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.'"

Comments

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.

Re:Good

[dkleinsc]

I don't care about the bragging. I do think, though, that the more leaking the better.

Most of the really foul stuff that the public has ever discovered about their government has been via leaks. There used to be investigative journalists that would try to make those leaks happen. But eventually most news organizations realized that they depended on easy access to insider sources, and the way to keep that access was to cover things the way those insider sources wanted them covered, so as a result instead of meeting Deep Throat in a parking garage we have reporters lining up to deep throat Scooter Libbey in exchange for the latest scoop on Joe Wilson's wife (for example). So now we need citizen efforts to make those leaks happen, and I view Wikileaks as a proof of concept as well as a source of specific leaks.

Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.

Re:Good

[lgw]

Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.

Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets. Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks, and leaking military data in general is an act of actively fighting for one side in a war. I like the attitude of these new guys, who are trying to focus more on exposing corruption, and less on helping particular sides in ongoing conflicts. (Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.

He was making precisely the same kind of mistake, so the comparison was directly applicable. Nobody said anything about not paying someone (theft of services) at all, so I'm not sure where you think that comes in.

Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets.

Real harm can be done by not leaking them, too. Which is greater in this case?

Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks,

[citation needed]

(Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)

A rape analogy when discussing Wikileaks is nothing less than an attack on Julian Assange, and I treated it accordingly.

Anonymous releases are possible

[fishbowl]

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.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[MoonBuggy]

While I don't entirely agree with Assange's style of doing things, it's worth remembering that there is a significant difference between just making information available, and actually making sure it's heard.

Of course, you could easily argue that any effort to publicise the data puts some spin on it, but I'd rather they take that route than have the information sitting on some server where nobody bothers to look at it.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Score Whore]

Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anrego]

That wasn't the method he used to leak the data..

It was how he _got_ the data.. and bragging about it probably didn't help much either.

Key word in my post was "necessarily". Obviously you can get hosed at any step in the process.. but before wikileaks I think most geeks assumed there really was no safe way to upload something to the internet.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[peragrin]

The collateral Murder video was the first time I realized julian was a media whore.

That movie was edited to only show the parts that were bad, when the full clip was shown it shows just how hard troops try to miss civilians.

Once you start lying you can't stop. Julian started to cover up the truth with 10 seconds slides that only show his side.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

While I don't entirely agree with Assange's style of doing things, it's worth remembering that there is a significant difference between just making information available, and actually making sure it's heard.

That difference is credibility.

If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them. Same goes for them being published by an anonymous site somewhere. Wikileaks on the other hand now has a name behind it; it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.

If you look at the sites publication record, the idea of an anti-US stance does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikileaks published a significant amount of material relating to corporate and political misdeeds--Scientology documents, an Icelandic bank, internet censorship--in the years prior to the current cache it obtain from its US sources. Their next target is reputed to be a major bank (an organisation I think Wikileaks are underestimating).

The forces Wikileaks have incensed and the backlash that has been created--ideologically--among a supposedly sophisticated public, reveal just how corrupt, complacent and regressive modern society has become. Gone are the days when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes. We live in an age where ever more radicalised people eagerly swallow all propaganda tossed at them, from online sources in particular. Most of the public vehemence to Wikileaks and Assange that I have seen comes from younger, more tech saavy people. The older generation affords the site and its work far more respect.

These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.

Won't be as popular

[Haedrian]

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?

Re:Won't be as popular

[commodore64_love]

Perhaps not, but if they released confidential documents about the EU, Russia Federation, or Chinese National Socialist Government, I'd certainly read it.

Unfortunately wikileaks hasn't been doing that.

Re:Won't be as popular

[Jaysyn]

How do you know that any factual & juicy information on those countries has been submitted to Wikileaks?

Re:Won't be as popular

[BeanThere]

Anti-Americanism.. sigh. I don't think most people in the world hates America, but certainly a percentage do, and some of those I've met go on like nut-jobs. I think most of the criticism America gets is unfair, undue, and way out of proportion especially compared to other countries ... the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc. ... frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites. However, like Jews, people also hate Americans partly because American is successful, and there seems to a stupid success-hating gene in our gene pool (probably it's the same social hierarchy resentment when you're not the alpha dog). Then America is also a lot more "in our faces" than other countries, which is in fact due to its success ... people don't care about North Korea because it doesn't enter the average person's life in any way on a daily basis. Then there is also an element of America's negatives being amplified by the perception of hypocrisy relative to the hype: America "markets itself" as "great", so naturally people will look for reasons to say it's not, kind of like Google and their 'do no evil', they draw attention and analysis to their behavior. Finally, we've all been brainwashed by anti-Westernism, and finally finally, the critics are cowards, they criticize America because nobody will kill them for doing so, they don't criticize Islamic countries because they'd get a fatwa and get killed.

Not rivals

[Amorymeltzer]

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?

Re:Not rivals

[RazorSharp]

The idea of non-profit organizations "competing" is strange. It's kind of like how, with tech products, journalists always want to say "product X is winning" even though product Y is profitable, just not as profitable as product X. I think it's a part of sensationalist journalism that's become the norm: everything is a conflict or it's not worth reporting.

Don't mess with the bad governments.

[elh_inny]

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.

Good idea

[wjousts]

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.

Whistle blowing?

[aristotle-dude]

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.

Re:Wtf title?

[mqduck]

Not only are they "not rivals", but anybody who supports what Wikileaks does should be relieved that a new group is springing up. Assange can be locked up, Wikileaks can be taken down; we need two, three, many Wikileaks's.