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.
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
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
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.
Well the risk of leaking the names of contributors would be the right-wing nutcases in our government who want those people executed for treason. If a contributor even has a hint that their name might get out there they are more likely to shut up completely.
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."
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!
I don't know whether it's a big deal or not, but from reading the article it is more than just about documents from Wikileaks being leaked to another site. This Domschiet-Berg guy did something that compromised the anonymity of people who submit things to the Wikileaks website.
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.
Is anyone who forks a project a stooge or pawn serving the "purposes of State and Corporate collusion in secrecy, to manage their globalist Empire."?
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."
So its wrong to steal documents from someone who trades in stolen documents?
It's like a thief calling the police on the thief that robbed him.
"Officer, Daniel stole the stolen documents I had!"
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.
When they cripple the functional technical operation of efforts to equalise asymmetrical dynamics of government and corporate power?
Yes.
Now, go obfuscate the issue with another fallacy.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
I don't think you're really reading what Jeremiah is saying. This guy admits to removing a component guaranteeing the anonymity of leakers. On top of that, he's taken with him backlogged (read: not yet published) leaked documents. Assange's alleged wrongdoing has nothing to do with the functionality and business model of the site/company.
Now, strangely, if this guy was a programmer and the component was software, all they would need to do is go to their SCR and put the code back in.. and possibly some data cleanup (redaction of names of leakers). If it was hardware, then plug it back in. If it's damaged, the author of the story needs to report that.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
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
Domscheit-Berg has also said the whole point of Wikileaks was supposed to be transparency and leaking of documents. Under Assange, a lot of stuff seems to sit on a shelf without being released. Wikileaks itself has no transparency, so no one knows why certain things get leaked whiles others aren't. Domscheit-Berg said he didn't approve of Assange's direction and wants to continue the concept of leaking documents under new management.
Wikileaks supporters supposedly want more transparency and more leaks. Shouldn't they support this?
The only real problem I have with any of this is whether or not he revealed the names of anonymous tipsters. And there is no proof he did that. There is an accusation that he crippled a system that was designed to help protect their innocence. And I'm not sure whether or not to believe that accusation.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The real matter is that Dumbshit's actions are exactly in line with the CIA/Military playbook for discrediting Wikileaks.
You could have predicted his split from this.
He produces ad-hominem about Assange, some of which may have basis in fact. His team then cripples wikileaks anonymity and responds with vapourware.
He's promising an improved alternative or replacement which has not produced any output, nor fully disclosed the technology or methodology on a point-by-point basis that demonstrates improvement.
If this is not enough to have serious concerns that Dumbshit-Borg is either an agent, or a useful idiot? He gives his press release from the retreat at Davos, aligning himself with the forces of oligarchal global corporate power.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
People keep suggesting that anyone who speaks out against Assange or Wikileaks must be pawns of the CIA. Logically that doesn't hold nearly the water you imagine it would.
I personally don't care for how Wikileaks editorializes. I don't care for how they've been irresponsible in leaking names of innocent civilians, names that came under death threats because of their negligence. When Assange was directly asked about how he failed to react civilian volunteer names that were threatened, he said it is an expensive process and people should give him $200,000 if they wanted it done.
Reputable organizations that call for government transparency and accountability (like Amnesty International) have ripped Wikileaks and Assange. Are you going to next insinuate they must be part of the CIA playbook? Last time I checked, Amnesty International and the CIA aren't exactly pals.
And when everyone assumed Assange was being set up by the CIA on rape charges (because European governments love to throw their citizens under the bus just because we ask), it turns out these are very real charges by real people (though in all fairness, this isn't necessarily the American view of rape).
The same simplistic view I keep hearing is that Assange criticizes the US government, which many people like, so that must make him a fucking hero. Let's just conveniently overlook everything else.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm not sure Domscheit-Berg did either.
You're assuming that Wikileaks is telling the truth and that Domscheit-Berg lied. You're stated reasoning behind that was anyone criticizing Wikileaks must be working for the CIA. I pointed out why that was faulty reasoning.
We don't know the facts of the matter. One side is lying. You've contended that no one is allowed to question Assange without being a government pawn. That makes you exceedingly objective.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.