Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks'

Posted by timothy on from the one-way-valve dept.

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."

8 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Assange gets arrested. by thehostiles · · Score: 5, Informative

    And ten more shall take his place

    1. Re:Assange gets arrested. by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Informative

      The new site doesn't appear to have anything to do with Assange's arrest. It's more about a disagreement regarding how to handle leaked information. OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists, whereas WikiLeaks is there to disseminate the information to everyone.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Assange gets arrested. by alchemy101 · · Score: 5, Informative

      2008 - Julius Baer (Swiss Bank), Scientology (US but not govenrment), BNP member list (UK) + many more.

      2009 - Petrogate recordings (Peruvian Government and Business), Barcaly Bank documents (UK), Natanz Nuclear accident report (Iran), Kaupthing bank (iceland), Australian censor list (Australia) + many many more.

      2010 - Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents (Germany)

      That's a fair bit over a short period.

    3. Re:Assange gets arrested. by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      They weren't killed because they were informants or whatever and got "burned".

      They were killed because they revolted against a corrupt dictatorship.

      The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

      This wasn't Wikileaks "fault", this was a fight of a people against tyranny, who willingly decided to risk their lives to fight it.
      If anything, we the so called "first world" countries are at fault for ignoring this people's struggle.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  2. Re:One for all.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why should moral responsiblity == solidarity?

    Isn't that one of the problems with many movements, the leaders (w/ all of their faults) are often deified and thus are become easy targets for the opposition. Of course you can argue vaguely about a greater good or the lesser evil, but why not strive for an organization that isn't about a person, but is about an ideal? Do we always have to have egomanics representing a cause?

  3. Misleading summary by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Informative
    What kind of a misleading summary is that? 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.

    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.

  4. Press by Compaqt · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Constitution doesn't mention "journalists". It references freedom of the press:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 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
  5. You've been fooled by the int to enemy angle by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    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".