Slashdot Mirror
Former Wikileaks Spokesman Destroyed Documents
bs0d3 writes "Former Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files that had been sent from unknown informants and are now apparently lost irrevocably. Among the files destroyed are the US gov's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right wing organizations. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is now known as one of the founders of openleaks."
I would really like to have seen the No-Fly list. My older brother has been "randomly selected" for several flights in a row and I strongly suspect it is a name association with someone else. But our democratic republic uses "secret lists" now to persecute people. What can you do?
If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)
I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece.
In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.
Right. Because so much of this would really protect informants. Like the no-fly list? Unless they randomly included a name in the middle that would show that it was a certain person's copy of the no-fly list how would that harm any informant? And if there was a random name surely multiple copies of the list could be found and you can combine the two and leave out whatever names aren't found on both of the copies.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There are two things an architect of a whistleblowing platform must never do: revealing the identity of informants and accepting submissions without publishing them. I despise Domscheit-Berg for keeping WikiLeaks from publishing that data. Who knows what risks were taken to get this information on that hard disk.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
Rather than just raging against DDB, maybe his side of the story should be heard as well.
It goes somewhat like this:
Once upon a time, there was a big fallout between Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheidt-Berg, and Julian kicked Daniel out.
Daniel took his personal hardware with him, which happened to contain this hard-drive full of leaked documents.
A couple of other wikileaks staff sided with Daniel and also left. This included the so called Architect, who took down wikileaks submission-site for the following reasons:
- he built it
- he knew it was insecure
- once he was gone, there was no-one left to fix it
Given that Julian accused Daniel of stealing these documents in order to use them for his new site OpenLeaks, Daniel didn't wan't to publish them himself.
There have been attempts to give these data back to wikileaks, but these failed. Daniel insisted that after the loss of much of its technical staff, wikileaks had to prove that is was still able to protect the sources' identities. The CCC tried to mediate the exchange. Whatever happened here was not made public, so one can only guess what kind of mess it was.
Consider this:
Before the Republican party allied itself with the bible-thumpers...
The lack of awareness of history in that sentence is stunning.
The Republicans were "Bible Thumpers" from their very creation. The biggest motivation in their anti-slavery crusades was religious. Until the Democrats starting turning against the churches in the 1960's, every major American political party... Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Republicans... had a huge, heapin' helping of the Bible in their platforms. Even when parties opposed each other, they often used Biblical citations in their party planks. Both the conservative and progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th century were largely motivated by religious concerns. The Temperence movement was religiously based. The progressive movement was religiously based.
"Bible Thumping" in politics is part and parcel of American history. It's been deeply intertwined in American politics since the nation came into being.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Why this person is still able to freely roam the streets without fear. someone betrays people, like this, and still is able to live a normal life. noone stops them on their way home and holds them accountable.
There's nothing more pathetic than an Internet bad-ass.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.
And the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party created by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist and monopoly buster. "Libertarian", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Republican", etc all representing different beliefs depending upon the timeframe you look at.
Which brings me to the silliness of party loyalty. Even if beliefs aren't shifting in your lifetime party loyalty is counterproductive. If you are a party loyalist then your party can ignore you, they already have your vote. Meanwhile the other party can also ignore you because there is nothing they can do to receive your vote.
If you want your opinion to count you can not be loyal to a party. You must give every candidate a chance and make them earn your vote through their policy positions.
currently, there are no repercussions for being a public enemy and harming millions.
To whom are you referring? I consider people who treacherously steal hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, and those who help them do so while also making those documents available to the regimes in Iran and North Korea to be, indeed, public enemies. Certainly that betrays the trust of millions of people, and harms many, both directly and indirectly. Certainly being held in jail while facing trial for doing so counts as repercussion, wouldn't you say?
Or are you complaining that a person who deletes a bunch of stolen documents is the one who is the public enemy? Or is that person only a public enemy if the deleted documents are unrelated to people with whom you agree on one matter or another?
There are all sorts of repercussions for not meeting society's expectations. Everything from losing your publicly elected or appointed office to being killed by SEALs in your not-very-secret Pakistani compound or going to jail for running an investment Ponzi scheme.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.