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.

Comments

Bitter from competition?

[Stregano]

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.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[Monkeedude1212]

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.

All the more evidence to suggest that either
A) Wikileaks is right in that Domscheit-Berg sabatoged Wikileaks and they don't want you to trust him
B) Wikileaks is not truly in this to spread information to the masses.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[Sarten-X]

Having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity, but we cannot assume Wikileaks cares about what's good for humanity. A normal organization hides from slander, moving controversial figures away from the public spotlight and replacing them with new faces. Regardless of Wikileaks' benevolent message, it seems intent on parading Assange around as a sort of "martyr for the rebellion" figure. OpenLeaks stand to take attention away from that image, and in doing so, cut off the stream of revenue from donations.

Wikileaks hasn't acted like a normal charitable organization in quite a while. Now they're just capitalizing on controversy, and trying to make a profitable business out of it.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[icebike]

The fact that Wkileaks is making a big deal of the stolen stash of documents suggest they are NOT in this to provide information, but rather to further a specific agenda.

Forget for a moment about the irony of bickering over "ownership" of stolen documents. The fact that Wikileaks still HAS a copy of those documents means they weren't harmed.

As for the anonymous submission system being deactivated, the story seems long on allegations and short on detail. Even the alleged sabotage is only Wikileaks characterization of what is in Domscheit-Berg's book:

"In (his) book Domscheit-Berg confesses to various acts of sabotage against the organization. The former WikiLeaks staffer admits to having damaged the site's primary submission system and stolen material," Hrafnsson's statement said.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[BlackSabbath]

If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.

In Australia, this behaviour is colloquially referred to as a "c*nt's act".

You claim that WL hasn't acted like a "normal charitable organisation". I'm sorry? What? They are an organisation trying to change the way governments (of all flavours) deal with their citizenry - i.e. they want to make it impossible for governments to continue to operate on the basis of subterfuge on a grand scale. Capitalizing on controversy is part and parcel of making people (not just geeks) aware. Tell me, how many people on the street had even heard of WL 2 years ago, let alone were aware of the stuff they had released?

As for making a "profitable business" - give me a break. From what? Selling t-shirts? Do you have any idea how much it takes to fund a decent legal defence when multiple state actors are out to get you? I don't either but it sure as hell won't be cheap.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[Belial6]

I don't particularly agree with your statement as a whole, but calling him "paranoid" is just plain bizarre. The guy has multiple world powers out to get him. It isn't that he THINKS they are out to get him, they are publicly stating that they are. Thinking that governments are out to get you when they publicly say so isn't exactly what I would call 'paranoid'.

Re:Bitter from competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone leaks some documents to Wikileaks, it's an act of trust - that they can remain anonymous, and that the documents will be carefully collated and published. If someone illicitly copies some documents from Wikileaks, it's potentially a breach of that trust. If I were Wikileaks, I'd be pissed too.

FUD all around

[Sarten-X]

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.

Damn that thief

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed (not really) that anyone from Wikileaks has the gall to bitch about someone 'stealing' information from them.

Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents?

[jpmorgan]

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.

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, learn to read. Wikileaks doesn't care about who copies the documents, they are angry because he sabotaged their submission system.

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents?

[slashdot_commentator]

Assange understands that he needs volunteers and teamwork in order for wikileaks to run. He has no problem with that, as long as everyone understands he is the "Great Leader", he gets all the attention, everything he decrees goes, and everyone working for wikileaks makes sure his ass is licked clean every day. What problem? Its only these troublemaking saboteurs like Domscheit-Berg who must be silenced.

Re:There are limits...

[spun]

There are limits, and an ex associate of Assange's claims he broke those limits. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't know. How do we know Assange is the wingnut, and not Domscheit-Berg? It's pretty clear that at least one of them is a monomaniacal loon, if not both.

Ridiculous

[MoldySpore]

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.