Why WikiLeaks' Spinoff OpenLeaks Failed

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Wired has published an excerpt of the new WikiLeaks-related book This Machine Kills Secrets, which delves into the launch of the WikiLeaks spinoff OpenLeaks at the Chaos Communication Camp in Berlin last year. The detailed account of the site's debut, with German ex-WikiLeaker Daniel Domscheit-Berg at the helm, reveals that even before the dispute between WikiLeaks and OpenLeaks led to the controversial destruction of the decryption keys for 3,000 of WikiLeaks' encrypted leaks taken by Domscheit-Berg, OpenLeaks was already facing significant problems: Rumors that the group had been infiltrated by the German government, a lack of code open for public auditing and even a failure to get the site online in time for the penetration test it had invited the CCC hackers to perform. The book passage gives a peek into the infighting, bad luck, disorganization and personality problems that has left the world without a real sequel to WikiLeaks despite the dozens of leak-focused sites that have launched in the last two years."

Comments

A Credibility Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Destruction of the 3,000 keys was absurd given the risks people took to deliver those to Wikileaks, so Daniel Domscheit-Berg makes Julian Assange look like George Washington.

Re:A Credibility Problem

[FriendlyLurker]

That, plus OpenLeaks was vaporware and Daniel Domscheit-Berg was kicked out of CCC ('I Doubt Domscheit-Berg's Integrity' - Top German Hacker Slams OpenLeaks Founder) for his self serving behaviour.

If your going to leak something anonymously, why settle for anyone who has not also demonstrated commitment to protecting you as a source in the face of overwhelming international pressure by powerful players, like Wikileaks has and continues to do?

Re:A Credibility Problem

[crazyjj]

A *lot* of people suspect that Domscheit-Berg is an intelligence plant. He spent most of his time at Wikileaks trying to sabotage the operation. He was apparently trying to identify contributors while he was their. And then he participated in an obvious effort to discredit Assange after he left.

What's more OpenLeaks was/is planning to refuse Tor submissions, going instead with their own "secure" software (which they refuse to release the source code for openly). Smells a lot like a honeypot to me. I seriously doubt any submission will ever make it to a newspaper. But I do suspect the police/FBI/CIA will make it to the door of anyone submitting.

Re:A Credibility Problem

[rastoboy29]

Mod parent up.

Assange may be a douchebag, but you can't deny he has the courage of his convictions.

The destruction of the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

was utterly unforgivable. People risk their life and limb to make them available!

"Open"

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The story of too many of the "open" projects :
* someone creates something worthwhile
* it becomes very popular
* some douchebag says: "I'll make something exactly like this, except it will be better because it's OPEN."
* nothing of value is produced
* Lather, rinse, repeat

Re:"Open"

[elucido]

Remove Julian Assange and remove the publishing component and focus on making the best possible technology for ...

Publishing leaks was the only thing Wikileaks did. If you "remove the publishing component" there are no components left.

Journalist organizations are better set up for publishing leaks. Wikileaks just wasn't well designed as a journalist operation. They never had the critical mass of readership and the way Julian Assange was doing things he had to be in the center of everything and when you put the human in the center of everything it's not hard to corrupt any human and defeat the whole system.

It's pretty obvious

[clevershark]

As soon as DDB split, stealing secrets on his way out, he basically said "hey, I've been working with these guys for years but now I'm deliberately stabbing them in the back for my own selfish benefit so from now on you should trust ME with your secrets!" Yeah right. It's like Sammy The Bull Gravano trying to start a big meth op while in the witness protection program. You literally have to be dumber than a 3rd grader in order to think that this is going to work.

Re:It's pretty obvious

[clevershark]

I should have said, destroying secrets on his way out, not stealing them.

Domscheit-Berg

[Hatta]

Domscheit-Berg is a spook, that's why.

Re:Domscheit-Berg

[SydShamino]

Spook is another word for spy or secret agent, which is the most obvious definition from the context. I don't think anyone else but you instead thought of its other use as a racial epithet. It's also a term for a ghost or apparition, but again, from context, everyone seems to have figured that one out.

Re:Openleaks on paper is better than Wikileaks

[l0ungeb0y]

Maybe it was the lack of cult around Domscheit-Berg who shows himself to be every bit an attention whore -- but far less skillful at it than Assange.

And frankly, starting off by stealing then destroying submitted leaks that people went to lengths to procure might not have sent a very positive or encouraging message to the community at large.

How do we know they ever existed?

[elucido]

Is there any public comment made by Daniel showing he admitted their existence?

Also, David Leigh of the Guardian is a Spy

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Don't know if he's owned by CIA, MI[5-6] or Mossad.

Recycled bits from Sept, 2011:

David Leigh/Guardian is working in the interest of CIA/MI6 and looking not to collaborate with WikiLeaks, but to ensnare him for prosecution.

Clue: DL Insisting on seeing the actual files

Clue: DL Pressing for the GPG passphrase

Clue: DL Publishing the ENTIRE proceeding and passphrase in a book

Dumbshit-Borg is either a long-time mole or was "turned"

Clue: D-B had full access to all unredacted material

Clue: D-B acrimoniously split with Assange/WikiLeaks over ego-boundary shit and speculative "risk" issues

Clue: D-B in his schism is part of the probable exposure of these cables - portrayed as an "accident", while he was unilaterally and admittedly sabotaging WikiLeaks

Clue: D-B can now say "I told you so" over this exposure of sources - pointing to this as evidence, rather than a situation he perpetrated

The US Army Counterintelligence Agency said in 2008 that WikiLeaks was"a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army" and PLANNED OPERATIONS to neutralise/discredit WikiLeaks:

"The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28385794/Us-Intel-Wikileaks

Question: Do you think that the Agency makes these declarations in vain, for their entertainment value?

Question: Do you think they are alone, and that there are not equivalent planned and current operations by the CIA, etc.?

Question: Are the combined actions of DL and D-B implausible as the intended outcome of a counter-WikiLeaks strategy, set in motion by one or more intelligence agencies, including US Army Counterintelligence?

Think about it. Once they set this down IN PRINT, internally, and don't have a "positive" outcome? Sombody goes through the ringer.

This is likely all a setup. One with a scenario that is similar to the one indicated here, if not completely identical. It is one where where David Leigh and Dumbshit-Borg are either pathetic and self-serving dupes, or sickening quislings.

Either way, this is a noose fabricated of intentional actions with plausible deniability. Identify WikiLeaks with Assange's personality, and attack the personality. Attack the credibility of WikiLeaks methodology while distracting from their effectiveness and success in exposing filth, corruption and illegal government action.