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

Broader approach

[mcgrew]

The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"

More broads? Sounds good to me...

Re:Broader approach

[countertrolling]

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
They Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

Re:Broader approach

[Scragglykat]

Well, we all saw what taking the broad approach got Assange.

Re:Broader approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead last... really? You consider the US government the least honest government on the entire planet?

Your hate has made you... dumb.

Re:Broader approach

[poetmatt]

I was exaggerating, deliberately so.

Re:Broader approach

[ShanghaiBill]

I guess next off is a competition for honesty. At least we know where the US sits with that : dead last.

I think the recent releases show the opposite. The US was basically honest. What they were saying publicly was the same as what they were saying privately. It is other governments, such as China and the Gulf Arab countries that were caught being two-faced.

In fact, these leaks serve as such a ringing vindication of American policies, that some people have suspected that the leaks were intentional.

Re:Broader approach

[MyLongNickName]

I support Wikileaks to a certain extent. But this is the downside to the "cult of personality". You end up with severe biases that ultimately undercut the original purposes of the organization. I would love to see a better organized organization handling this.

Re:Broader approach

[Frantix]

Maybe the competition will leak the details of Assanges' rape.

Re:Broader approach

[Mr. Slippery]

In fact, these leaks serve as such a ringing vindication of American policies, that some people have suspected that the leaks were intentional.

Except, you know, for the part about illegal spying on U.N. officials. And the hints about how our policy toward Iran is being crafted to keep our "friends" in Saudi Arabia happy. And the stuff about the U.S. leaning on Spain to quash the criminal investigation of torture, "extraordinary rendition", and the killing of journalists. And the monkey business with money sent by Germany and other allies intended to build up the Afghani army.

"Ringing vindication of American policies"? In a pig's eye.

Re:Broader approach

[poetmatt]

The issue here is simple: why should this have to be private? as citizens of the US we should be able to expect honest communications - what was said privately was not entirely what was said publicly. Go watch about the housing crisis - we told the public it was fine and dandy in the face of a giantic problem that was forseen in 2004 as being a danger.

so where's the us honesty again? shit we don't even tell the truth to our own citizens. You think working for a corporation, eating prepackaged food, and buying a house is a good way to live? the "1950's era" "american dream?".

Re:Broader approach

[tehcyder]

I support Wikileaks to a certain extent. But this is the downside to the "cult of personality". You end up with severe biases that ultimately undercut the original purposes of the organization. I would love to see a better organized organization handling this.

All right, why don't you go and do it?

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

[sumdumass]

I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.

And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years until he finally broke into one and found a 9 year old girl tied up and reported it to the police. The fact that he may have saved some kid from horrendous treatment does not excuse the fact that he is/was a thief. While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, I am saying that the positive outcome doesn't excuse the motivation because it wasn't to help, but to hurt in the first place.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years

In order to be a thief you have to steal and in order to steal you have to deprive someone of something. For someone who has demonstrated an ability to utilize web forms by posting to slashdot you seem to be blissfully unaware of the plethora of online dictionaries.
If a copy artist has been sneaking into homes for years and copying stuff he would never have bought for his own use until he finally broke into one and found a nine year old girl tied up and reported it to the police at risk to himself for being sent up for trespassing then he's a fucking hero and to suggest different is to totally misunderstand and then misappropriate the concept of "theft" just as has been done with intellectual so-called-"property" and criminal copyright law.
Breaking into computer systems without leaving a trace and then doing nothing with any collected data harms no one and to be punished for it is rational only from a paranoid mindset. The rational response is "please show me how you did that and tell me how I can stop it from happening again." The same is true of any information breach, regardless of the level of technical sophistication.

While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl,

...you are willing to mention such a thing in a comment as a way of conflating the two ideas in people's minds, which makes you total fucking scum.

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.

Re:Good

[NoSig]

While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, [...]

Yes, by saying that you aren't that's exactly what you are doing. Strangely, your post would otherwise have contained no such suggestion.

Re:Good

[MikeBabcock]

Its worth assuming the intelligence community already knows what you're sitting on before you've finished preparing the data for release. Announcing to the public that you have it makes you a more public target and hopefully less likely to find yourself in a foreign prison cell without a human rights watch.

Re:Good

[MrSteveSD]

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

The "bragging" is the whole reason that the media have shown so much interest. Assange is well aware of how useless the media are, and of the necessity to aggressively promote the leaked material. Plenty of damaging material has been released under the US freedom of information act over the years, but it has been largely ignored by the media. Releasing information is simply not enough if you want the world's media to report on it. You have to promote it. You have to put on a show. It's sad but unfortunately true. There are actually similar organisations to wikileaks already who do not try to whip up a media circus. Haven't heard of them? I wonder why.

Re:Good

[c0lo]

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

Please, really, I'm not being sarcastic, but I'd like some citations here. Links preferable.

Re:Good

[quacking duck]

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.

This is a double-edged sword. Assange is counting on the major powers NOT wanting the insurance file decrypted to prevent them pulling some assassination plot on him.

There are other entities, however, who might try taking him out for the exact opposite reason. After all, the insurance file must almost by definition be bigger than Iraq, diplomatic cables that embarrass many nations, and massive bank conspiracies.

Re:Good

[lgw]

Here's some background.

Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people's lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

Some more

But Ahmad Nader Nadery, the Commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) told Channel 4 News the damage is already done, because thousands of Afghans have already downloaded the files.

'Thousands of Afghans have downloaded the entire package'

He said: "Release of names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces is an absolute irresponsibility.

"There is no protection mechanisms for these people, be it informant or other community members who as part of the role as an elder meets with the officials or international forces, while wikileaks served greatly in brining to public some of the unspoken files, it certainly also acted against the principle of "Do No Harm" that all civil society and watchdogs have to adhere to.

I don't have the link handy, but AIHRC and other local organizations also stated that the assassination rate went dramatically up after the release.

Re:Good

[c0lo]

Then, I guess we'll have to wait for the update of these numbers (up to June 2010).

Until then, allow me to point that none of the links show that persons with the identity disclosed by the leaks were killed because of that. They do show concern (and the concerns are legitimate) and (possibly, maybe, if data is found) an assassination rate growing at the same moment as the leak.

(While the above would allow me, from outside, to say: it is likely the leak may contribute to the death of the Afghans working with US troops, there is a distance to saying for sure/categorically, many Afghans died because of the leaks. Thus, I'll reserve the right to form my opinion once enough data would be available. Of course, everybody is free to do as they wish).

Re:Good

[Thing 1]

Perhaps throwing away my karma but: please mod parent up.

Re:Good

[tehcyder]

While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl

Yes, you are, and you are both a very stupid and an extremely vile human being for doing so.

Re:Good

[tehcyder]

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

Ha ha ha, look how we're all laughing. Oh, wait, no we're not.

PS a rape analogy might be more appropriate for the now well documented behaviour of some US soldiers in Iraq, you snivelling government apologist fucktard.

Re:Good

[lgw]

Hey, you know, if you want to ignore the most obvious of facts when they don't fot your agenda, you might have a future in government. Assuming you have good hair.

Re:Good

[phmadore]

I agree, although I think the bragging is for legal and safety reasons. If the whole organization was murdered before the documents saw the light of day and nobody knew they had the documents, no investigation would ensue, obviously.

I'm definitely more interested in what goes on in countries where these things are NEVER made public (at least we have the FIA in the USA), like North Korea, Burma, China, and so forth--countries that by POLICY murder/jail civilian citizens for dissent on a regular basis. I know all that shit happens in the US, too, that's not the point I'm trying to refute, just that Assange's seemingly boundless hatred toward the US is a bit off-kilter when you've got places like Uganda in the world.

We're bad, sure, we're dirty, yeah, but we're not the worst aggressors against human rights, and the record should reflect that. Now that you've got the world's attention by pissing off the most powerful, start trotting out all the real injustices at an ever-more-alarming rate or risk becoming a blip on the screen.

I don't want WikiLeaks or any other journalism tool to become a blip on the screen. I want more information and more freedom of information.

Re:Good

[phmadore]

Fuck Assange. Figureheads always fail their movements, and if this man doesn't prove that to you, I'm sorry for you. Fuck Assange. Let them have him. Save the organization. Save the movement.

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

[hedwards]

Except that you're being judgmental and lacking any comprehension about what's going on. The reason why Wikileaks needs to be in the press is that many people who have information that they'd like to leak are unaware of how to go about it. Sure there are other methods of doing it, but that makes precisely zero difference if the people wanting to leak the material don't know about it.

What I'd like to know is whether you're being deliberately obtuse or are just trying to tow the line that Wikileaks is bad because some news program told you it is.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[idontgno]

And that's a good point. Forbidden docs floating around in a darknet doesn't constitute "public dissemination".

OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[RazorSharp]

Assange wasn't a public figure until all those Iraq/Afghanistan papers were released. He stated his reason for coming out in public was b/c Wikileaks had created a shitstorm and someone had to be their public voice. Assange doesn't seem like the type of person who is enamored with celebrity. He's putting his life at risk doing all of this, it's hard to believe that becoming a celebrity is what motivates him.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[windcask]

Julius? Is that you?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anrego]

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner

On the other hand, most people were unaware of this. What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life. Wikileaks has done more by being on TV constantly than by the service they offer imo.

My opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not is still un-decided.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Anonymous coward said

Strange how many comments on this post are by anonymous cowards.

I think you just made my head explode whilst pondering the recursion potential.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[ohnocitizen]

To play devil's advocate, perhaps his goal was to achieve some level of trust. Look at how we treat "anonymous cowards" here on slashdot. With suspicion by default.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[hansamurai]

The original idea of Wikileaks was for whistleblowers to submit their scoops to them. Without the brand, there are no leaks, as whistleblowers don't know how to contact in the first place. Sure, the leak might get out, but Wikileaks provided a well known, secure platform.

These cables also came from somewhere and someone, and they approached Wikileaks with their information. Without Wikileaks, this wouldn't have happened.

I would agree that Wikileaks and Assange inject their bias a little heavier than what I feel appropriate as the leaks really do speak for themselves. They didn't need to call the video Collateral Murder, etc.

Assange has done more good than bad when handling this, and there are really two stories going on. The first being Assange and Wikileaks, the second the actual leaked information. Yes, they're tied together closely but the cables themselves can be read and examined without Wikileaks in mind.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[darjen]

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[countertrolling]

I have more respect for the former than the latter.

Maybe you should focus more on the info than either... The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of diverting attention to the messenger. The reaction has been far more educational than the info itself. Though it is an intriguing glance into how power works. And that makes it all okay.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Score Whore]

Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[pwilli]

Having a face to associate with an organization can be advantageous. Wikileaks wouldn't have had that much impact if it were a completely anonymous organization, without Assange and without the recent newspaper cooperations.

No interviews, no discussions, nobody to defend the organization in public makes it too easy to morally justify any measures deemed necessary against it. IMHO

Wikileaks was probably the first platform of its kind that people heard of (e.g. cryptome doesn't ring a bell for most people). Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them, having more and "faceless" platforms appearing is a nice thing. Wikileaks created the demand for such platforms (or better said, helped people discover their need for such), which means supply can be increased massively.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[schnikies79]

We should treat Wikileaks with suspicion by default as well. Same goes for the media.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[mcgrew]

Personally, I have more respect for someone who isn't a coward. If it weren't for cowards we'd have no DHS or TSA.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.

I agree. It should be "Assange, Bernstein, Woodward." Alphabetical order is much better.

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

[nomadic]

Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anrego]

* most non geeks .. sigh

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Blue Stone]

Maybe if Assange wasn't so high profile he'd be enjoying bed and breakfast in a CIA operated secret prison by now instead of just being character assasinated by their black ops.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Hijacked Public]

Trust logged in users implicitly though.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[fishbowl]

I think it's important to note a couple of things:

1. Wikileaks has not as yet released anything that the New York Times has not also released, with the same redactions, and with the informed consent of the State Department.

2. Aside from the "sexual misconduct" accusation in Sweden, Assange has not been accused of breaking any law. He has, however, been tried and convicted in the minds of many people, but even in their minds, of breaking no specific law.

I believe that Assange is a convenient scapegoat that allows government to avoid confrontation with people in the military, the diplomatic corps, the foreign services office, etc.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[thijsh]

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.

Why, that's almost like real journalists operate, always wanting to get the scoop first is one of their motivations... *This is a good thing*.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[marcobat]

I don't know Assange nor I know much about him so i can't comment on the person but the information that is circulating from wikileaks is nothing new or odd or unexpected, anyone paying attention to international politics knew the substance of these documents if not the actual words used by such and such. What i find new and unexpected is that, possibly because of the way the materials were released, the mainstream press decided to publish and write long commentaries on them. Now that's new.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[jollyreaper]

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

I really have to agree with this. You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest. It took the GOP deciding to push that narrative to suddenly put them on the front page.

If wikileaks did not make itself a big deal, the story would have languished. How many stories out there were you thinking "Oh my god, why is this not HUGH!!!1 and driving the media cycle?" Just didn't spark the right level of interest, didn't get the right people pushing it.

I would think that political prosecutions would be pretty huge news, the idea that the Bush DOJ set out deliberately to prosecute Dems over Reps for political advantage. Never generated much interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman

Now the question remains whether the media will stick with with the bullshit side of the story or actually talk about the content of the leaks like Obama pressing to prevent foreign prosecution of Bush admin players for war crimes.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BStroms]

I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I think abuses, crimes, and the like should be exposed in general. I do feel Wikileaks made a large blunder by releasing names that could put peoples' lives in danger in some of their releases, but it appears they're no longer making that mistake at least.

On the other hand, I think one must always consider the potential harm every leak could cause. For example, if you had a video of General McChrystal burning a Koran and laughing about it, you probably shouldn't make it public. Send a copy to some higher ups in the US government and make sure they know they should get a leash on him before he does cause an incident, sure, but releasing it will just stir up hatred and could lead to many deaths.

This is why I'm much more skeptical of the benefit of the more recent diplomatic leaks than I am of the Iraq/Aghanistan ones. Much of the information that was released revealed nothing criminal or even unethical but could still lead to international incidents. I believe secrecy does have it's use in diplomacy much as it does for individuals. Being able to frankly discuss opinions of foreign dignitaries without fear of word getting back to them could very well aid in the establishment of good diplomatic relationships with other countries.

Besides, while some people may hope for complete transparency in government, I don't think Wikileaks will lead to that in the long run. I suspect it will just mean billions upon billions being spent beefing up security and coming up with procedures making it easier to discover who it was who was behind a leak. If they stuck to releasing only actual crimes and abuses, it would be harder to justify such expenditures without looking like they have something to hide.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[The End Of Days]

He talked. You can't break the law (and make no mistake, he very plainly broke the law) then talk about it and expect to come away clean.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[tlhIngan]

Problem is, anonymous, quiet leaks tend to fly under the radar.

In fact, what happened with WikiLeaks is exactly what WikiLeaks wants to happen. The absolute worst possible outcome for a leak is to have it published but no one notices. With WikiLeaks making a big stink about stuff, it forces reactions from those involved.

Those leaked cables? They didn't carry anything new or surprising, but the way the government reacted though, gives it an element of truth. Make a big stink, and they suddenly gained popularity and the story grows from there. All you needed to do was say "there is no new information revealed in these documents that weren't public before". Instead, you have people trying to get WikiLeaks classified as a terrorist organization and other things, which naturally gets people interested in seeing the forbidden fruit in the hopes of finding something juicy.

People whose information is being leaked are best served by being quiet and discreet. If someone posted some leak on some server somewhere few know about, all you have to do is get a way to take it down before it gets mirrored. However, start making a big stink about it or public, and soon everyone knows about it. It's the Streisand effect.

If a leak gets ignored by the public, is it still a leak?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[pclminion]

Assange is now the target of various levels of government reaction around the world. This puts a name on everything and makes it much harder for those governments to handle the situation by simply having him assassinated. Now it's going to be a lot more complicated to deal with this. Assange is on the run, accused of unlikely-sounding crimes. Yet while on the run the releases of information and the coordination of Wikileaks is ongoing. This raises everything to a very different level. What is happening right now, in one way or another, is extremely important to the world. Is Assange's egotism really the most interesting component of this entire affair? Certainly not to me.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[TFAFalcon]

You mean the original leakers could have released the information anonymously? If there was no well know wikileaks, then the leakers wouldn't have sent them the information. The site depends on being well known enough to attract leakers, and leakers depend on the site being well known to ensure that people notice the information they leak.

Just imagine trying to release the same documents on twitter.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[thijsh]

You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest.

You nailed the heart of a large part of the problem... A lot of scandals are just ignored by all but some obscure media outlets. Just look at some of the stories on Project Censored (and the fact that they even exist). It really does show information does not have to be hidden to be unknown to the world... And some of the regular media can continue to ignore or distort the truth indefinitely, research like this well known 2003 report showing Fox information distortion was a real eye opener to me...

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[GreatBunzinni]

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.

You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.

The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It there isn't a brand and name associated with the release of information and therefore if there isn't a spokesperson dedicated to the defence of the ability to release that information then those who have a vested interest in quelling the whistle-blowers, discredit the information and shut down the means to the uncontrollable release of that information will not have any opposition, which means they are free to do what they please.

It's the same thing that happens with the old media. If a particular newspiece is published through an anonymous flyer then no one will pay attention to it. Yet, if it is released on a major newspaper then the newspiece in itself will become news. For example, is it reasonable to believe that Watergate would happen if deep throat released that information through an anonymous flyer instead of publishing it through the Washington Post?

The thing is, a leak in itself is nothing. It can only gain any meaning if the leak benefits from an effective means of distribution, free from any public scrutiny. And we can only expect the leak to have a reaction if those who are referred by it do not have the means to both cut off the access to that information and destroy the ability to publish that leak, along with others. And you only get that if the ones distributing the leak managed to build a strong brand and have access to an effective distribution system.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Desler]

Tell that to Bradley Manning who is sitting a Millitary Jail in Quantico.

Isn't it his own fault for telling people that he had leaked the information? No one forced him into the situation he is now in. He brought it entirely onto himself. He wasn't forced into signing the NDA about not leaking classified work which clearly states the manner in which you will be punished if you break the agreement. If he truly thought this was something he should do, he's going to have to face the consequences that come about with breaking that agreement with the government.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Desler]

Exactly. Plus if he really did believe in his cause, he should be more than willing to man up and accept the consequences of his actions. It's funny how so many people on this site proclaim that people need to be held accountable for their actions and then think that people who willingly break the law, and in direct violation to a contract that he willingly signed, should just be able to evade the consequences.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[s73v3r]

Think about it, though. If all those cables and war journals had simply been put on BitTorrent anonymously, would they have gotten anywhere near the press?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Opportunist]

Well, considering how much "attention" he got, I am not sure whether it was a really smart idea to get known that way...

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[darjen]

I tend to believe that the risk of hurting innocent people is overblown. We haven't had that happen yet from their previous release of documents. If there was, I'm sure the detractors would have kicked up a huge stink. It seems like the opponents of wikileaks are merely using this as a way to try and get enough public opinion on their side so they can shut it down. Almost like it's just an excuse because the government and supporters are upset about being exposed.

If General McCrystal was burning a Koran and laughing about it, that should be public too. His position of power is far too important to ignore something like that. The public needs to know what kind of people their rulers really are.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[jgagnon]

So which would make the better acronym?

WAB
WBA
BAW
BWA
AWB
ABW

My vote goes with BAW... it has more potential of being turned into a verb later.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Urza9814]

Quite a bit of this information _had been available_ even before WikiLeaks released it. There's quite a bit more that is available that they haven't. But nobody's heard about it. Why? Because nobody's looking for it. Hell, I seem to recall hearing that some of the information of some of the massive WikiLeaks releases was sent to mainstream media outlets first...and they didn't care. I mean, I agree that Assange is probably in it to feed his ego, but having his name and his brand on this _makes sure it gets coverage_. And that's a good thing.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Poorcku]

If you never heard the name "Assange", would you know when he is dead?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[jgagnon]

Nothing should be implicitly trusted, not even the contents of this post. :p

Well, you can implicitly trust that I really am sticking my tongue out at you, but not much else.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[darjen]

By the way, Glenn Greenwald absolutely nailed it here.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Opportunist]

No, but reputation goes a long way. When someone has a good reputation and is known to provide useful, correct and accurate information, I am more likely to trust information he puts on the table. Why? Because he usually puts useful, correct and accurate information there. If someone is known as a douchebag who pulls statistics out of his rear more than he ... ok, let's not get tasteless, it doesn't even matter whether he once in a blue moon actually presents something that has its roots in reality, it will not be believed.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[westlake]

What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life.

That assumes there will be no leaks from within Wikileaks itself.

It also assumes that internal investigations are not on-going and that high-profile civil and criminal cases are launched without weeks, months or even years of preparation.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[jgagnon]

The problem, if it can be called that, is that not everyone agrees on the list of things that should and should not be shared with the "public"... and for that matter which things should be shared with which public (a matter of scope). Obviously, most governments want to slant things in favor of themselves and most patriots want to slant things in favor of their own country (not necessarily their government). However, some groups will hurt anyone to further their own agenda and won't follow any "code of conduct" set up by anyone.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[jgagnon]

How exactly do you define coward in the context of your post?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BStroms]

I tend to believe that the risk of hurting innocent people is overblown. We haven't had that happen yet from their previous release of documents. If there was, I'm sure the detractors would have kicked up a huge stink.

They've come right out and admitted there's no proof of anyone being killed as a result of the leaks. However, if I was one of the named informers on previous leaks, I don't think I'd be terribly forgiving just because I hadn't been killed yet. You can have your life ruined by living in fear without having been killed.

That said, they've already corrected the problem and have been taking steps that completely satisfy me to ensure no innocents have their lives put at risk as a result of the leaks. It was a mistake they made, and I'm not pleased they made it, but it's no longer a factor in releases as far as I'm concerned.

If General McCrystal was burning a Koran and laughing about it, that should be public too. His position of power is far too important to ignore something like that. The public needs to know what kind of people their rulers really are.

Here I disagree with you. MyCyrstal should be fired in such a situation, but making sure the higher ups in the government/military saw the video, along with the implied threat that the video could find its way to the public at any time should prove sufficient to get that accomplished.

I've never believed in a public right to know that outweighed even the right to life. If I'm left in the dark about such an action, but as a result spared from an attack made by a young man who would have been enticed into radical Islam by such a video, I'd happily consider it a good trade.

It is possible for the release of information to do more harm than good, and I think my example would likely be one such case.

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

[ljw1004]

He wrote that he tried one way -- just releasing large quantities of data and expecting the blogs and independent people to mine through it.

And it didn't work. The "many eyeballs" model of software development didn't work on politics for whatever reason.

So he switched to the next way, with a high-profile "news story" that professional journalists pour over. And this has been working.

I suspect that having a personally identified person is part and parcel of making it a "news story".

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[ljw1004]

In general, whistleblowers are important -- and indeed there are lots of laws specifically to protect whistleblowers.

Every soldier has a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to disobey unjust orders, and we should feel sorry when the soldier is punished for disobeying orders.

So yes in general there are many circumstances when we should feel sorry for someone being punished when he breaks an agreements.

Does the specific case of Bradley Manning fall into one of this circumstances? I don't know. I think his leak of the helicopter attack in Iraq counts heavily in his favour.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[drinkypoo]

But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information.

Without the buildup of publicity, Assange would have simply disappeared and any leak would have gone unnoticed, buried in bullshit newsday chaff. With it, the world will be eagerly waiting to see what he was killed for if he should disappear, and the release of his doomsday files will be broadly publicized by everyone.

Publicity has uses, and you simply don't understand them. That, or you find them distasteful, and are willing to be deliberately obtuse in order to miss the point.

Assange would have been through a log chipper already if nobody knew who he was.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[wikdwarlock]

Ostensibly, "branding" the information provides the casual reader an avenue of judging authenticity, accuracy, etc. If you found a ream of paper with lots of text and pretty pictures about subjects beginning with the letter A, would you cite their information in a paper you'd authored? If those same pages of text and images comes bound with "Encyclopedia Britannica (TM)" embossed on the side, would you cite then?

While it's a fair statement to say that Assange, and WIkileaks in general, are intentionally branding their leaked data, it is not unreasonable to argue that such branding actually serves the purpose of vetting the information, at least to a greater extent than a leaflet printed in a basement and left under your windshield wiper at the mall.

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.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BStroms]

By the way, Glenn Greenwald absolutely nailed it here.

I read the article and agree with much of what he says. Nevertheless, there's one point in particular on which I disagree. He admits that there are specific pieces of information we can argue shouldn't be released. However, he then tries to claim that because it's impossible to have a perfect selection of what to release, our choice is between Wikileaks or nothing.

Just because mistakes will be made, doesn't mean they shouldn't even try to come up with a system that does a better job of filtering leaks than Wikileaks does.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[AhabTheArab]

Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them...

That alone is probably the biggest reason they're going to such great lengths to demonize and make an example of Julian Assange and (especially) Bradley Manning. If they can convict either for a serious enough charge, it will cause quite a few people to think twice before leaking documents via Wikileaks, or any other similar website. It's less about what they did, and more about what others might do.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[228e2]

No, Manning fucked up by letting his emotions supercede the oath he sworn when he took his job.

There are appropriate whistleblowing groups to talk to if you feel your employer, be it a 2-person company or the most powerful nation in the world, is doing something illegal. The method and group he chose were wrong.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[LordLimecat]

Any reason you cant access any NON US leaks right now? All I see are the embassy wires, and the war diaries.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Tynin]

Thank you for that link. It would be hard to write a better article on this. Well done.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[ncy]

unless Assange is just a decoy, in which case everyone has their heads and fingers pointed the wrong way. when i see Assange becoming a rich fat cat out of all this, then i will say he had ulterior motives. otherwise, i agree with you about former as opposed to latter.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[MikeBabcock]

That said, I'd be very tempted to at least post torrent links to download and share backups of the public site content whenever it changes so interested parties can keep the data disseminated easily.

rsync access is a good idea too.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[NoSig]

I don't think there is a safe way. The documents you have been given could have been altered in trivial ways to be specific to just you, so the people who gave you the documents will know it was your copy that got leaked. This can be playing around with white space, inserting irrelevant numbers (e.g. incorrect page numbers or contact telephone numbers), watermarks, spelling errors, alternative spellings, word choice, inserting bogus documents into the collection, etc. Then there is the technical possibilities like putting an identifier in the PDF that isn't displayed. I'd expect Wikileaks can fix the latter but not the former. Unless they have the leak from enough separate individuals to extract the identifiers, which doesn't seem possible in most cases.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Khashishi]

How many people have heard of Cryptome or Tor? Outside Slashdot, almost nobody. How many people have heard of Wikileaks? Everyone. It's all over the news, all the time. Government leaders are paying attention and making statements and responses. When has any government ever responded to a small group of activists? Whether or not you agree with it, Wikileaks is a BIG DEAL. Sure, there have been similar projects, but nothing with this kind of exposure. Palin says we should go after Wikileaks like al Qaeda.

The recent actions of Wikileaks seems engineered to maximize exposure. This means putting out a biased message, and targeting a superpower with a lot of listeners. You may not agree with it, but it worked.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[LordLimecat]

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

Yes, and at one point you could actually ACCESS those non-US-gov't leaks. Now however, all that is on their website is the last few gigantic anti-US leaks. Thoughts on why that might be?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[countertrolling]

Obviously AWB

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

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.

Yes, but a central organization acts like a lightning rod for more leaks. Look, if he uploaded the data anonymously somewhere, then he'd adhere to your heroic ideal of getting the information out without receiving any recognition. But then, next time some non-technical whistle blower has some info they want to get out, they won't quite know where to go. With Wikileaks around, they'd know where to send the data. Having a named organization also makes donations possible. I'm perfectly fine with people seeing what Wikileaks is doing and supporting them in any way they can. You can't do that with an anonymous poster.

It's also a lot more powerful when a person or an entire organization is able to raise their hand and say, "Hey, this isn't right, and I'm not going to stand for it." Instead of someone leaving an anonymous note somewhere. It's more powerful when someone puts their name behind something.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[publiclurker]

since having your diplomats act as spies is a no-no, he is right that she's lost any effectiveness. Of course, there are a lot of individuals who think that ethical behavior is a bad thing, but their words are relatively unimportant.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[nomadic]

Diplomats have been used to gather intelligence since diplomats first arose. It is engrained into the role of diplomat.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[mcgrew]

A coward runs and hides, the brave stand and fight despite their fears. I'm not saying I have no respect for someone who whistleblows anonymously, just that I have even more respect for a whistleblower who stands behind his accusations/facts.

As to the DHS and TSA, I'm appalled at our government leaders' cowardice. When 9-11 happened, they caved. Our terrified response was exactly what they wanted. Fear isn't cowardice, one's reaction to fear is.

Someone who's not afraid to fight a bully isn't brave, someone who fears the bully but fights anyway is. And our government's response to 9-11 wasn't just cowardly, it was hysterically cowardly, considering that the threat to any random person being a victim of terrorism is lower than his chance of winning the lottery.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Kagura]

This is what I want to know. I used to go to Wikileaks to see the varied information they had from all over the world. This was back when it actually had *wiki-style* discussions on each document, but now their site is only anti-US leaks.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Kagura]

Don't believe me? Just ask Raymond Lemme, one of the Florida investigators of the 2004 election where George Bush Jr was accused of stealing votes. Found dead with his arm slashed in a Georgia hotel and declared a suicide (please note that in Georgia, no autopsy is performed on suicides unlike in Florida) just weeks before his daughters wedding and said the photos of the scene were accidently destroyed only to have them leaked later showing where his neck was bashed in before his arm was cut. Also note the complete media blackout on it.

So yes, I would rather put my face as far into the public view as possible to protect myself like Assange did before I end up like Lemme for doing the right thing cause when it comes to any conflict whether it be of money, power, or women, it isn't about who is right, it is about who is left.

I tried looking this up, and I think the media blackout is actually due to "Raymond Lemme" being a hoax story that is repeated on extremist political websites.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Kagura]

I don't know. I think his leak of the helicopter attack in Iraq counts heavily in his favour.

I agree with this assertion (although I believe the pilots to be innocent), but it's the SIGACTs and diplomatic cables that should not have been released and count very heavily against him.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Kagura]

I have far, far more respect for Cryptome than I do Wikileaks. I appreciate John Young's (guy who runs Cryptome) opinions and views, and the way he carries himself. He does not have that air of "I have an agenda" like Julian Assange has.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Voline]

OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.

Right. Because Woodward has spent the last 30-plus years as a sycophant to power and Assange has never done anything as reprehensible as writing Bush at War .

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Oh dear, you're just not getting this, are you?

Of course, Assange made himself a highly visible target. And now thousands of agents of one flavor or another are spending resources and chasing their tails by chasing after him.

Meanwhile, the wikileaks organization and it's imitators are busy making sure that they have multiply redundant servers in countries of multiple jurisdiction so that they can release their data on schedule. He is a beautifully visible target in a world which seems determined to shoot the messanger and never, ever look in the mirror.

As long as resources are focused on the man, the message will get out. Quite ingenious actually.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Volntyr]

To be honest, I am just waiting for the Movie to come out of Hollywood, if that is even possible

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[MrSteveSD]

Wanting to get the truth out is one thing

Getting the truth out is not the problem. Getting the media to actually report in it is something else. That's exactly why Assange has put on a show. He has drummed up interest because he knows that without a big circus, the media will not be interested.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[publiclurker]

If that was the case, then there would be no blowback about reveling that they are doing their job. Let's face it, you have nothing other than the fact that you prefer hiding unethical behavior instead of preventing it.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[MrSteveSD]

If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them.

I'm glad that someone actually understands this. The media will cheerfully ignore all kinds of big stories (COINTEL PRO) etc unless they are promoted. Assange is effectively acting as a PR agent for the leaks and he's been doing a good job of it too.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BitZtream]

it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.

To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.

when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes

Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.

Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.

The difference is, the Watergate investigations were just that, investigations. Wikileaks just spews for attention.

Wikileaks is not what it was once meant to be.

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

Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.

Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website. You're just another one of those people who wants to talk about making a change rather than actually doing something to make a change. All that you'll get is more hot air.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BitZtream]

shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life.

I'm sorry, exactly WHO are you referring too as far as not having their lives destroyed?

The way wikileaks handles these things, pretty much everyone involved gets fucked in the end.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[BitZtream]

I think most geeks assumed

You were and are wrong. Geeks can do it just fine.

A bunch of people who think running Linux makes them a geek because they found the shell prompt? No, they probably didn't know how to do it. Don't confuse your 'I think I'm a geek' group with those of us who actually have a clue.

The methods today are the exact same as they were 20 years ago.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[MMInterface]

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

Why? Is that something new? History is less corrupt? I think Wkileaks is a response to technology, not corruption. The need has always been there, the real difference here is there is a more efficient platform that is harder to control. Also I think your assessment of the which generation appreciates Wikileaks is anecdotal and inaccurate. I'm actually surprised that so many people have been undecided on the issue instead of picking whatever side they typically identify with.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[nomadic]

How much blowback is there outside slashdot and Assange on this issue?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Vintermann]

There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.

If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.

Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.

There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Desler]

So yes in general there are many circumstances when we should feel sorry for someone being punished when he breaks an agreements.

Why? Nothing of what has happened to him was forced upon him. He agreed to be punished in the manner in which he is receiving if he broke his agreement.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Abcd1234]

Yes, and at one point you could actually ACCESS those non-US-gov't leaks. Now however, all that is on their website is the last few gigantic anti-US leaks. Thoughts on why that might be?

Storage limitations are the most obvious. With limited disk space, you prioritize the popular stuff, and like it or not, that's the US Iraq and cable leaks.

Let's face it, there's no other *good* reason. Bias makes no sense... the material was there before. So, what, they suddenly became rabidly anti-American overnight, and decided to express that by removing non-US-related material? Please.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[clambake]

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anrego]

That was a typo (I corrected in reply) .. I meant _non_ geeks.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[publiclurker]

Well, Hilaries kind of upset that her rule breaking might cost her her job, but I really don't waste my time when crooks complain about getting caught. I've raised two kids, and am immune to the whining.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[KillerLoop]

you got an url there?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[quacking duck]

Yes, and at one point you could actually ACCESS those non-US-gov't leaks. Now however, all that is on their website is the last few gigantic anti-US leaks. Thoughts on why that might be?

Storage limitations are the most obvious. With limited disk space, you prioritize the popular stuff, and like it or not, that's the US Iraq and cable leaks.

Let's face it, there's no other *good* reason. Bias makes no sense... the material was there before. So, what, they suddenly became rabidly anti-American overnight, and decided to express that by removing non-US-related material? Please.

I'm not saying one way or the other their reasons, but at almost literally a dime a dozen (gigabytes), "storage limitations" are an extremely poor excuse.

And to cut off the obvious rebuttal, conserving bandwidth would be a red herring too... they have enough to host the latest materials, and no one's bothering with the old materials... except to notice they're no longer available.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Tolkien]

When information is backed by a known source, it is always more credible.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Abcd1234]

I'm not saying one way or the other their reasons, but at almost literally a dime a dozen (gigabytes), "storage limitations" are an extremely poor excuse.

Not if the data is mirrored across a large number of servers, all of which would have to be upgraded. It's just simpler to move the "less popular" content out of the way.

That said, this is a guess. All I'm saying is that there are *many* possible reasons why WL may have pulled the other stuff. "They're anti-American" seems the *least* plausible, IMHO.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[quacking duck]

it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.

To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.

The public has an exceedingly poor grasp of what's important. The majority don't even bother going out to vote, yet that's one of the most important things in a democratic society.

Second: Deep Throat and numerous other whistleblowers invariably go to media outlets because a) their "brand" ensures good coverage, and b) the whistleblower believes the outlet in question is distanced enough from the issues they're blowing the whistle on. Considering the lovefest much of the US media had for the Iraq invasion and their being too easily influenced by the threat of having their White House press passes revoked, it's no surprise they weren't chosen to receive the classified and confidential information.

when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes

Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.

Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.

So the public has to be spoon-fed "important" information now? That's what the traditional media is for. The public should have the option to sift through it all and decide for themselves.

Recall that Wikileaks released two versions of the helicopter attack video, they were blasted for releasing the edited version, rather than just the full video (which was already edited by the source).

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

Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.

Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website.

You're contradicting yourself. Wikileaks and their sources obviously thought the world was evil, and did something about it--they revealed the evil (or what they believe is evil) to the world, with minimal to moderate editorializing (the "collateral murder" stepped over the line, though).

What do you want them (Wikileaks and the GP poster) to do, take up arms and fight the US military? Spew harsh language at the people who run the world? Write opinion pieces to the New York Times?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[guspasho]

To the contrary, if you had a cache of damning documents that you felt the world needed to know about and you had never heard of Wikileaks, do you think you could do any better in getting that information publicized?

By promoting themselves, they ensure that their leaks get attention, and that people who have leaked information know what to do with it.

Whether Julian Assange is likeable or not, as well as whether their behavior is for good or ill, is completely beside the point. Promoting themselves serves the cause of exposing leaks.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[chrb]

Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?

You do know how and why he was caught, right? Because if you did, you'd know that it was through no fault of Wikileaks, but through him being burned by a reporter that he trusted.

Trust can be misplaced...

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[mcrbids]

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".

Information that is truly anonymous is also untrustworthy. Had this information been leaked in a truly anonymous fashion, it would likely have had little impact.

What's notable about this situation isn't that wikileaks leaked a bunch of classified documents. What's notable here is that nobody has questioned the validity of any of the documents. Everybody's talking about the mysterious Julian Assange, and whether or not he's a hero in tights or a traitor in a black hat, but the truth and sanctity of the documents has never, ever been questioned by anybody. We all know the documents are there, and that they are for real.

And that's because wikileaks has never bothered to release documents that weren't carefully reviewed for accuracy, and vetted to ensure that people don't (generally) get killed or maimed, etc. For example, a few posts up there's somebody claiming that people have died in Afghanistan because of Wikileaks documents. If he would have bothered to research even just a little bit, he'd know that this was just a bald-faced lie.

In short, it's the fact that the leaked documents are being backed by a proven, trustworthy source that makes the leak notable, and that's largely due to the leadership of Julian Assange. This is something that the media used to do, and while their recent failures are timed with the rise of the Internet, it's only because they've lost relevance by no longer drilling hard on governments and companies for truth, but rather becoming talking pieces for the PR arms of both.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[flowwolf]

I call it using the enemies weapons against them. The corrupt institutions of the world use brands and logos to maintain their power. Wikileaks is doing the exact same thing they are against them. It's amazing really. Novel approach. Good job.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[flowwolf]

So what? We see the nice parts of war all the time already. We already know they're out there trying to protect people. But we never see the reckless disregard that was taken in that video. I guess if somebody focuses on that part of war they're anti american. SLIIIIDE.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You mean the bits where the helicopter crew was joking and laughing about why kids were brought to the scene?

The same helicopter crew who in another incident, when two iraqi insurgents surrendered to them by throwing their weapons away and holding their arms up, the helicopter crew responded by consulting an army lawyer first and then when the answer was "surrenderring to a helicopter crew does not count as surrender, legally" they shot the (unarmed at that point) insurgents?

If you've actually watched that tape then you will understand that "collateral murder" is really a euphemism for a nasty conflict turning young americans into cold blooded killers who enjoy the killing.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[delt0r]

I watched the unedited version first. It looked as it was presented. Begging to shoot unarmed civilians that was *rescuing* the injured. When they found out that children were in the van the answer is "well the shouldn't bring children to a war zone". The US brought the warzone to their *home* city, a city with families in it, ie children etc. Its their job to not fire upon civilians. The pilots even lie about being shot at. In a *gun ship*.

It looked no more innocent than the edited version.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[LordLimecat]

Dude, you have no idea what youre talking about. Wikileaks just sustained (and remained active through) a gigabits per second DDoS, all the while their site was more active than it probably has been in a long time, and you think STORAGE was their problem? You think they just deleted however much of their other data (hundreds of gigs?) for a gig or two of leaks? When you can purchase a 10x RAID1 arrays of 1TB each for under $1000 US?

EVEN were that the case, what makes these embassy leaks so much more important than reports of ACTUAL CORRUPTION (which as I understand these particular wires do NOT) from other places in the world? Oh, thats right, it makes the US look bad, so theyre more important. I see.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[darjen]

I love Glenn Greenwald's blog. As a libertarian, I don't think there is another progressive writer I agree with more.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Trubadidudei]

I watched the full 39 minutes of unedited footage as a response to your comment, to see if it was warranted.
Seeing the full picture and comparing it with what the edited video offered, im almost under the impression that your assesement of "how hard troops try to miss civillians" is pure fantasy.

First and foremost the full picture after seeing the whole video, emerges as the following:
Firefight takes place between ground troops and insurgents
Gun ship swoops in to survey the area
Gun ship finds groups of people that carry objects that could be interpreted as weapons (and this is by NO means clear)
Gun ship shoots the shit out of said people, in a style that is best described as "spray and pray"
Van that was seen a couple of moments earlier comes around and tries to pick up bodies, the gun ship shoots the shit out of it as well
Troops comes around, finds some ammo and wounded children
Gun ship keeps looking around, sees some people gathering in a local building that appears to be abandoned
Gun ship fires a grand total of 3 missiles at said building and blows it up

In no parts of this video, was there a single moment that indicated that the soldiers were trying to miss anything, let alone civillians. In fact, I cant even recall a single mention of the word (although that may be just an overlook on my part). Additionally, when they fire their first missile at the building mentioned earlier (happens around 34 minutes into the video i believe), theres a seemingly unrelated person strolling by in front of it, who is obviously killed in the following blast, and is NOT EVEN MENTIONED. The guy in gunship is so trigger horny that he does not mention that theres an unidentified and seemingly unrelated target walking in the middle of his sights, like that person was not even a factor to consider mentioning.

I'm more shocked now then I was before. This has even made me consider the possibility that (some or many - undecided on that part) American soldiers honestly don't give a shit about civilians, and are more concerned with shooting at every possible target like it would level up their CoD character.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[Dan541]

Anonymity doesn't work so well if you brag about it. Especially if it's to a nefarious individual who betrays you.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[phmadore]

I agree. Let him hang, save the movement. Progress isn't dependent on one man. He deserves a footnote, maybe a big footnote, but little more. It's not like he's ever saved a dying Afghan school girl (I know people who have) or spent years on the picket line. He's in search of star power, and now he has it, so let him hang, get on with the leaks.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible

[phmadore]

They could have taken the Animal Liberation Front approach, wherein a law firm or publicity group does all their talking for 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

[Talderas]

Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.

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

[countertrolling]

So what? It doesn't invalidate what has been released... Besides, everybody expects Russia and China to be corrupt. What can be said about them that would surprise anyone?

Re:Won't be as popular

[RadioElectric]

I've heard people complaining that the data is not being leaked from countries considered to be the "enemies of America", like China, Russia or Iran. Two points in that vein...

1. Strictly practical. There is a sense in which America is so arrogant that leaks are more likely to happen when some disillusioned individual who has been permitted access to the data decides to cash his chips. Government employees in Iran are much more likely to feel like they are part of a valiant and worthy battle against foreign oppressors.

2. It is actually far more powerful to release this sort of information about a country that claims to be "the land of the free". If you live in a country where government censorship and control is considered a fact of life, you're not going to find the fact that your government keeps secrets from you outrageous. Obviously the danger of claiming that you are the only force in the world that believes in Freedom and Democracy (tm) is that you might someday be expected to live up to those ideals.

Re:Won't be as popular

[delinear]

But is that a conscious choice, or are they just releasing what they get? I can imagine Russia and China might have fewer whistleblowers willing to risk their lives than the US, for instance.

Re:Won't be as popular

[MrMarket]

Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.

Ken Livingston would beg to differ.

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.

Re:Won't be as popular

[countertrolling]

..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.

Do tell!

Re:Won't be as popular

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Their early leaks contained things about Somalia, Cayman Islands, Great Britain, etc. Surely you remember the "climategate" emails ? Those were from a UK university. Sure their latest leaks have been US centric but they're just releasing the most high profile, inflammatory, stuff they have. Oh, and as a EU citizen I would also like to read more of "our" leaked documents. Get to it ,whistle blowers !

Re:Won't be as popular

[Machtyn]

Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day? America is great in so many ways. (And, yes, I realize it has made a large number of mistakes. Our current chief apologizer is attempting to make amends for those right now.)

Re:Won't be as popular

[GreatBunzinni]

I'm not an american nor I ever set foot on it and I have to say that one of the unintended consequences of reading a hand full of diplomatic cables is that I actually made me respect the US a bit more than before. If you read the cables you will learn that the US is involved with other states, such as Spain and Brazil, effectively trying to fight international organized crime and other state-threatening organizations. In these cables, considering that they constitute straight unedited communications, free from all the propaganda bullshit which they spew onto reporters and free from any partisan bullshit which is imposed in political games, it is a breath of fresh air to learn that states, along with the US, are actively cooperating to impose some justice in the world.

So, the hell with those who claim that wikileaks is the devil and that these leaks are betraying a specific state. They constitute nothing more than pointing a flash-light at places that aren't usually accessible to regular people. A desperately needed flash-light.

Re:Won't be as popular

[BeanThere]

That's the best you could come up with? Thanks for helping prove my point. Now please, try to honestly convince me, with a straight face too please, that the average person who publicly criticizes the US, fears or has legitimate reason to fear they'll be targeted for murder by Americans, like Theo van Gogh.

Re:Won't be as popular

[countertrolling]

Consider the word "pragmatism".

Re:Won't be as popular

[babblefrog]

Check the wayback machine, they have released lots of other documents. It's just that their latest big cache was US related.

Re:Won't be as popular

[milkasing]

The cables contain a lot of confidential information about Russia. Today's release in particular. go to the http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
The prominent ledes right now on the page are:
"Russia armed Georgian separatists"
"Moscow mayor: 'pyramid of corruption'"
"Cables condemn Russia as 'mafia state'"
"Russian government 'using mafia for its dirty work' "
"Cables link Russian mafia boss to EU gas supplies"
"Litvinenko death 'likely had Putin's OK'"
I do not think they say anything that comes as a shock, but they are informative and in some cases entertaining. (there is one about a alcohol filled wedding where drunk soldiers pull out guns)

Re:Won't be as popular

[Kagura]

Obviously a large part of it is that one guy has given Wikileaks a LOT of classified US information. However, where have all the documents on other countries gone? That part of their website is now gone, and all we have are the unnecessary US leaks.

Re:Won't be as popular

[Kagura]

So where can I find these documents?? They have had all non-US related leaks removed from the Wikileaks website for many months now!

Re:Won't be as popular

[Patch86]

Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?

Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.

Have a look at the following link:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html#Aid

As you can see, as a proportion of GDP, the US gives less aid than Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Portugal, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, the UK, Finland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Greece and Japan. That's based on figures from 2005, and includes government, private and corporate donations. The site also criticizes the US for tying nearly 90% of aid given to products produced in the US- compare to other countries that do the same trick with less than 10% of aid given.

That site also ranks countries on a variety of other factors, from economic competitiveness, environmental cleanliness, gender equality and quality of life. It makes for interesting reading. It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly dominate many of these categories.

Re:Won't be as popular

[HiMorons]

Try adding in private contributions. That'll screw up your little screed pretty quickly.

Re:Won't be as popular

[Jaysyn]

Not sure. I think I read somewhere that it had something to do with streamlining the website against the DDoS attacks.

Re:Won't be as popular

[independent123]

I think most people hate us and for good reason. We've been doing nasty things and killings lots and lots of people since we nuked Japan, twice. Google "Casualties of the Iraq War" and see the Wikipedia entry for our latest crime against humanity.

Re:Won't be as popular

[chrb]

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.

The type of person who would defend immoral behaviour by saying "but we are not as bad as China, North Korea etc." is just as bad as the kind of person you are complaining about. How many times have we heard the phrase "we may do bad things, but we're not as bad as Al-Qaeda"? Too many to be worth crediting, unfortunately...

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.

Yes, people who are against American foreign policy are mentally ill, and probably racist and Nazis, too... or maybe not? Maybe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of U.S. foreign policy?.. "a true friend is one who tells you the things you don't want to hear". Being anti-U.S. foreign policy is not the same thing as being anti-American. Much of the world is the former, but not the latter, and you would do well to distinguish the two.

Re:Won't be as popular

[BeanThere]

I don't disagree that the US has also done bad things in its history, just like every other country. But crack open a history book sometime. Virtually every nation on the planet is founded on massive bloodshed and oppression and turmoil.

If you're going to "hate the US", rationally, it would only be fair to hate everyone else at least as much.

If you ever care to learn a little history, look at the overall picture of America against all of human history and all other nations, I suspect you might well eventually start to gain a very different perspective on things. Google 'Rape of Nanking' to see the sort of horrors the Chinese did, do you hate the Chinese too? Google 'Holocaust' to see the sort of horrific nightmares the Germans unleashed on this earth, do you hate Germany too? How about the South Africans under Apartheid? Or the British, who've killed countless many? Or before that, the Bantu who literally committed genocide on the native peoples as they spread through Africa? How about Cambodia and Pot Pol? Heard of Idi Amin? Ruwanda? Do you know the Mayans used to sacrifice humans regularly? Do you know what the Spanish conquerers did in South America? Do you know Malaysia fought a war with Indonesia? Do you know what the Chinese did to their own people during the "great" "Cultural Revolution"? Do you know the Australians used to issue hunting licenses to hunt down the Aboriginal people? You show me the nation founded on peace and cooperation, please.

Not to belittle them, but in reality, and this is just a sad fact, but the bad things America has done are truly but miniscule, tiny insignificant droplets in an ocean --- and then weigh them against the massive amounts of good America has done. Iraq war dead is what, 100,000? Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the Germans, the Japanese, the Chinese, they've all killed that many in a good day before lunch. Do you know that Germany was executing 75,000 Jews PER DAY at the height of their little "final solution"? And that's not all they did, go further back, you'll find atrocities in every corner of the world, like when the Germans murdered hundreds of indigenous folk in Namibia. Oh, let's not forget what certain Belgians unleashed in the Congo - millions, literally millions died and the death and mayhem continues today.

And yet no other major superpower, or any nation on earth for that matter, has ever done so much to establish and spread and market the concepts of human liberties and democracy. In fact, even 230 years after being the only nation founded on the philosophical ideals of inalienable rights, not one other country has even bothered to follow suit. It's fashionable to be anti-US, but it most certainly is not rational upon examination of the facts.

Re:Won't be as popular

[BeanThere]

"Germans murdered hundreds of indigenous folk in" => should've read "hundreds of thousands"

Re:Won't be as popular

[Patch86]

From the site I linked:

The chart on the right shows the amount of aid given to developing countries. It is shown as percent of the Gross National Income, so it includes both aid given by corporations and by individuals.

Apologies that in my post I said GDP, when apparently it's GNI.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[mrsteveman1]

Which news channel shows films at 11?

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.

Re:Not rivals

[Dilaudid]

It seems about as strange as vi competing with emacs, or gnome with KDE. I think it's great that there will be a whole bunch of wikileaks organisations, it should scare the hell out of our corrrupt and self-serving bureacrats. Or as Obi-Wan put it, "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The more, the better. And if one initiative gets taken down, there are others. Perhaps they can even cooperate on some fronts.

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.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[KiloByte]

Or Russia... Litvinenko released data about FSB staging false-flag bombings, and see how ended up. And instead of a plausible accident, Russians went a long way to leave their signature on his assassination.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[oldspewey]

China will simply:

• Block $WEBSITE so it's not accessible from within China
• Deny everything said by the international media

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[drinkypoo]

US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc)

Okay, where the fuck have you been? What about the mass graves resulting from the US invasion of Panama? What about the torture we don't hear about? What about the sexual abuse our own fucking citizens have to endure before getting on an airplane? What about Bonita (formerly Chiquita, before that United Fruit Company) STILL murdering people to protect its fruit interests in central America... interests secured by US naval bombardment in the 1800s? What about our double-digit number of attempts on the life of Fidel Castro? Or the laundry list of coups against democratically elected leaders throughout latin America? The USA is every bit as nasty as anyone else, don't kid yourself for one second. Testing nuclear weapon fallout on our own soldiers. Testing the results of STDs on black soldiers without consent. Shooting veterans peacefully encamped on the white house lawn to protest not being paid. I could go on forever but I might throw up.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the torture we don't hear about?

Indeed, it strikes me as very sinister that nobody ever talks about things they have not heard about.

The USA is every bit as nasty as anyone else, don't kid yourself for one second.

Only if you take a moral absolutist position that all bad things are equally bad.

If you are saying that you honestly believe the USA is no better than e.g. North Korea, then I am frankly unable to consider you anything but clinically insane.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "relatively" is lost on those who see the world in only black and white (and only see part of the world at all).

Note that your rant goes back over a hundred years. There are very many countries that've done bad things in merely the last twenty years, but of course that would give context to "relatively" and you couldn't go on a very effective anti-american rant anymore.

And of course, if you take any country you DO like and go back over a hundred years, there's not a one that didn't do something exceptionally shitty.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[drinkypoo]

And of course, if you take any country you DO like and go back over a hundred years, there's not a one that didn't do something exceptionally shitty.

I'm not trying to assign the USA the monopoly on shitty behavior. We simply export much of the suffering necessitated by our lifestyle to other countries, and right now we're the most successful bullies on the planet. If history is any indication, someone else will have their turn.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[mutherhacker]

Read some history please. The U.S. is, as far as I know, by far the most tyrannical "democratic" government in recent history. I recommend Noam Chomsky as a good starting point.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments.

[drinkypoo]

Indeed, it strikes me as very sinister that nobody ever talks about things they have not heard about.

Oh yes, invoke Groucho to try to dig your way out of this, but since you will not log in I know you do not have the courage of your convictions, and it tells me that you know you are a liar.

The simple truth is that if some torture is going on that we are hearing about, it leads us to ask whether there is more happening. The answer is almost certainly yes, because historically that has been the case.

I'm surprised they're willing to do this

[Crashspeeder]

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.

Re:I'm surprised they're willing to do this

[countSudoku()]

The more documents they try to hide, the more will slip through their fingers...

The more whistle-blowers the better for the American Peoples, and that's me. These brave hosters are the first of a new generation of forced transparency that will make the corrupt assholes think twice about committing their crimes on me through their secret deals and back-room bullshit. Get your fucking business out in the open, my fucking taxes are paying for it, and I DEMAND TO SEE THE FUCKING DATA!!1!

Thank you Wikileaks and this new venture! You are doing for Americans what the FOIA cannot.

If you disagree, you might not be a real American. If so, fuck right off.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[Crashspeeder]

11/10c

Work with what you've got

[RingDev]

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

Re:Work with what you've got

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there were submissions for global stuff that used to be there and now they are not. What happened to them? Why take any of it down at all?

Re:Work with what you've got

[delinear]

It's probably slightly cyclical as well. People know about the site in the West because it's reported in the Western news. It's reported in the Western news because it leaks information pertinent to the West. If the news around the rest of the world glosses over the leaks or fails to pick them up at all, it's obvious the site will be better recognised as the go-to for whistleblowers in the West and less so in the rest of the world, so it will attract more leaks from Westerners accordingly.

Re:Work with what you've got

[Rich0]

I don't think that anybody here is really suggesting that wikileaks shouldn't have published all of that stuff.

What annoys me with the site is that they UNPUBLISHED a bunch of stuff when they relased the Iraq war documents, and they remain offline to this day. It seems almost like a marketing decision (no need to distract the public with more than one scandal at a time).

It seems like the organization is more about marketing than getting info out.

Re:Work with what you've got

[Tokolosh]

It's the Willie Sutton effect.

Wtf title?

[vivaoporto]

(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.

Re:Wtf title?

[Ziekheid]

That's the media for you nowadays. OT: this is obviously tapping in on some of the public responses that WikiLeaks focusses too much on America. What are they going to do, ignore leaks they receive that are related to America? It just happens to be so that the biggest leaks they received, or rather, the biggest media spectacles around leaks, were related to the American gov.
If you take a look at their past leaks it also includes a lot of other leaks related to Scientology, the Bildenberg Group and Australia's censorship list.
This site has been around for years now, as most /. readers will know, but has only recently gained fame in the media due to major leaks related to the US military.

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.

Re:Wtf title?

[delinear]

Maybe the submitter got some inside information about the real purpose behind the site...

Re:Wtf title?

[BeanThere]

There will be never be a shortage of corruption to expose, so "competitor" is simply the wrong word in this context. The more information outlets, the better.

Re:Wtf title?

[noidentity]

You must be new here.

Re:Wtf title?

[elrous0]

I find it most amusing that these people don't seem to realize that all this dissension in the ranks is no doubt being encouraged by the CIA and others who would discredit and silence Wikileaks. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that most of this competitor's funding is coming from U.S. government coffers (whether the forkers realize it or not).

Just another front of the smear campaign to try to discredit Assange and Wikileaks. Next they'll be trying to frame him for links to terrorists, or painting him as a dupe by exposing the fake leaks that they've no doubt been trying to send him, or alleging that he's in cahoots with "bad" countries or their intelligence operations, and probably calling him a child molester too.

Re:Wtf title?

[pclminion]

Ah, I see. If organization XYZ says something then it must be true. Also, Google isn't evil. I mean, they said so. Duh.

Re:Wtf title?

[corbettw]

So someone says they aren't competing with Wikileaks, yet they're creating a resource that does essentially the same thing in a different way. The editors and submitter simply put more weight on what they're doing rather than what they say they're doing. Makes sense to me.

Re:Wtf title?

[Totenglocke]

The summary also forgot that as soon as this new site leaks something, it's leader will have bogus charges filed against him.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[countertrolling]

<raspberry>PFFFFFT!</raspberry>

Cryptome

[NBolander]

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.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[windcask]

Quiet, you. :)

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.

Re:Good idea

[Mr. Pibb]

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.

And what would make people stumble upon and wade through the thousands of documents? Not everyone has the time or interest to read everything that comes across their path. While I hate editorializing, it is necessary to get most people interested enough to read about it.

Re:Good idea

[Ziekheid]

You're just making stuff up now. The airstrike video was labeled exactly that: "Baghdad airstrike video" pre-release and later "Collateral Murder" (which is exactly what it was). And then there's the "Iraq War Logs". The media gave it titles as "murder by us troops" not WikiLeaks.

Re:Good idea

[Ziekheid]

Maybe so and I do not applaud this behaviour but please don't generalize the entire organisation for a slip-up in a TITLE. The OP is assuming they do this with all their releases creating a wrong picture of the organisation. Also he is misquoting the title as "murder by US troops". People don't realize that misquote after misquote end up being entirely different quotes.

Re:Good idea

[Ziekheid]

Please see my previous reply. I agree with the title but I see how it makes assumptions and I do not applaud it. WikiLeaks should only summarize the information that it is leaking without bias.
I'm wondering though. If WikiLeaks did a leak on some mass murder of dealers/whatever in Mexico by armed forces and named it "Mass murder by armed forces in Mexico" would anyone give a shit about the title? Sometimes things that happened are pretty damn obvious, especially when you have the act itself on tape from the perspective of the one with the smoking gun.

Re:Good idea

[wjousts]

That's part of the reason why I said it might be impossible. But actually it's not as bad as you think. Journalists will wade through those documents and bring attention to them (with their own spin and editorializing). The difference is that you'd be able to go back to Wikileaks (or whatever), see the originals (unspun), and make your OWN decisions on what it means.

Re:Good idea

[wjousts]

I didn't claim it was a quote, I can't look it up from work. That's why I said "or similar". It got the jist of the title. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Either way, it's still editorializing, which was my point.

I think your point about not generalizing the entire organization is probably exactly while these people want to set up a separate, different site. And most of these generalization come about because of the BS that Julian spouts about how he intends to harm the US.

Re:Good idea

[wjousts]

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, you may even be absolutely spot on in you assessment, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks loses credibility when it does that. A much less incendiary title could have done just as well, but that wouldn't have attracted as much attention to Wikileaks.

Re:Good idea

[pclminion]

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.

That's okay. We're used to the politicism and commentary. We know that everyone has their own bias. But information is information. I can filter out Julian's particular world view just as easily as I can ignore the ridiculous rantings of Sarah Palin. At any rate, thanks, Julian, for putting the information out there. I'll make of it what I can make of it.

Re:Good idea

[wjousts]

While that's true, I think the point of these people wanting to set up a completely new site is to distance themselves from Julian's rantings (and the huge target he's managed to paint on himself).

Re:Good idea

[Kagura]

"Baghdad air strike video" sounds extremely neutral. "Collateral Murder" is absolutely the opposite. It was even hosted at something like www.collateralmurder.com. I think if they had 1) given it a non-spin-biased name, 2) Released the non-edited video only, and 3) Conducted the bare minimum amount of journalism needed to give a very basic summary of the events leading up to the video, then I personally would have had no qualms with their release. It's really not amusing when the organization tries to throw such obvious spin on their releases.

Re:Good idea

[rastoboy29]

When they haven't done that, nobody paid attention.

That's why they're cooperating with major news outlets these days.

Re:Good idea

[Abcd1234]

Maybe so and I do not applaud this behaviour but please don't generalize the entire organisation for a slip-up in a TITLE

Funny how you conveniently forget they also initially only released an *edited* copy of the video... but other than that, yeah, they totally weren't editorializing...

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:Whistle blowing?

[delinear]

It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain. If these things are meant to be secret, you'd kind of hope that the agencies responsible for keeping things secret would be all over them. If they can leak to a benevolent source such as Wikileaks, what's to stop them being passed on to a malevolent source such as an opposing nation? Maybe there's more chance of the harmful stuff going to an opposing nation because there's more of a financial reward than when it's just "chatter" - we have a right to know that, too. And even the chatter, if embarassing, can be used as leverage and is therefore dangerous in itself. There are a few things in these cables I can imagine people might want to keep quiet to protect their own careers or personal interests, even if that means doing a few favours. That's a threat to national security, and if the agencies responsible for ensuring national security are doing a poor job of that, don't you think the people have a right to know? I'd much rather this information was out in the open where it's highly embarassing but otherwise harmless/can't be used as leverage than see it fall into the hands of one or two nations with their own personal agendas.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

You're not an elected official. We let those people run our countries and we expect accountability. We're not interested how they spend time with their family and friends, but in what ways they shape the country and its politics, on or off the record.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain.

No, it's not. The government should be able to do whatever they want, and everyone knows the government has absolutely nothing to do with the people!

Re:Whistle blowing?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.

Yeah except when a country like Saudi Arabia with close ties to US elites, like the bush family for example, urge the US to attack Iran then the population has a right to know that. They have a right to know that the reasons they are being given by their politicians might not be the whole story, for better or worse. Remember that $60 billion US-Saudi arms deal, the larget ever ? How's that looking in light of this information ?

Re:Whistle blowing?

[captainproton1971]

There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.

What if the state secrets are all about state corruption?

Do we have a right to know this stuff? No.

Who gets to decide that? Are you really all that comfortable with the inmates running the asylum, so the speak? Frankly, I think the release of these documents is one of the only positive events about engaging the public in demanding good governance that I've seen in a long time

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 agree with you about truly private information about celebrities. But what's said by diplomats behind closed doors is said while they're being paid a salary to represent us, the citizens of the country they're representing. The widely-reported leaks, at least, seem to involve communications between people working for us.

I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual

Then may I repsectfully suggest that you don't become an employee of the public, because your bosses might want to know what kind of a job you're doing for them. I find it interesting that there hasn't been the level of partisan name-calling from the usual suspects about things revealed in the leaks. I have hope this whole affair may be a positive educational experience for the public to learn about how their governments work in their name. But that might be hoping for too much.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[mqduck]

If you want to equate wanting to know what government officials do while on the job with wanting to know about the personal lives of celebrities, you've already lost the argument.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[Buelldozer]

Government BY the people, OF the people, and FOR the people or so said Abraham Lincoln.

I'd say we have a right to know. We the people are the Government after all.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[Kagura]

There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.

What if the state secrets are all about state corruption?

Obviously everybody wants corruption scandals leaked. I believe he's talking about real secrets that the government has the right and responsibility to keep classified for a certain amount of time.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[Kagura]

Who said a carte blanche? There is some level of trust inherent in any relationship, such as with your wife or your friends or your company or your government. It is foolish to assume that the American public has the right to know every bit of knowledge in the possession of the American government. To start with an extreme, there is no reasonable circumstance where detailed nuclear weapon designs should be revealed. You have to strike the right balance between secrecy and openness, and that was what the original poster was expressing.

Re:Whistle blowing?

[lennier]

There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.

Because the global public has morally less right to know state secrets than to know domestic secrets.... why, precisely?

Does that reasoning scale? Do citizens of one US state have no right to know secrets of another US state's government? Do citizens of one US city have no right to know secrets of another city's government?

It's one planet, the concept of "state" is artificial, and the concept of "state secrecy" doubly so. High officialdom isn't by virtue of its high office any more ethical than the man in the street - unless they are somehow held to account. Leaking state secrets may be illegal, and may be uncomfortable, and may in the end be counterproductive to transparency - but at least it's one mechanism for creating accountability which we don't currently seem to have.

Suicide pact

[digitaldc]

Was this new website even mentioned in their suicide pact?

Re:Wikileaks World!

[arb phd slp]

Which news channel shows films at 11?

I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).

On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow

[Duradin]

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.

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow

[Ziekheid]

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.

no, you want to mess with the usa

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:no, you want to mess with the usa

[CharlyFoxtrot]

No if you cross the US they just kidnap you and send you to some shithole to be tortured. Then, if it turns out you're not the one they're looking for, they'll dump you out in the middle of nowhere and pressure your government to forget the whole thing ever happened. This is what happened to a German of Lebanese descent and that's a case we know of, god knows what else the CIA is up to where nobody's looking.

Re:no, you want to mess with the usa

[circletimessquare]

sure, the usa will do that to you. if they think you are a terrorist

and china will send you to hard labor prison camp, for the crime of voicing your political opinion too loudly

and don't you dare trying to be an actual investigative journalist in russia

i'm not apologizing for the usa. i'm asking you to pick and choose your government when you release that government's secrets. and i'm saying that if your game is the free expression of politically charged media, then the usa is the government you want to unload on, because you won't be alive if you try to do that to china or russia

and please, don't try to say that is equivalent to rendition on botched terror charges. its simply not the same thing. better? worse? i'm not going to get in that ridiculous argument. but its obviously different. and to say that lack of freedom of political expression is the same thing as mistreating possible terrorists, that's simply logic failure

Re:no, you want to mess with the usa

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Oh well, they though he was a terrorist. I guess that's alright then. Your argument boils down to the fact that the US is the best of a bad lot, morality on a sliding scale. I don't accept that. You either stand for liberty and don't do this kind of thing or you wade in the shit with the rest of the totalitarians.

Re:no, you want to mess with the usa

[circletimessquare]

no

i am simply saying my argument has nothing to do with rendition. you bought up an unrelated subject matter. we are talking about wikileaks and other countries. that's the subject matter. you don't prove anything by bring up another subject matter

and i am not excusing the usa. i repeat: i am not excusing the usa. for the fourth time, including my previous post: i am not excusing or defending the usa

i am simply saying what you are talking about is a different subject matter. you can't make two different crimes equivalent. what the usa does wrong is not worse than what russia and china do, and it is not better than what china and russia do. just different. and i already said this in the previous post. so please stop labeling what i am saying with a preconceived prejudicial notion of yours that has nothing to with what i am saying, and actually read what i am actually saying, and respond to that

if you are going to say that all crimes are equivalent, you completely lose the ability to say anything relevant, because all countries have committed crimes, and all countries always will. if you can dismiss and make equivalent all the crimes of all countries, you can't say anything useful at all

Iceland

[formfeed]

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.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[fishbowl]

It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry, and fast methods of getting prints out), but it took longer to get film ready to broadcast because of hard constraints on the processing time required.

Getting 16mm film from the camera to broadcast in a matter of hours was actually a pretty impressive, pretty expensive accomplishment, and would be a significant competitive advantage for one news agency over another.

Now, I personally remember this era of television, but I don't believe I ever heard a newscaster literally say "Film at 11." Any of you other old farts remember this and/or have a reference? I think it's one of those cultural idioms that sounds so good and is fully apropos to many situations, even if it was never really used in its original context. And in English it's an expression with a "nice" meter, a trochee and an iamb. Don't underestimate the appeal of a linguistic idiom based on the niceness of its sound.

Perfect!

[mevets]

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.

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow

[pclminion]

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?

Re:Murder

[wjousts]

Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.

I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.

Re:Slashdot Competitor In the Works

[jgagnon]

Slashdot Competitor In the Works

Will /b/ start posting news? :p

(I jest, much love to /.)

Good. Redundancy is awesome.

[WWWWolf]

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?

Re:Murder

[moonbender]

I agree that they should have released the unedited footage (and I don't know that they didn't). But the fact that Wikileaks released the video is the only reason we are having this discussion and that a large amount of people are a bit more aware of what the realities of fighting such an asymmetrical war are.

That was his own fault

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[slyrat]

Which news channel shows films at 11?

I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).

On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."

It also is something that was used in the movie "Kentucky Fried Movie" quite a bit. I always associated the phrase with that rather than actual tv networks doing it.

stupid car analogy

[slew]

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?

Re:stupid car analogy

[atrain728]

You lost me. My film tank doesn't have an empty light. What did I do wrong?

Re:stupid car analogy

[MyLongNickName]

You were born.

The irony is an elephant in the room

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The irony is an elephant in the room

[Kagura]

... 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.

People keep saying that gathering information on the UN is against the UN charter, but if this is what it's based on then I can't possibly see that as being a breach of the charter. That is simply a clause for diplomatic immunity.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[snspdaarf]

It also is something that was used in the movie "Kentucky Fried Movie" quite a bit. I always associated the phrase with that rather than actual tv networks doing it.

The popcorn you are eating has been pissed in. Film at Eleven.

There are already Wikileaks competitors

[harlows_monkeys]

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.

Re:There are already Wikileaks competitors

[publiclurker]

the fact that nobody knows about them means that they are pretty much useless. You can print all the government secrets in the world, and if the only person who reads them is you mom after you slide it our under your door, they are still pretty much still secret.

Re:There are already Wikileaks competitors

[harlows_monkeys]

Cryptome.org, publicintelligence.net, dewereldmorgen.be (I'm told...I don't read that language so can't verify). There's also one being done by several people who left Wikileaks over conflicts with Assange, but I don't know if they are up yet.

random headshot

[sixtuslab]

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.

Re:Murder

[Kagura]

They released the unedited footage, but their edited footage featured prominently and left out context. The edited footage was also modified to exaggerate the situation and what the pilots said.

Re:Murder

[Kagura]

Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.

I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.

I'd love for you to post the Colbert video when you get a chance. :)

No, you can't release annonymously

[Dr. Spork]

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.

This is a huge ongoing spin campaign

[bussdriver]

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.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[tehcyder]

Go fuck yourself with a rolling pin you dull-witted fascist.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[tehcyder]

I'm not American, but the origin of the meme is extremely obvious I'd have thought to anyone who has ever watched the news on TV in their own country.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[tehcyder]

Wrong. Most of European governments are run by center-right parties. Or in the case of for example Italy, quite-far-right parties.

What in Europe is called centre-right would be classified as left wing in America. The US Democrats are centre-right in European terms, however much Republicans call them socialist/communist/extreme left wingers.

Re:Wikileaks World!

[windcask]

See, and I'm the flamebaiter/troll here. When liberals insult and demean in pornographic detail, they're just sticking to their principles and should automatically receive +5 insightful.

Re:He should be executed not killed.

[tehcyder]

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.