Slashdot Mirror
OpenLeaks Founder 'Crippled' WikiLeaks
SETIGuy writes "Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson. Since leaving WikiLeaks, Domschiet-Berg has become one of the cofounders of OpenLeaks. This raises the question: if you had material to leak, would you trust it to someone who has already jeopardized the anonymity of leakers at a site where he worked?"
Domscheit-Berg denies claims by WikiLeaks that he damaged the organization or 'stole' material, but did say he took roughly 300,000 documents with him when he left. An anonymous reader notes related news that WikiLeaks is attempting to get around donation blocks by selling a line of T-shirts.
I didn't take the money, but I did take the bags FILLED with money.
nuff said
Now that WikiLeaks has competition, it would make sense to try and stop that competition. When you have a site like OpenLeaks that is all about anonymously leaking information, trying to say that they are not trusted with that would possibly hurt them. I think it is good there are multiple sources doing this. I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.
The world is how you make it
"Julian was constantly battling for dominance, even with my tomcat Herr Schmitt,"
"Ever since Julian lived with me in Wiesbaden he (the cat) has suffered from psychosis. Julian would constantly attack the animal. He would spread out his fingers like a fork and grab the cat's throat."
...and Assange broke those limits, as far as I am concerned.
(it even sheds some light on Swedish investigation: Assange touched my pussy)
One that hath name thou can not otter
That Wikileaks may have just found themselves a new revenue stream. Provided of course that this guy has money. He did a pretty sleazy thing and should be called out for it.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
So first, Wikileaks is a great boon to democracy, then it's a threat to security, then it's the victim of a multi-government conspiracy, then it's the noble banner over coordinated multinational attacks, and now it's the victim of sabotage, and perpetrator of its own slander campaign!
The theatrics continue.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I'm amazed (not really) that anyone from Wikileaks has the gall to bitch about someone 'stealing' information from them.
Obligatory xkcd
Not sure what the big deal is... People leak documents from the gov't to wikileaks and so people are now leaking documents from wikileaks to another site... ...Karma...
If the information/documents are intended to be "free" and were never stolen when wikileaks acquired them how can openleaks alleged actions be held with any contempt?
So the news is that information about contributors may have 'leaked' from Wikileaks? The kind of organization that will release information to serve their political agenda might leak information?
Say it isn't so!
While I wholeheartedly support free speech, "it must be true because it is on wikileaks" is as worrisome as efforts to quell free speech. Would it be too much trouble to get an independent eye to validate the charge before making an accusation?
So WikiLeaks is angry that their former member stole 300,000 documents, and plans on leaking them to the world? That's the finest example of irony I've heard all week.
It's also the finest example of organizational inertia I've encountered for a while, where an entity is created to further some basic principle, but slowly mutates into something more interested in its own survival and aggrandizement.
Wasn't the American government consulting to find a way to discredit Assange and Wikileaks? Didn't defense contractors and Bank of America work together with Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies to discredit Wikileaks?
I can't wait till all the bank info comes out, I got a nice long section of hemp rope I've been saving.
I welcome it all, let everyone come forward and spill the secrets.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I feel so sorry for wikileeks.
So let me get this straight, Wikileaks is upset that someone did to them, what their informants have been doing to others?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Sounds like a hearty dose of FUD from Wikileaks.
Domsheit-Berg personally stepped on Assange's toes, so there's no surprise here that WL is acting indignant.
In my mind, this is completely backwards. Wikileaks should be encouraging the emergence of such organizations, not trying to sink them due to grievances.
The more I pay attention to all the news surrounding wikileaks the more I realize that the only people who get air time anymore are drama queens. On the one side, we have Assange acting like a pissed off idealistic teenager (not necessarily a bad thing) making comments about how it is his duty to end two wars in the world. In another corner, we have the dumbshit media pundits in America calling for his head on a platter without even having a crime to charge him for. Then there is the Swedish legal system, which is dumping money and time into investigating rape charges that are spurious at best, but more like a downright "he says she says" game from prom night. Then there are all the other wikileaks employees, or volunteers, or whatever, that have to compete with Assange's ego, like this guy who swiped a bunch of data and intends to use it to start his own project ("I don't like your secret club anymore! I'm starting my own!")
Hell, the only folk who seem to act rationally when it comes to this issue are the folks in the Middle East that read a few cables relevant to their lives and said, "Fuck it, it's time to change things for the better!"
I mean, seriously, look at this shitfest. This is something straight out of Freddy Prinze Junior movie, complete with all of the hyperbolic, dramatic characters. And yet, these are the people delivering our news, getting voted into the leadership roles of our society, and generally steering the direction this world moves in.
What The Fuck? Why do we tolerate this kind of bullshit? Maybe I am just clinging to a pipe dream, hoping to one day see our world led by people with some god damned sense and humility, but this has gotten ridiculous.
I don't know. Maybe there are some other countries out there where these issues are less glaring (or nonexistant?), but here in the States, I am afraid we've turned world politics into a fucking high school based reality T.V. show. It makes me nauseous. Maybe we really should just vote the retard beauty queen Sarah Palin into office already and get it all over with.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
...and think "Whoa. Déjà vu"?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
The problem I have with OpenLeaks is that, as far as I can tell, they don't make information public. You leak them info, and put yourself at risk for doing it, and then they just give it to journalists. This process is not unambiguously indicated to be free. They do not guarantee an audience for your information. They don't make the information publicly available. They expect us to trust journalists to go through this information and report what we plebes need to know about it. The problem being of course that even with the Wikileaks documents received by the NYT, the journalists worked with the gov't to decide what they would report. Luckily though, WL lets us all see the original material, we need not trust the journalist more than we care to since we have access to the same information they do. OpenLeaks would not allow that. So I guess if you're going to risk your life or your livelyhood to leak information, you'd probably not want to give it to someone who can't guarantee that the information will be available to people. So in the process this guy sabotaged, and likely stole, anonymous submission software from his competitor before going out and starting his own business. Which he seemingly did because he didn't like Assange. Assange being mean or asinine is a red-herring meant to deceive you.
Slashdot Editors: Please refrain from placing direct links to Wikileaks in your articles (or at least please mark them with a follow on disclaimer) in consideration to members of our armed forces who are prohibited from visiting the website.
Trivia: Domscheit-Berg is the husband of a Microsoft top lobbyist.
Domschiet-Berg means Cathedralshit-Mountain. His name is Domscheit-Berg.
"Former WikiLeaks programmer"
--- he was a German spokes person, an one other Wikileaks guy working closely with Assange, he didn't claim to be a programmer.
"Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers,"
-- A colleague of Daniel who also left wikileaks disabled the submission tool because they had security concerns over the submission system and found it irresponsible. The claim that he threatened the anonymity of leakers or sabotaged wikileaks is without any evidence.
"Since leaving WikiLeaks, Domschiet-Berg has become one of the cofounders of OpenLeaks. This raises the question: if you had material to leak, would you trust it to someone who has already jeopardized the anonymity of leakers at a site where he worked?"
-- Obviously he has not done this and you cannot name a single case where he did. You cannot confirm your allegation by referring to your former mentioning of the statement. It works for FOX news but not for educated discourse.
Domscheit-Berg also never said he would use them in his openleaks project.
This has really gotten out of hand.
1) Of course WikiLeaks is pissed. They were the ones who took up the banner for having a reliable place to leak data. I am sure they had some sort of process to gauge people's reliability and willingness to be part of WikiLeaks before they "hired" anyone to be part of the organization. It was a matter of trust. Which Daniel Domscheit-Berg has violated and betrayed. The only way a leak operation like WikiLeaks can work right is if it's members see beyond their own issues. So he didn't like Julian Assange? Really? Huge news? What employee ever likes their boss?
2) The irresponsibility of Daniel Domscheit-Berg for trying to make a name off WikiLeaks and Assange is sad at best, and dangerous for people at worst. Specifically for the leakers. WikiLeaks is already a known, trusted organization for handling leaked information. The new OpenLeaks crap and Daniel Domscheit-Berg are only going to confuse this very NEW process (leaked information over the internet to a central source). Having more than 1 organization right now isn't good timing. It is only a publicity stunt that is meant to harm wikileaks credibility and to confuse their leakers into trying OpenLeaks.
3) If OpenLeaks had opened by itself without any connections to WikiLeaks, then maybe it would have been ok. But for it to open the way it did, I can't see it ever being as trustworthy or "open" as WikiLeaks.
4) Those claiming that it is all theatrics are right, on the part of OpenLeaks and Daniel Domscheit-Berg making a scene merely for the sake of attracting attention away from WikiLeaks. It is literally like walking into a crowded movie theater and screaming "Quick! Look over here! Don't pay attention to the movie you were all already enjoying! We've written a play for you all to watch instead!"
5) Rather than pushing forward and just shutting up for the good of the world (or rather, the good of the people of the world who live under governments that use secrecy and shady deals to accomplish their goals) Daniel Domscheit-Berg decided it was a better idea to gather as much media attention as possible, steal from and disrupt the image of WikiLeaks, while conveniently writing books that make him $, which I'm sure won't be funneled into helping people expose leaks and rather funneled into his own pocket. If that doesn't make people realize he is a douche, I don't know what will
6) People who claim, such as Daniel, that Assange's ego blah blah blah are bad are missing the point. Assange's job was to draw the ire of the governments they were leaking about. He is the media spokesperson, and the figure head. Regardless if he started WikiLeaks or not, that was his role and he has played everyone like a fiddle when it comes to this. Granted his liberties and freedom are on trial right now in Europe, but he had to of known that might be the repercussions.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Domscheit-Berg gave an very interesting interview (on netzpolitik.de, in German).
a) Assange assumed that everybody who worked with him has to follow his orders
b) Assange rejected to give wikileaks any legal structures or organizationl structures
c) Assange assumed that everybody works for WL, but left the modalities of influence or money completely undefined.
Domscheidt-Berg was "suspended" (from what exactly, if i may ask if there is no organizational structure behind?) and he decided to keep the hardware with the information in his possession (where it was) until wikileaks can give him convincing instructions what to do. Since there is no organization the ownership of the servers in unclear, and he askes Wikileaks to settle it with the foundation which collaborated with them to return the servers.
Endangering of the infromers was due to Assanges unwillingness to restrict themself in a meaningful and planned way and due to his promis to the newapapers to redact the documents, a task far beyond WLs capacities at that time, and DB claims he warned of that ans got increasingly frustrated with not having a organization structure behind.
DB describes the personality structure of Assange consistently with the other persons who have met Assange personally and gave interviews.
If you would ask me to hand over a server with unclear ownership containing critical information into the hands of some person coming in a due to circumstances strongly fluctuating non-organization based on the need and the evaluation of a self-proclaimed leader with a personality structure which for sure is prone to the usual tricks used during infiltration, at a time when this leader is under big stress and may be even more leaning towards no fully rational decisions, i would seriously *not* transfer that.
So while some personal connotations of the whole story may be irritating, i can follow DBs thoughts and arguments.
To put it in a nice way: Assange is somewhere on the line between madman and genius; i would say he is a case for a therapy (a mild ambulant one) to fight the problems he seems to causing constantly in personal interactions and his Hybris.
Dumbshit-Berg
T-Shirts are a good idea, but nobody wants to have Assange on their t-shirt, and the other ones are just ugly.
A movement grows very fast and becomes powerful. It is run by an eccentric ego with delusions of grandeur and possible sexual proclivity. Then it collapses on itself from infighting and external pressure. This is not to say the goals of Wikileaks are bad, but its execution may have fallen short.
Obligatory goatkcd
We know from leaked emails that security companies hired by Bank of America and working with the FBI explicitly had the following plan to destroy wikileaks: Turn wikileaks insiders against each other, and spread FUD to dissuade people from trusting wikileaks as both a source of information, and as a safe haven to give information to.
Fast forward six months after those emails, and we have: Wikileaks insiders fighting against each other, splitting off due to distrust, and spreading information about a compromised safe upload system, and spreading various rumors and personal attacks against the frontman for the group.
Now, those rumors may or may not be true, but they certainly are an amazing coincidence considering the the leaked emails from HBGary. I'd personally wager that 99% of news stories about wikileaks have some level of disinformation involved to try to negate the impact on existing power structures. They have after all, decided to take on every government and multinational corporation in the world.
Res ipsa loquitur
... and the guy who wrote the book smells like a smear campaign, lets not forget the rape fiasco and the U.S. wanting to extradite him from sweden, etc ,etc. Lets not forget what assange is on the end of where as this other guy and open leaks smells rotten.
A leak "superstore" is a stupid idea. A centralized repository is a centralized target. A centralized target is bad for everything except Assange's need for attention.
Assange is a pig. He hoards information so that it can be disclosed for maximum benefit for himself, rather than sharing it freely with others. He is only a conduit--he doesn't provide any analysis.
He created publicity for a service category that has social value. Great. His 15 minutes are up. Now, maybe a more responsible service, or better yet a distributed amorphous cluster of unlinked services will take up the slack.
Domscheit-Berg's group appears to be just another competitor in an endeavor that should be open and non-competitive. If these people are commercial, I hope they all go straight to hell.
So what do you think wikileaks has been doing?
They're leaking information provided to them that other people don't want leaked. Now somebody is potentially leaking information that wikileaks has that they don't want others to have.
So the FUD campaign already has its wheels in motion...
that, this whole bickering has a negative effect on the willingness of potential leak sources to actually leak information. I sincerely hope this war of egos will not escalate any further.
300,000 documents were "LEAKED" from WikiLeaks and found its way to OpenLeaks.
WikiLeaks is pissed off. Ironic?
The book title is "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website"
Most dangerous? Moreso than 4chan?
Two posts from different sides of the same story make for interesting reading. I believe the truth will be somewhere in the middle. It does make me wonder, however, if D-B was really not involved in any part of Wikileaks like the article from the Wikileak's spokesperson claims, it would have been difficult to remove the key piece of software that they claim he did and therefore sabatoged Wikileaks. It seems, from reading between the lines that D-B was actually much more involved in Wikileaks and since his characterizations of Assange have been corroborated by other ex-Wikileaks staff, there may very well be some truth to his side of the story.
Personally, I like the idea of having a leak repository and other outlets decide what to release or not. Putting editorial control under the caretaker of the source documents (as in Wikileaks) seems to allow for quite a bit of abuse of power.
It has been said that information is power. Wikileaks and Assange have accumulated quite a bit of information/power. Too bad, it has also been said that power corrupts.
Good for him. Sabotage the sabotager. Assange will end up live on proceeds from T-shirt sales, paybacks from blackmailing private people and donations from his abused girlfriends. And not many people will be willing to give him normal job. So long, Julian.
Information submitted to OpenLeaks will be released to the public after a defined time period of exclusivity for a media outlet. The submitter will be the one who defines that time period, he also can choose which journalists should have exclusivity.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg is the uglier, less charismatic, member of the Wikileaks team who felt that his genius was going unnoticed in the shadow of Julian Assange's PR machine. So he thought he would show that JA a thing or two.
I would rather JA was in charge even if his ego does know no bounds. At least he has a vested interest in making it all work. Berg is busy redacting, filtering and generally watering down the material which leakers intended to be passed on without change. ...and, although I know it shouldn't matter, he is one incredibly ugly mug.
I can see the CIA modus operandi all over the scandals behind Wikileaks, very specially the division of the organization and the smear campaign through sabotages from within the lines. Typical, old school, and yet effective.
So, clearly government should pepper documents with critical data so they can attack any leaks for not filtering out all the data at great expense. Sounds like they could do this with minimal damage but maximum spin.
If Wikileaks spent more time with less money to deal with filtering they could be DoS attacked by this method of requiring heavy processing of all leaked documents. Delaying releases until they are unable to be effective for the public. Plus they are BOUND to have errors in their filtering process.
The EU let the USA kidnap, fly around, and had safe houses for CIA ops --kidnapping people etc. Until they found out about SOME of it publicly.
Its just fine when the military kills a few innocent people (daily) but when the press leaks something that puts a few people at RISK (not even death) its a big big deal. Why? You know, in the USA the free press doesn't have to actually worry about collateral damage - by constitution; but the military does not have anywhere near that protection yet its perfectly ok for them to continue with their collateral damage. A free press isn't going to be pleasant and easy; democracy isn't a spectator sport either.
You ever end up in court? Plenty of collateral damage goes on in there; but its needed for the greater good. Press damage works the same way - sure, our "press" isn't doing its job even remotely well, but that is another issue.
Assange's rape scandal is the most political "legal" scandal I've ever seen - its blatantly inept and exactly what you'd do if you wanted to send a message to others just how little the LAW can protect you. Its not just hero worship; its obvious what is going on if you look beyond the sound bites. REAL ACTUAL CHARGES should have been made before he left the country; this was exploited for political impact according to plan - which is why many people reasonably assume its without merit. Once its over, we might get more truth about it-- but while its active don't expect anybody to risk more trouble with any truth.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Has anyone noticed this is EXACTLY as planned in http://wikileaks.ch/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf released few hours before that news ?
I like how this story reads like a Julian Assange communiqe.
As he has said so eloquently many times, he is the lightning rod - the sacrificial lamb, if you will - not the CEO/CTO/CFO/C*O.
And in light of the comments about DB being uncooperative about the return of equipment that isn't his, it is clear that he's being an ass, if not a thief when you consider the claims he took copies of 300,000 internal documents that whilst maybe leaks, do belong to WL.
People who make things difficult when a period of employment ends are, in my book, thereafter unemployable.
Thieves are, by and large, generally not the sort of people you want to trust with anything, so why would you trust him with anything that was confidential?
i think it's just an attack to discredit wikileaks. and there have been and will be such attacks until it ceases to exists probably
If their goal is to release information to the public, for the public good, then their only concern over someone else having a copy of the documents is that it could be used to harm the public good, not Wikileaks themselves.
So suppose they have documents that they are looking over, because parts of them they feel shouldn't be released because they would be harmful. Now someone else gets a copy, and intends to leak everything in them. Well that could be a concern, but not to Wikileaks. In that case their claim would be "These guys are going to cause more harm than good, they intend to leak things that are dangerous, and not in the public interest to be out there."
That isn't what they are claiming though, they talk about harm being done to them. Well that implies they see these documents as their property, and that their plans require exclusive use of them. Maybe they want to monetize them, or use them for extortion/blackmail of some sort.
Whatever the case that would mean they aren't in it for the public good, they aren't trying to get things, review them for harm, and then release what the public needs to know, it would mean they have their own agenda and feel that someone else knowing what they know could hurt that agenda.
Yes, yes I think it is.
http://wikileaks.spreadshirt.com/viva-la-informacion-A7060423/customize/color/203
How can we now be asked to believe this news if it's not leaked in an unofficial manner?
We all win.
He also gets all the hassle. He gets extradited. He gets slams and slurs. And all the others get to appear heroes.
The number I read is 3,500 documents not 300,000. Also it seems that not Domscheit-Berg is to blame for the so called "sabotage". Allegedly another unnamed technician called the "Architect" in the book, who had created the last iteration of the submission system, decided to take his software with him when he left WikiLeaks along with Domscheit-Berg after the falling out with Assange. The argument being that he simply withdrew his technical support and the system along with it because he didn't any longer trust Assange to use it responsibly. The 3,500 documents were within the system at that point. The "dissidents" claim that they offered to give them back all along. It is not completely clear whether they were not satisfied with the insecure manner the handover was to take place or whether nobody at WikiLeaks bothered to make arrangements to take them back. Thus they still reside with group.