's founding fathers even. Truly great men stand resolute in the face of fear and violence. Weak and feeble men give into the mob. Our last two presidents have been fear-mongering pussies compared to those who founded this nation.

"The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot, and an hero, and enlightned friend of mankind, and a martyr to liberty; I mean ALGERNON SIDNEY,who from his earliest infancy sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword, "The law, (says he,) no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. 'Tis mens sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich, or poor, high or low,'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace."
- John Adams

Re:Autocratic?

[slashdot_commentator]

What makes the US gov't system great IS NOT that you CAN bitch about stuff, and the gov't proceeds to ignore you.

What makes this country great is that ALL citizens and gov't follows the RULE OF LAW.

The POTUS does NOT have the right to EXECUTE an American citizen without DUE PROCESS of law.

(On the other hand, if they tried this guy in absentia first for fomenting terrorism, the court found him guilty, and THEN the gov't decided to kill him, I certainly wouldn't bitch. But that's me.)

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa

[poity]

No, you're either with the open source community or you're against it. lol

Maybe that's a bad example

[dbIII]

Marc A. Thiessen is probably a bad example because was effectively a "horse judge" in the wrong place with nothing like the experience or education he pretends to have. Five years in the workforce and then you end up as a senior policy advisor to a Senator?

Re:Maybe that's a bad example

[evilviper]

Yes, it is a bad example, an nobody would believe he has any power or authority to speak of. Yet you don't bother to provide any others. No, pundits don't count, either.

Google searches turn up rehashes of the same old stories. It's only in paranoid raving blogs (like /.) that any "threats" are suggested. Assange is trying to fuel the fire, but there's next to nothing solid out there.

Re:Maybe that's a bad example

[dbIII]

I'm amazed they even let him write the opinion piece for the Washington Post since he'd be greener than any of their editorial staff. I have to concede that on closer inspection most of those calling for blood appear to be confined to the fringe and the press.
My other point stands - even if Gates wanted him gone ASAP nobody is going to slip him some Polonium.

Re:Autocratic?

[colinrichardday]

So opposing such assassinations makes me a zealot? OK, then so be it. I am more afraid of a government that would assume such powers, and a citizenry that would permit it, than I am of Anwar Al Awlaki.

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

How naive. Should the US Government ignore him like you do?

You do realize he has actively helped kill Americans, right? If he was on a police list would that be OK? Because that happens all the time.

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

Which is fine since your post doesn't honestly summarize the situation. He's on a dead or alive list and is not currently on US soil.

Due process is great. And I have 100% faith that if I were to steal a jelly bean I would not end up on such a list. I do not trust the politicians, I think they're corrupt. But I trust the system to protect me because I don't see it often fail.

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

Look at the mess South America made for itself. The US gets involved in places and in ways I don't always like. But don't blame the US for making a mess in a mess. It was scared of the mess and took sides. The "red scare" didn't warrant some of the actions, but it did warrant action.

You want to put blame on South America, the USSA takes the most, and while the US wasn't perfect it was a hell of a lot better then the alternative.

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

Oh, btw way, the fool that deals with formality when the guns already pointed at your head, is a fool.

Re:Autocratic?

[colinrichardday]

I don't object to his being tried, I object to his being assassinated. If you cannot make that distinction, then you might want to brush up on law.

Re:Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2..

[vulcan1701]

Crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire so what do freedom fighters fight?

Re:dumbass

[TheoMurpse]

CEO's of major league corporations are not very confident and controlling.

They are often not very controlling. Of course, "controlling" in this conversation is pretty obviously supposedly to mean "micromanaging."

Most leaders of large organizations are excellent at one thing: delegating to other talented, trusted individuals. They usually cannot micromanage such a large organization due to finite resources.

That this fact escapes you has left me flabbergasted.

Re:Autocratic?

[Omestes]

The "red scare" didn't warrant some of the actions, but it did warrant action.

We disagree here. If particular countries in that region wanted to go red, it is no business of ours, as long as there is no direct threat of violence against Americans or the homeland. We really have no right to overthrow popular and elected figures just to protect our corporate interests, or to fight off an ideology that we don't like.

Yes, some of their problems are their own. Obviously. But a lot of the bigger ones are ours'. Noriaga, Pinoche, etc...

while the US wasn't perfect it was a hell of a lot better then the alternative

I have a feeling a lot of Chileans and Panamanians would disagree.

I really don't understand our constant need to install friendly puppets, I really can't think of a single time where that worked for us (Taliban, Sadam, Baby Dock, the aforementioned South Americans, etc...). That, concern is obviously after the ethical and moral issues of messing with the business of other countries like we somehow "know whats good for them" (probably a phrase that has lead to more evil than most other ones), or that our (mainly corporate) interests are somewhat more important than the will of the people in other countries.

No, I'm not some hippy peacenik. I think war has purpose, as does some of the dirtier tactics. But they should be saved for genuine threats. Loss of corporate interests and profit isn't a real threat, pretty much only loss of life and freedom lie along those lines.

Re:Autocratic?

[slashdot_commentator]

What are you accusing me of lying or misleading?

A person on a "dead or alive" list is NOT someone who has been tried in absentia. Its a person the President/DOJ has deemed acceptable to kill. That is not a power that is constitutionally provided to the executive branch.

Contrary to YOUR imagination, the DOJ is not authorized to fly predator drone to kill people on the "most wanted" list, and law enforcement is obliged to try to bring the accused in before shooting him/her dead. Being a fugitive does not give the executive branch the right to kill an American. Which is why I would require an "in absentia" trial for this specific instance, which is generally not done in the US.

Re:Autocratic?

[Liquidrage]

He isn't being targeted for assassination. He's on a "get him however you can" list.

Re:Autocratic?

[Atzanteol]

How is my post not honest? Did I lie somewhere?

The American people (English colonists) *knew* why the redcoats were being killed. We haven't been told why this guy could be. It's a "state secret" after all. The case has not been made and the president doesn't feel the need to tell us. You don't find that scary? Maybe you don't know - but imagine a president you vehemently disagree with. Now do you find it scary?