Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Competitor In the Works
airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
More broads? Sounds good to me...
Free Martian Whores!
Shocking development: Much of European government occupied by spoiled far-left quasi-socialists. Film at 11.
More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.
It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A good amount of the world hates America for various reasons.
Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?
There are enough secret documents and nefarious backroom deals to go around. If Wikileaks has put a stop on submissions because it has too much, then there's clearly room for more, and Wikileaks should welcome them as such. It appears there is at least some indication WL feels that way, but while the people may not be the best of friends their organizations will at least be allies.
Unrelated - Why does TFS refer to TFA as such?
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
The more, the better. And if one initiative gets taken down, there are others. Perhaps they can even cooperate on some fronts.
I hope they understand the risks.
US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc), but I'm pretty sure once they start messing with China the response will be far more radical than rape charge.
With the negative attention Assange has gotten around the world for publicizing mostly US leaks, what do these people expect will happen when they leak documents and practices of the other 202 countries (according to Wolfram)? They won't be safe anywhere.
If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.
I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him with stuff.
Should he have not published the cables because he had recently published the war docs? Should he not publish stuff on Goldmen Sachs because he's about to publish stuff on Bank of America?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
(emphasis mine)
TFA: "The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote."
Title on Slashdot: "Wikileaks competitor in the works".
The only part in TFA that mentions the word "competitor" is the sentence stating what this new site won't be.
Cryptome has been up and running since -96 and if anything having Wikileaks show up in -06 has only made them more relevant. This should be a good development, the more targets the harder they will be to take down.
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.
A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.
There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.
Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.
I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual so I think that even the 5th estate of our society needs to be held to a certain level of accountability. That is why I do not consider most bloggers "journalists" because they are not held accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is even a blogger but just some asswipe who is looking for money and attention and does not give a damn if the information he stole damages lives, reputations or brings us closer to a war.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Why in the world is he not leaking any real secrets of how governments are run, their atrocities and human rights violations in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or the operational details along with hideout locations of drug lords of Mexico, Columbia, and alike ?
Was this new website even mentioned in their suicide pact?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Why in the world is he not leaking any real secrets of how governments are run, their atrocities and human rights violations in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or the operational details along with hideout locations of drug lords of Mexico, Columbia, and alike ?
You're right! Because right now, everybody loves those guys.
The media characterization of those countries may be one-sided, but not in a positive way.
Property is theft.
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia don't make you a rockstar.
If you wanna be a rockstar you have to use the US.
The others will probably make you briefly famous and then dead or perhaps the other way around.
Why are you assuming he gathers his own intel? First of all, it's an organisation consisting of multiple people. Secondly, they have to work with what is leaked to them. They are not people who infiltrate governments or hack databases.
Your examples are laughable to say the least. Do you think they can pull such documents out of their ass or something? They need to be LEAKED to them.
You go public with the documents you have---not the documents you might want or wish to have at a later time.
because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"
you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is politically free, in terms of thought, but not free when it comes to the commerce of media. its becoming more and more a corporatocracy, but its political arena is still wide open in terms of what you choose to speak
but you really have to know that when it comes to sensitive government documents, china and russia will simply kill you. china and russia are authoritarian countries, they derive their power from intimidation, not consensus with their citizens. these countries explicitly derive their authority and their power from controlling the information that you hear, and the thoughts you wish to express. go ahead and tell an american that their government sucks, and prove it with supporting documents showing this to be true. the american government, and the american citizen, pretty much considers this standard operating procedure in the world at this point
but if you tell a chinese citizen their government sucks, and then proves it to them with the actual secrets the chinese government has been hiding from their citizens, then you are going to be a target. there is no freedom of choice when questioning the governments of these countries. here in the west we take political speech for granted, but you really have to think twice before you loudly question beijing or moscow in china or russia. for all of the sins of the usa, its still ruled by consensus (of citizens... and corporations). consensus often warped by corporate cash, yes, but at least the usa, as a matter of cultural and legal status quo, still considers the free exchange of information to be a virtue, and no one in power is going to say you don't have a right to say whatever you want, politically. china and russia quite simply do NOT like the free exchange of political information, that you can be sure of
again, go ahead and hate the usa if you want, that's your choice. but don't be so naive to believe that other countries out there, if they saw someone like assange as a threat to their secret government communications, that there wouldn't be a rapid succession of dead bodies and dead links, without any hesitation, and you wouldn't get any wikileaks about those countries whatsoever. china derives its power by walling its citizens off into a political garden of false benevolence, and no one is going to threaten that placid wall of lies. so for all the heat and moaning and whining on assange coming now from the usa, its amateur hour compared to what other governments would do to assange: it would be quick, it would be cold, and it would deadly, and there would be no such leaks... just a western lie, you see, by this CIA operative assange, who has been dealt with appropriately
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?
If by "media" you mean "US media", then no. Otherwise: the banking scandal in Iceland!
If Americans wouldn't take Wikileaks as an attack on their national ego but as an opportunity to hold their beloved leaders accountable, much could be accomplished.
Good volunteering; I wish you luck with gathering and publishing that info.
It is great how a small start (WikiLeaks) is spurning people on to break this information hegemony.
Now we have 'xscess' here offering to take another angle. Make sure to get some help, that is a lot of territory for you to cover.
In what way is deliberately and consciously killing unarmed innocents (and then expressing a sickening state of joy) NOT murder? I do agree they shouldn't have used that term, however, if only to prevent the politicians and brainwashed masses from spinning it to their own advantage (as you did above).
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia don't make you a rockstar.
If you wanna be a rockstar you have to use the US.
The others will probably make you briefly famous and then dead or perhaps the other way around.
That last line is pretty much the exact definition of the "total coward" thing the GP was shooting for. Assange is just going for the low-hanging fruit (a country many people are already massively prejudiced against with or without good reason, one whose policies make murdering him for this unlikely, etc) just to be the popular kid in the safest manner possible.
If the guy had some courage at all and did something that took some balls, maybe I'd respect him more. Take on a country that might do more than pen a strongly-worded letter and bitch about it in the media for a while. Or take on a country that everyone DOESN'T already hate. But this? This is posturing and whoring.
the merrier.
Assange isn't a spy, he's somebody that whistleblowers turn to to dispose of their information. If he doesn't receive a particular piece of information how can he publish it?
The others will probably make you briefly famous and then dead or perhaps the other way around.
Briefly dead and then famous ?
Slashdot Competitor In the Works
Will /b/ start posting news? :p
(I jest, much love to /.)
Remember to maintain your supply of
Wikileaks can't, and shouldn't, and probably don't want to have monopoly on leaked information. Cryptome has been around a long time. People have been babbling about leaks for a long time. Redundancy is good. If one site goes down, the others can keep the information live. The Man® may keep an inconvenient document down by silencing a critic, but they just might not be able to silence the order to shut down being published. At some point they have to scream, from the bottom of their lungs, "stop writing down everything I say, dammit". And then the jig is up. That's transparency for you. That's journalism for you.
People have been saying lately how Wikileaks isn't about "journalism". What is journalism but distributed dissemination of information? Why couldn't the same thing be done to leaked documents? Why have one site where people discuss particular documents, when you can have many?
Good now it'll become more of a movement and the people with things to hide won't be able to point to a single person as the antagonist behind it all.
The more the merrier.
"The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks"
"The wikileaks competitor in the works" article title seems a little off....
While it is certainly possible he would have been tracked down, classified information is access controlled and they may have been about to narrow down who had access to it, they caught him because he bragged about it. He was not driven to do what he did for moral reasons, he did it for ego reasons. Well, something you find about people who do things for egotistical reasons is they usually feel the need to run their mouths about it. After all, hard for the world to know how awesome you (think) you are if you don't tell them!
Had he simply sent the data to Wikileaks quietly, never identifying himself, and had he not gone and bragged about it anywhere, well I'd say reasonable chance he'd be a free man and people would simply be talking about "the source" of the leaks, and not about him personally.
http://projectcamelotportal.com/ is another great whistle-blower site.
And the CIA ran wikileaks don't have shit on cryptome. The owner of cryptome has gone on the record and states that wikileaks is ran by the CIA, which is why he dropped his affiliation with them.
Film = petrol
11 = empty
sleep/bordom = destination
One in a while, your petrol tank empty light goes on to tease you with the story that you are about to run out of petrol. Since you are usually never near a petrol station when this light comes on, it will continue to tease you until you reach your destination, or a petrol station to fill up so you can satisfy your desire to continue to your destination.
Is that good enough for you?
Hillary said that Julians actions set international diplomacy in danger the worlds ability to conduct diplomacy. It is ironic she should say so. Because the order she gave to spy on UN diplomats were a clear breach of the UN charter: “The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action.” So, the thing Julian meant was that Hillary should step down as foreign-minister because she broke the rules set forth by the UN-charter.
There are already Wikileaks competitors. The differ from Wikileaks in that they actually concentrate on publishing leaking information, rather than self-promotion. That's also why many apparently haven't heard of them. To make a political analogy, Wikileaks is the Sarah Palin of the leak sites--not well respected by those in the know in the leaks community, but has been marketed in such a way as to become the darling of many.
I don't think wikileaks or itself Assange focus on USA leaks for some xenophobic sentiment. It just happens that the USA still has a huge role in world wide events, economical, political, militaristic, science/educational.
So building an alternative to wikileaks on that basis, seems a bit too 'alternative'.
Today at work I went to the Wikileaks.org site and opened a random file out of the published US cables to get a clue as to what is the nature of these reports. It turned out to be a file describing a US british ambassadors concern over russian military trade. It started out "The growing Russian military trade is becoming a concern in the US, last year Russia was the second largest military exporter to developing nations in the world, US being largest." I closed the file and thought, well, that sums it up nicely, I can't wait to see what they expose on the banks.
I think you underestimate just how much work - like real human legwork - that Wikileaks actually needs to do. You can't just dump documents. You must redact stuff that could cause harm. And because you're not omniscient, you need to get help from people who are able to do it right. Somebody needs to call them, collaborate with them, etc. You need to have somebody who negotiates a pre-release to responsible global media outlets.
Wikileaks doesn't have a point man simply because of some guy's narcissism. They need a human being to coordinate all the stuff that's necessary for their leaking to be morally responsible. His second role is to be the target of the inevitable shitstorm, so as to protect all the key people behind the organization who gain safety from staying out of view. Think of him as casting a shit-shadow. (Hope you watch Trailer Park Boys!) The more flamboyant he is, the better he protects the people who really make Wikileaks work.
It is widely known that the powers that be really, really want to destroy Wikileaks, and primary way to do that would be to release misinformation and tarnish Wikileaks and Assange's name. If all of the leaks were done completely anonymously, it would be trivial for the CIA (or anyone, for that matter) to flood the internet with fake leaks so much so that you have no idea what the real leaks are and what the fake leaks are. With Wikileaks as the central leak dispersion authority, any attempt at releasing fake leaks could just be called on on their twitter page, for instance.
That said, Julian Assange's name doesn't need to be known for Wikileaks to have been successful. Ideally, Wikileaks would be the trusted organization, and Assange would just be the leader of it. Instead, Assange is the organization (or seems to be), and the destruction of either would likely cause the destruction of both.
Assange is the point man for all the attacks, intentionally or not, which helps his organization, members, volunteers, and donors who could just as easily be attacked by the USA propaganda machine. He is even more of a hero if it is intentional to draw the fire towards him.
As far as US centric- the USA, as shown in the leaks now more than ever, show the USA is pushing around the world from doing anything they do not like. Not that it will change USA policies since the public believes what they are told to believe and easily distracted by all this hype over rape charges, commentary, lies about not working with the gov, how its all Assange or wikileaks and not the NY times and others who heavily participated, and how the press is never supposed to embarrass government by self censoring and only saying the government talking points (like they did for the Iraq war.)
The US media is geared to focus on 1 man and never grasp groups of major newspapers and hardly even wikileaks -- in fact people here don't know what wikileaks is despite being aware of past scandals which broke because of wikileaks which didn't get credit. The real meaning of the leaks is being covered up by hype around all the meaningless side issues.
Anybody remember when the press printed how a nuclear bomb worked? (they essentially won - United States of America v. The Progressive) This is nowhere near the "risk" of that one. It makes the USA look bad so they are acting badly in the same ways that were disclosed to abuse their power to get revenge - Assange knew what he and his org was getting into because the leaks give away the kind of disregard of freedom & law that the US gov has.
Treason is not even a realistic charge for the leaker(s); the founders define treason in the constitution and even the overly abused new laws on terrorism can't apply here. Its political buzzwording. Forget passing any whistle blower protection laws now... not that they ever had much chance - we have too much corruption which many people can see but so much is not being exposed/leaked - not that it seems to matter because what we do know about has no accountability.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Will they put the wiki back into wikileaks?
hunt him down like dog Nazis who who sought refuge from the world with like minded communist sympathizers and Hitler lovers in South America
Sometimes you feel slashdot needs a "-1 total fucking retard" moderation operation.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it