Slashdot Mirror
OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks'
Flixie writes "Swedish newspaper dagens Nyheter reports: '...[S]everal key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public."
And ten more shall take his place
Wikileaks' value is in its reputation - its ability to summon leaks. All this is going to do is diminish that.
If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.
Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
(Someone had to do it. Actually, nobody had to do it. But I did it anyways. I'm so, so sorry...)
Seems moral responsibility != solidarity
Just as the US government, and a bunch of private companies (perhaps guided by the US government) are attempting to destroy wikileaks?
I don't know, with all the trouble going on - Assange getting arrested, sites getting DDOSed, more people getting arrested for DDOSsing... I think that now is defentally not the best time for this. Public sympathy is too erratic at the moment - adding more sites like that will only make the situation worse.
When its one site, its an anomaly - what's next, a law to prevent similar sites? If they keep popping up like mushrooms, there's going to be less "Please stop letting them get funds" and more "We classify protecting the identity of leakers to be a terrorist act.. bla bla bla"
and VisualLeaks, DynamicLeaks, and TeenLeaks (oh wait that one already exists) Seriously, anyone else bothered by the predictability of made up internet words.
And who's to say that they really are former Wikileaks members, and not agents of the CIA seeking to intercept leaks and trace them back to the source?
*dons tinfoil hat*
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
Who are these other organisations? Surely one of advantage of wikileaks is that leakers are separate from publication. Under Openleak's nebulous "other organisations" leakers might feel more, rather than less, vulnerable. Or am I wrong?
People fragmenting away from an organization that has shown it upholds moral law, especially at a time like this, are probably not people you want to be sharing your information with; they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
Great Intellect...
How is this more transparent then WikiLeaks when the public can't even see the information when it finally IS released?
The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
the *idea* behind wikileaks was good, but Assange is an Ass-hat with an overinflated ego, who needs to go.
Another site that does what wikileaks does, without Assange, sounds like a good thing.
One of Wikileaks biggest problems is their name: they aren't actually *leaking* anything - they are publishing other people's leaks. Leaking is legally dubious, but publishing is protected by the concepts like Freedom of the Press in many countries. Calling yourself FooLeaks implies that you commit some kind of crime for a living.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?
i think the fact that there has been no major leak that is detrimental to a government or a company has occurred since watergate, escapes these people. werent there any scoops ? werent there any brave journalists to handle them ? surely. why didnt anything in the scale of watergate came up ?
information must be provided to EVERYONE. we are the people, we are the owners of these governments and countries. we have the right to see them first hand. not anyone else, regardless of their profession.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
Read radical news here
...politically-correct organizations who will decide what we need to see and what would "confuse" us.
Bugger that. Release all of the raw data to the public or you're no better than Fox News and Huffington Post.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So there's no leaking, only controlled information transfer to participating organizations. If I was a whistleblower, I'd worry that the serious risks I'm taking to make information available will be wasted.
I just launched "MyAssLeaks", and I've already gotten 2 hits!
the more websites will slip through your fingers.
We promise to guard the identity of all sources...We Promise :-P
So I take it that this new site is what Citizendium is to Wikipedia. Why do you even need a website to leak documents? Just dump the contents at the doorstep of every news organization you can find. If you can't find a "mainstream" source, there's plenty of bloggers who don't know what they're talking about who would be more than willing to rattle some cages for you.
But I guess the issue here is credit. Like the fools at TMZ who want to put their stamp on their "exclusive" video of some starlet picking her nose, these sites want credit for being the first to publish all kinds of international gossip. And Julian Assange is biggest glory hog of them all.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
...I'd turn to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, through all the crap it went through, gained the necessary credibility. Another purportedly whistleblower site might just be a honeypot. No thanks, not yet. WikiLeaks all the way.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
wikileaks already has removed names from those leaks. there isnt any sensitive info in them in regard to 'people's lives'.
and what will these people do ? release information to NEWS outlets. 90% of news outlets in usa are owned by parent corporations of 4 movie studios. and they are the very corporations who are also pressurizing and villifying wikileaks.
i fail to see your logic regarding 'fresh'. that seems like what we have been NOT having since watergate : journalism.
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
Read radical news here
Wikileaks just forked.
Read radical news here
Seems to me like Assange was the only one who is willing to "take it" for his cause, the others want to dish out dirt (which I welcome) but don't want to deal with the consequences that come with it?
Also anyone donate to WikiLeaks through XipWire yet? https://xipwire.com/give/wl
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
There is an iLeaks already, but for leaking as-yet-unreleased music, instead of secret political documents.
http://ileaks.com/
More leak sites is a good thing for everyone who isn't evil or profiting from evil. Eventually I see a web of them, getting information from each other, sharing with governments and journalists and the public by some criteria that change as demand changes.
I propose a counter-wikileaks website to leak sensitive personal information to Governments and corporates. The idea is you enter all you personal information, brag about your potentially criminal behaviour, as well as spend time on the site interacting socially so the site can establish a pattern of behaviour including what you "like" etc.
Damn.. someone beat me too it...
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Can any one find a single shred of evidence to support any of the claims made in the article?
What? Not even one?
Whose people's lives have been put in danger ?
You may not have noticed in your righteous rage, but WikiLeaks worked in conjunction with the newspapers to redact names and private information not relevant to the events, except where prominent persons were involved. So I have to ask again, which good people have had their lives put in danger ?
Does our government not need to be put to the same standard ? After all, our efforts abroad against an enemy incapable of ever crossing into our lands have caused the deaths of thousands of our citizens and tens of thousands of foreign people.
to me. Just get the leakers to leak to the honeypot site. Honeypottiers dribble out a few semi-juicy tidbits here and there but keep the good stuff locked down. No publicity. No "releases" without good strong infosec condoms. This would be just what the gubbmint and big corporations would want out there rather than media-blitzing, uncontrollable WL. The only question is, is this a U.S. effort or is it run by the International One-World-Government Conspiracy?
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
Visit http://openleaks.org/ Coming soon!
Here and on Reddit, every single time a story about Wikileaks comes up I always state that as cool as Wikileaks seems it is terribly flawed overall and far too important to leave as it is... every single time I get downvoted/modded troll/whatever and everyone busts out the hate... after this last debacle people have finally opened their damn eyes and I couldn't be happier. The media is broken which is why Wikileaks is even relevant, and we all need to stand up and win the most important war of our lifetime: The War on Information. The other great thing that will come of this is that the media will see all of the potential and thirst for actual news and information and hopefully shift back to what thy should have been doing all along.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
US Government begins shutting down any and all web sites with the term "Open" in their URL or contained within their web pages...
Unfortunately caught in the net is http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
From TFA:
> Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
The point of WikiLeaks is that they make the "raw" material available in addition to the edited material.
For example, remember the helicopter video? The "media" provided the short version. Wikileaks had both the edited version and the full version. Openleaks will not give you anything, you're left to accept that what the "media" tells you is right.
So newspapers and TV channels can put whatever spin they like on the leak, even give us a distorted view of the "truth", and we'll never be any wiser.
No thanks Openleaks, what you offer is not good enough. It's no different to the hand-to-mouth feeding that goes on how with "background information" from "unnamed people familiar with the story" that regularly provide government information bites to media outlets that the government trusts.
The dept. this article was placed in. It should be in The-Grass-Is-Always-Greener dept.
"Is that real poncho or a Sears poncho?" ~~FZ
All these "freedom fighters" wanting to post government secrets online are more dangerous than their cheerleaders seem to realize. Governments (including the US) are just dying for an excuse to regulate the internet. All this talk of "leaking" gives them the perfect excuse to do just that. Security concerns trump online freedom. And as with anything in life, excess leads to downfall.
How can we trust them? Will they mirror eachothers whistles? If not, why?
http://epistolatory.blogspot.com/2010/12/julian-assange-theater-from-it-security.html worth thinking about these issues.
The Constitution doesn't mention "journalists". It references freedom of the press:
A press is a device for duplicating written matter. So the Constitution is recognizing the right to publish using presses (as opposed to speaking with your voice). Time passes. Huge presses are reduced to small laser printers.
More time passes. A worldwide network for electronic publishing emerges. Anybody who cares about limits of government would say the Congress does not have the power to limit the ability to use presses (electronic or otherwise).
And the right of the press isn't limited to any one specially-favored group that calls itself "the" press.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
GNULeaks
FreeLeaks
etc etc
You forgot Minileaks, LeakReactor and The Leaky Bay.
Publishing such information seems like something that is more likely to be legally protected than trafficking it.
If the information is available to the public, then there's a greater risk of someone crying foul about any 'tweaks' that are made to the story. Also, it also means that it isn't a he said/she said thing. 'Scientific journalism' is good because it allows different news outlets to draw their own conclusions based on the actual leak, rather then passing through a game of Chinese Whispers. For example, an Australian Labour Party power broker passed on information, tipping the US off about Julia Gillard taking over Kevin Rudd's role as PM a year before it actually happened. I've seen everything on it from condemning it as pandering to the US, to passing it off as business as usual - explaining that it's important to share information to keep diplomatic lines open.
The fact that the leak is out there for anyone to see means that spin can be kept to a minimum at least, they can't outright lie because people will check the facts against the evidence.
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
Oh yes, the Guy Fawkes mask.
I find the name "openleaks" somewhat dangerous. Sure it makes sense but stupid people will link it to open source and the likes and give that a bad wrap just because of the name...
As with Napster. As with all themed file sharing sites or systems. Take one down and 10 grow in their place. As long as there are internets, telephones, newspapers or writing, this will not change, ever.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
There are more than one way to damage and/or destroy this now popular group. The bad guys at the top running the show hates regular people getting the truth.
Do not fall for these BS and keep the eyes on the ball.
When people leak stuff it's not about the cool new technology that ends up in some high tech weapon. They leak about people lying, cheating and generally breaking the rules. It's not about releasing information about soldiers killing enemy forces in battle. It's about unaccountable spooks breaking dozens of laws and the charter of their organisations by torturing people to death.
Now we've had a lot of bullshit where manipulative bastards say that anyone that says anything bad about their own side, true or not, is "giving comfort to the enemy." That's just an excuse to be able to let the dead wood say at their posts without being embarrassed by enormous fuckups. The comfort angle in this case is utter bullshit because it really does not matter if somebody does the equivalent of point at one of these things and say "haha".
Weak. This company is giving in to illegitimate accusations against wikileaks. Hiding behind publishing companies (presumably the big tabloids) means you can't deliver the unbiased facts, only what the tabloids decide they want to deliver.
Authorities prefer this method because they can have control over papers like they do over the NYT. Don't give in to the pressure, be brave and support Wikileaks.
I say stupid stuff too to people that ring me up and ask stupid questions. Of course a smooth political operative would know to say "no comment" or something. He's an Australian computer wrangler from a city that wouldn't even be noticed if it was in the US, UK or China not some guy that has been in the Washington beltway since he was a teenager.
I'd say even most people on the payroll of the arms companies would quite like to end two wars if they could. He's doing his little bit but I doubt he's stupid enough to think it's more than just another straw to add to the pile.
If this site is staffed by ex-Wikileaks members then Wikileaks is better without them since they didn't understand the point that Wikileaks is not about "leaks" but about accountability. A democracy without accountability is no better than a tyranny and the key to a lack of accountability in a sick democracy is the control of the mass media.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I too have acquired various Fry's brand 'Great Quality' computers, with Fry's extended warranty of course. Their reliability is anything but Great Quality.
If the openleaks peeps wore a condom before they fucked Assange?
Be seeing you...
There are VERY few possibilities for copycats coming out between now and 2013 or so in light of ALL the mainstream publicity currently on this:
1) The founders of new legit whistleblower sites ... cashing in on ad views and so on (think web2.0), but with no effect on the public --HURTING THE CAUSE.
2) The founders might be well-meaning and privately funded, but mess up the leaks because of poor encryption / submission guidelines, or poor handling of the leaks. Its founders won't have the same courage as Assange, and the USA will be ready for them, despite what they've shown in their poor handling of Assange's case --hurting the cause
3) Honeypots set to catch rogue leakers, by the USA or vigilantes contacting the USA --hurting the cause
4) Long term honey pots set by the USA to do #1 or #3 AND discredit the cause with false leaks intentionally mishandling
I'm not sure why the government did not try to smear Wikileaks from the start, and allowed it to grow into today's issue, but I'm glad.
We should give the rogue informants credit in having FOUND and spread the concept of Wikileaks without being taken out by the USA first*
The problem is that noise will confuse the informants, and seeing the secretive / trust no-one nature of their jobs, I'm sure they'll think twice before submitting further leaks:
Who can confirm the USA has not ALREADY captured the wikileaks.ch domain and already has a honeypot, or that they wont consider it as the noise over Assange subsides and they can do it without much mainstream publicity?
*Likely a few spies were caught and "dealt with," but we get useful information regardless.
Sounds good, but what OP left out is that it is Daniel Domschelt-Berg leading the breakaway on the ground his ego couldn't fit in the same room as Assange's. Now while Assange is doing time for what we suspect are trumped up charges with the US Attorney General willing to make up laws to shut him up, at the same time Domschelt-Berg is publishing a book called Inside WikiLeaks: My Time at the World's Most Dangerous Website and distracting attention from the cables. Which man would you trust with your leak?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-at-slave-trader-assange-wikileaks-loyalists-decide-to-break-away-20101210-18s0w.html
"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth--anonymously and posthumously." -- Thomas Sowell
Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
I'll be impressed with Assange when he crosses the Russian government. Then again, he's probably a well enough informed guy to know what happened to Anna Politkovskaya.
Until then, he looks to me like a guy who, while he might be doing something ultimately valuable, is just another guy with an axe to grind and who isn't really isn't so interested in "openness" as such so much as using it to justify his personal agenda (and get a bunch of self-righteous wannabes to DDoS websites and pretend they're fighting some kind of cyber-war on his behalf).
Anyone else would have taken the safe road, formed comities or a special interest group. These are all organisations which governments understand. They are easily managed and co-opted. Give them funding, ask them for regular reports, have a yearly dinner party and then threaten to cut the funding if they go out of bounds.
So yes, for something like Wikileaks to be successful you need a revolutionary.
Someone who persists in the face of governments and a general public happy with the status quo.
Assange being an asshat is Wikileaks only and largest quality.
Reminds me of a certain free software advocate who tends to rub some (many?) opensource supporters the wrong way. Conviction won't help you win popularity contests.
Well Wikipedia has had to contend with lots of enraged idiots who think they are something to do with WIkiLeaks, lets see how OpenOffice does with this lot. Can't they think of a decent name or themselves?
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
One could argue the US killed the Kurds then because Saddam gassed them when they rioted and they rioted because the USA said that they'd help them get freedom.
Ergo, it should be a USian who died, not Saddam Hussein.
If we follow your logic.
how do you separate the wheat (truth) from the chaff (lies) if your vilified 'middleman' doesn't verify that submissions are not total BS that even Fox News would hesitate to spew?
Well the Wikileaks concept hasn't been that unsuccessful..... Can't understand the criticism on Assange, the guy is one of the most successful organizational leaders in history. I think something like this just stems out of jealousy, some people just can't handle being in the shadows of others that has all the smarts. Egomaniac? rather he is a genius risking his life for his truth sake and he knows it, people should trust his leadership. The way he personally symbols Wikileaks is one of their keys to success.
He reminds me about Steve Jobs, the cold INTJ style, some people just can't handle their success.
If only there were some site on the internet where a whistle blower with inside information could anonymously submit evidence about what's going on behind the scenes at WikiLeaks.
I smell a rat, a big sized back alley trolling one.
It would seem opportune for some sort of government agency to step in, and pay some of these guys to start a new site,
that does the same thing, but is not associated to someone who is adamant not to bend to countries trying to shut him down.
Then when everything is set up and the stories start coming in, they not only can stop it in its tracks, but also have ways to seek out the person posting it....careful to anyone who will be posting to this new site, there was nothing wrong with the old one, even if the Assange dude on false charges loses his case, the site will remain operational, and without loss of integrity...as it is one man, not the whole thing, and these supposed senior developers flying the coop, i wonder how much they are being paid to leave and start their own version, seriously, just because one person thought of facebook, afterwards it becomes it's own entity, no? so why not wikileaks too?
This sounds like a bullshit attempt to dilute the Wikileaks influence, additionally there is nothing 'open' about this, they are in truth more closed than Wikileaks. Autopublish EVERYTHING without regard, then they can call themselves openleaks.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The larger question is: does living in a fantasy world, where there are restrictions on who gets to know how the world really works (and profit from it), champion any ethical arguments anyone cares to discuss? If everyone lived with perfect access to information, could we support our world population? Are there "universal" beneficial imperatives as a species at least to have information asymmetries where they allow one subpopulation to exploit resources (and other populations) asymmetrically, and allow tech development and social systems where greater population and "standard of living" is possible for all? Is there such thing as a stable imbalance of information that maximizes any argued benefit, or does a constant process of empire and dismemberment more efficiently keep inevitable corruption form creating collapses?
These leak things are interesting. How long will it be, for example, before a site could openly and safely solicit compromising information...open corporate espionage, whistleblowing, etc. At the moment, the information is unsolicited and broad. What about an infrastructure that could solicit information for a specific purpose...like patent breaking etc is currently done? It cuts both ways. Imagine how it could change politics. I can only imagine privacy will largely become a thing of affluence, and a tool tool wield more broadly and cruelly in the information asymmetry arms race market.
I think they need to post the full documents. That is the only way to keep things from being censored.
However an unrestricted total dump is irresponsible, and to me Assange looks like a paparazzi of politics.
Wait, are you the guy from the New York Times Glen Greenwald was arguing with or are you one of his comrades?
So far WikiLeaks has released 1/2 of 1 percent of the cables it has, after carefully vetting them with five of the world's largest newspapers.
Disinformation troll is disinformative.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A leak is one thing. To post sensitive government data can and should be held as treason. Stop and think about this. The internet is open to the world. There are people out there willing to kill each and every one of us. Our defense department does what it can to keep them from doing that with plans and secret information. When that information is leaked and POSTED TO A PUBLIC SITE. It gives the people whom willingly want to do us harm insight. Back in the cold war that was treason and done by spys. Now we have americans trying to kill other americans or simply have a death wish their selves by posting this info knowlingly that it can and will be seen and used by people whom intend to do us harm as a whole nation. Enough of the big brother BS. The government has to have some control of its people and has to cover its rear just like we all have to cover our rears in life. Point in all this is the people whom are posting the leaks and obatining them should have their equipment siezed, destroyed, and either tried for treason or put in jail for A VERY LONG TIME WITH NO ACCESS TO PHONES, OUTSIDE CONTACT OR ANY COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE. These people mean US harm as a whole nation and should be treated as such. Your freedom of speech and press goes out the window when you know for a fact this information could and will cause MASSIVE harm to a person or entity
Kirk James Murphy says SHE was playing with CIA-funded terror-tactics groups not so long ago: http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
The same groups publicly supported the coup in Honduras. The one which Wikileaks revealed US government lying not knowing about and being unable to intervene because of that.
More on how CIA is hunting Assange through Sweden (emphasis added):
The Swedes have a practical reason behind their deceptively slapstick police-work. The WikiLeaks founder, pursued by malevolent forces around the world, sought momentary relief beneath Sweden's reputation as a bastion of free speech. But the moment Julian sought the protection of Swedish media law, the CIA immediately threatened to discontinue intelligence sharing with SEPO, the Swedish Secret Service.
The suspicion of whether the rape farce is an orchestrated campaign, might be illuminated by these facts: (1) Sweden sent troops to Afghanistan, (2) Assange's WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diary... --- ...new secret materials by WikiLeaks might just influence the general elections on September 19. Perhaps that explains the sudden police raid on a WikiLeaks server.
Wikileaks has credibility; Assange does not. I mean, he told a reporter that he was too busy to talk to them because he "too busy ending two wars." That kind of narcissism is profoundly stupid.
Your statement has no credibility. It seems you are over-sensitive with people describing accurately what they do without playing it down. Saying "I'm launching a new website/business" is as true whether you are the only one involved or one of many in a team.
If it makes you feel better, mentally prefix every sentence like that with "I am one of the many insignificant people involved in the process that has the goal of". Please don't ask for that to be mandatory for others with cries of narcissism.
And I would assume, then to start posting the various other stuff that WikiLeaks has been working on.
That should garner them widespread support pretty fast.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Let's have some names please.
To my knowledge Wikileaks is a very small team, and there is only ONE former member (Daniel Domscheit-Berg)
DB seems to have a personal bone to pick with wikileaks,
The fine article reads like a hyped up smear piece trying to puff up the creation of OpenLeaks. Now I only skimmed it, - but Is there any demonstrable evidence out there that openleaks is something more then a non-starter/one-man show born out of a single bad attitude, or unwillingness to commit to the ball that is already rolling quite well?
What is this nonsense, a human made translation, is something wrong with the Google translation.