Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Launches a WikiLeaks For Hackers

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-with-one-hundred-percent-fewer-rape-allegations dept.

siliconbits writes "Despite countless WikiLeaks copycats popping up since the secret-spilling site first dumped its cache of State Department cables last year, the new generation of leaking sites has produced few WikiLeaks-sized scoops. So instead of waiting for insider whistleblowers, the hacker movement Anonymous hopes that a few outside intruders might start the leaks flowing."

8 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why can't hackers just send their leaks to wikileaks?

    1. Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because it would probably be hard to be credible if you rely on sources that are a far cry from legal. And while whistleblowers are certainly breaking contracts by handing out sensitive information, it is usually not illegal to do so. The whistleblower might face civil charges (for breaking contract), but it usually does not stretch into the criminal area. It's a totally different case with a true 'outsider' hacker.

      The difference also carries over to someone publishing the information, afaik. I could well see how touching (and even more, publishing) information acquired by criminal means could be quite dangerous.

      Also, WikiLeaks usually takes care to verify the source and make sure that it's not fabricated. It's kinda hard with hackers who, by their very nature, won't disclose a lot about who they are and how they got the files.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Manning broke his NDA by relaying the information, afaik he didn't "hack" it, he had access to it due to his work area, of course he had to sign an NDA to keep it secret and he broke this NDA. Illegal... well, the US army certainly has a civil case against him, and due to the nature of the information it may even be a criminal one. I cannot see what law Wikileaks broke. I didn't read the Aussie legal code, but it would be the only country I know where publishing the info of foreign governments is a crime.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Correction - civilian law does apply to military personnel, but military law is like an overlay on top of civilian law.

      Example, a sailor who commits a robbery in Virginia Beach is apprehended by the police, and charged. He can and will be charged by the state of Virginia with whatever various and sundry crimes they can attach to that robbery, stand trial, and probably be sentenced. The Navy, meanwhile, will carry him as "UA", or an unauthorized absence. If and when our sailor gets out of jail, he should then report to his commanding officer - who will likely then file charges of being UA and/or desertion.

      In Manning's case, I'm fairly sure that the DOJ could make a number of civilian federal laws stick - but they aren't likely to go to that much trouble. Military law is quite adequate for the case.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by FoolishOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is an important point. Part of what authenticates leaked information is the identity of the whistleblowers, their staus as insiders with privileged access to information, and their willingness to sacrifice in order to publish information. Much of this is lost with anonymous hacktivists. In paticular, when all that's known of the source of information is that it came from an anonymous source, it's harder to disprove the common defense that the leaked information was cooked up by a hostile rival.

    5. Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers by xkuehn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whistleblowers are often protected from civil lawsuits, too, by whistleblower-protection laws. (Governments don't hate true whistleblowers! That's just a myth that the neo-anarchist movement has invented to justify their hatred of governments.)

      They say they don't. You know, every whistleblower I've ever heard of had the system come after him.

      We had a prison warden here in ZA -- a few years ago -- who let some prisoners take a camera and film the widespread corruption. (Buying a loaded gun from a guard, that sort of thing.) He was fired.

      A little more recently, we had a teacher report fraudulent matric results (your final marks for high school). Got ignored, went to the media, government acts all outraged and launches investigations and all that stuff. Oh, the teacher just happened to get fired afterwards.

      Then there's Manning in the USA. Leaking information about, you know, serious and violent crimes.

      Please, feel free to provide some concrete examples of whistleblowers who were protected by the law. By the way -- I'm not an anarchist.

  2. Re:Fools by metalmaster · · Score: 3, Informative
    I didnt read the .tk TOS, but the wiki alludes to content policing

    There are also content restrictions for free domains, banning sites containing sexual content, drug use, hate speech, firearms, and copyright infringement.

    Wikileaks may find itself violating all of those within a short time. Who knows.

  3. Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

    Incidentially, this is common practice in the field of cartography. Map-making is big business, espicially in urban or suburban areas where maps need updating every few years. To prevent competitors copying their maps, publishers often include deliberate mistakes - usually an extra dead-end road or something of the type, so it wouldn't interfere with anyone trying to nagivate. As the extra road doesn't really exist, should it turn up in another publisher's book of maps it serves as definative proof of copying.