Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Competitor In the Works
airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.
I agree. It should be "Assange, Bernstein, Woodward." Alphabetical order is much better.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!