Slashdot Mirror


Openleaks Goes Live

Underholdning writes "Ars technica leaks the story of OpenLeaks launching. OpenLeaks is an alternative to WikiLeaks, with a few differences. 'OpenLeaks will not accept or publish documents on its own platform, but rather create many "digital dropboxes" for its community members, each adapted to the specific needs of our members so that they can provide a safe and trusted leaking option for whistleblowers.' Time will show if this will live next to WikiLeaks, or they will compete. For more information, check out the OpenLeaks website."

21 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. FL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First leak : Obama is really an American.

    1. Re:FL by jeffrey.endres · · Score: 3, Funny

      This second step makes him not "natural born."

      Yeah but he is white.

    2. Re:FL by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      But Obama voluntarily placed a copy of his official birth certificate on his campaign web site during the entire 2008 campaign

      Just hold on there, buster. I saw that so-called "birth certificate" with my own two eyes and I don't know about you but I could not feel that official seal no matter how hard I rubbed my screen (which ended up killing a whole bunch of them little pixies, something like 768 or so, that make up one-a them flat screens and even though the 14" LCD monitor that I bought at the Wal-Mart has a whole passel of them pixies, a bunch of dead ones right square in the middle of the screen kinda messes up the picture. Now it looks like that Bree Olsen (who is 100% white, by the way) has an extra nipple what with all them dead pixies, and an extra nipple does tend to spoil the mood, if you get my meaning). So not only did that Hussein Adolph Obama take my country, but now he's soiled Bree Olsen on top of it. Sumbitch.

      But getting back to the so-called "birth certificate" of our phony-baloney president (man, I don't know a soul who voted for that muslin boy) you can tell it's phony because not one single true patriotic web site showed it. That's right. Not a one of them. Don't you think that if it was really his birth certificate then they'd want to clear this mess up with how it's got every right-thinking American ready to go to the mattresses and all?

      No-sir. No citizen, No way. (by the way, I've copyrighted that phrase, so don't even think about putting it up on a bumper sticker without you send me a little taste first.

      And by the way, I may be a dumb cracker, but I'm smart enough to know that the new Slashdot Zero looks like seven kinds of shit. I'm thinking of having a little talk with that Captain Tacobender or whatever that yankee pudknocker calls hisself and see if I can't persuade him to switch it back to something a little more loser-friendly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. When will they learn? by Deathnerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you bring down or threaten one site, six more pop up in its place. I would have thought that the lessons learned from fighting torrent sites would translate to government. I guess they'll never really learn.

    Row row row FIGHT THE POWAH!

    1. Re:When will they learn? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My least favourite is the war on alcohol, because after vast amounts of wasted money and a dramatic increase in organised crime, politicians still refuse to learn any lessons from the outcome.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Where is the advertising ? by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and who will do its advertising, so that the mass media will HAVE to carry the leaks into the headlines ?

    if you think material will just get carried into headlines and prime time news because of the contents, dont fool yourself - entire american public is unaware of what ACTA is, even as of now, despite it has been internationally fought over by all major players in the world. so, its indeed possible to keep public ignorant.

    wikileaks is using the publicity assange generates through media and publicity stunts. in case you noticed, assange is always making the opening for a new leak a few weeks before it is published, and continuing to generate publicity for the upcoming leak.

    you just dont create a dropbox and expect leaks to be seen by people. corporate contolled media WONT use it. they have successfully kept any potential leak in the dark since watergate, until wikileaks.

    openleaks must find a way to make advertising.

  4. Re:dont leak to the wrong people by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, my thought exactly. For all the limitations of Julien Assange, he's not a narc, he won't pass your name to the authorities, and he will try to get your leak out there and make sure that people actually notice. Alternatives to Wikileaks might also do the same, but I wouldn't want to be the first to test the waters. I definitely hope that these guys turn out to be legit though. Competition in leaks would be a very good thing for everybody. Still, let's not ignore that Assange and Wikileaks have a huge head start.

  5. Politics by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:Politics by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this argument is utter crap. Wikileaks offered an unedited version of Collateral Murder, and what they did edit they did to clarify things and in my opinion they didn't distort the content in any significant way.

      Other documents they have edited have been to remove people's names and they'd have gotten more criticism if they hadn't done it.

    2. Re:Politics by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the greatest possible respect (watch "Yes Minister" if you don't know that this is a polite way of saying you may be very good at something but have no clue about this subject) they had both an edited version that can be considered "highlights" and the full version. That renders your complaint pointless nitpicking that could be applied to nearly any media source on the planet but can not be applied for this video.
      Also Orwell was writing about the USSR in such a way as to get the message across that it could happen in your hometown if everything went wrong. He also sidestepped the ideologies that really are irrelevant if there is totalitarianism hiding behind them by setting it in a fictional place. It wasn't really prediction but extrapolation of the sort of thing that was already occurring and presenting it in such a way that people would take it seriously without bringing in their own ideological baggage.

    3. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "collateral murder" highlights reel was all that was needed. When the soldiers shot the van that was collecting the bodies, that was a war crime.

    4. Re:Politics by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A reporter, newscaster or presenter will report on the facts, a commentator gives opinion.

      Fox News is all commentary and skew and flip stories. BBC News is mostly news casting, and only report on the fact, with no biased slant, in most cases.

      Only time you see reporting getting slightly skewed at the BBC is when they are dealing with very sensitive subjects, for example they have embedded journalists in Iraq where the story is that given to them by the American and British forces, and is not representative of what is really going on. 'Collateral Murder' went through the press as the story given by the USA army that was totally inaccurate to what happened. The embedded journalists have to obey the news given out by the forces, if not agencies such as the BBC wont get on the front-line of what is happening. Wikileaks served to undo the PR machine that the US government have.

    5. Re:Politics by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry for double post... But I just went and watched the "full" video here, and around 4:35-4:45, I very clearly see a cut. Is that how such videos generally work? Is there any reason to believe that too was not edited, or can we trust that THIS time, it was the full video?

      And I thought the point of a site like wikileaks was to be a neutral, thrid party publishing site; sticking orwell quotes onto a video doesnt seem very neutral to me.

    6. Re:Politics by metacell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.

      It's not unlikely you're trolling, but I'll respond just to be on the safe side.

      The US military didn't just classify the video where a US attack helicopter shoots down journalists in Iraq - they lied to the court and claimed it didn't exist.

      Wikileaks exposed that lie by leaking the video. They published both an edited version with commentary, and the complete, unedited version, so everyone could see for themselves that they didn't distort anything. That Wikileaks bothered to publish the unedited version, proves that they were honest. It's more than what a regular news agency does.

      Of course, when they release unedited material, they get criticised for that too. It's used to argue that they're not "a real news agency", since "real news agencies" provide reports, not raw data, and this in turn is used to support bizarre arguments that they shouldn't have the same right to free speech as other news providers.

      So whatever Wikileaks does, they get criticised. I think it's amazing they haven't made more mistakes than they have, considering the sheer amount of material they've received and the controversies surrounding it.

  6. Egypt just turned off all Internet access by h00manist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Egyptian authorities apparently pulled the backbone plugs. As a result of the Egyptians protesting, because the Tunisians protested, because of a Wikileaked document, from a US Embassy saying the truth - there was an old, fucked up dictatorship, that is no more. Egyptians have their work laid out for them.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:Egypt just turned off all Internet access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Julian Assange and WikiLeaks work brought about what Dubya said he wanted to do by attacking Iraq: spread democracy in the Middle East. For a lot less than the trillions of dollars and tens of hundreds of lives (including the much more valuable American lives).

      Suck on that, Dubya..!

  7. Openleaks is not what we need... by neiras · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So these guys plan to release only to 'need-to-know' news organizations, approved by themselves and some sort of vote process? Yeah, that'll work well. If the media won't touch a certain story shopped around by OpenLeaks, we'll never know about it. I don't trust OpenLeaks; I hope they fail hard.

    Wikileaks had it right - public disclosure with a reasonable attempt to scrub names not directly responsible for the crimes being exposed.

    1. Re:Openleaks is not what we need... by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So some people want to try their own hands at helping.

      I hope they fail hard.

      You want them to fail because they're not helping in the way you want them to.
      Rush Limbaugh, is that you again?

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  8. Re:dont leak to the wrong people by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Assange for all his weaknesses is in some respects a realist. Those complaints weren't particularly valid. He's got a limited number of people that he can trust to do the redactions and other work necessary to release the material. There's a lot of material in the world that can be leaked. I don't think it's a fair criticism of him or the organization that there's a huge backlog. Choosing to prioritize the materials that are the most interest to the general public is hardly unethical. Organizations have to make priorities or they get nothing done.

    It's sort of like if Shakespeare or Mark Twain had chosen to write one act or chapter from each work before moving onto the second. Both men almost undoubtedly had a back log of ideas at various points and only a limited amount of resources with which to realize them.

  9. Re:Legit or Government sponsored? by gknoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wikileaks did not expose Manning -- Manning did by being an idiot and talking about it. Assange did not blow the whistle, he merely published it, and is deliberately non-anonymous in order to be the Wikileaks Drama Lightning Rod, or something.

  10. Where's the Open ? by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's nothing really open about openleaks. Its more a dropbox which is then piped to news agents.

    Should have called it closed-except-to-journalistleaks , but I expect the domain was already taken.