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
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*
Credibility means fairly little to the organization organizing the leaks - what matters are the outlets.
I think Wikileaks got it exactly right this time, using some of the most respected newspapers in the world to filter and disseminate the cables, rather than attempting to dump them directly. Sure, they got stick from the usual suspects, but the reality is that nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks themselves: if The Guardian posts a cable reporting that, to use a real example, defense contractor Dyncorp organizes child rape parties for Afghan warlords in order to close the sale, and the US government's complicity in covering it up, we pretty much accept it, in a way less likely to happen if it's some random voice on the Internet posting what they claim is a cable.
OpenLeaks is made up of people who know this. I don't think they'll have an issue.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
Yes.
1. People who aren't egomaniacs don't want to be the face of a cause.
2. Causes aren't successful without faces attached to them.
Thus, causes that become popular will always have egomaniacs leading them. Even Gandhi was a bit of an egomaniac, though less reprehensibly than most.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Let's see if they try to arrest the founder of Wookieleaks.
We might get to see arms ripped off!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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
Assange was originally a programmer; overinflated ego comes with the territory.
It's easy to armchair quarterback Wikileaks from your computer, isn't it? Assange is taking a very real stand with very real consequences against some very nasty people working in very compromised governments. You need to be a bit insane, a bit self-important, and more than a bit strong on your convictions and courage to have a mindset that enables to think this is a logical idea. You may not like the way Assange operates, but did you see anyone else do it? No? Exactly.
http://comixed.memebase.com/2010/12/08/4-koma-comic-strip-an-issue-of-debate/
When an I Can Has Cheezeburger site explains the entire Obama administration, government view of free speech vs. censorship, and current political climate in 3 panels something is wrong.
Yeah some details didn't need to be leaked. But most did. The military calls this "collateral damage" and minimizes it compared to the success of hitting a target. Civilians are apparently held to a different standard because we haven't been trained how to properly attack and cover up.
1300 people dead because they refused to put up with the shit any more, as opposed to several thousand dead from malaria and the country's resources being misused.
Was the leak a good or bad thing? Did it lead to 1300 deaths or save a few thousand more in the long term?
This isn't playschool, there isn't a clear good and bad, just shades of grey and complicated trade-offs.