Wikileaks Competitor In the Works 333
airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
Wtf title? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA: "The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote."
Title on Slashdot: "Wikileaks competitor in the works".
The only part in TFA that mentions the word "competitor" is the sentence stating what this new site won't be.
Cryptome (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:3, Informative)
I have more respect for the former than the latter.
Maybe you should focus more on the info than either... The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of diverting attention to the messenger. The reaction has been far more educational than the info itself. Though it is an intriguing glance into how power works. And that makes it all okay.
Re:Wikileaks World! (Score:5, Informative)
Which news channel shows films at 11?
I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).
On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."
Re:Wikileaks World! (Score:3, Informative)
It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry, and fast methods of getting prints out), but it took longer to get film ready to broadcast because of hard constraints on the processing time required.
Getting 16mm film from the camera to broadcast in a matter of hours was actually a pretty impressive, pretty expensive accomplishment, and would be a significant competitive advantage for one news agency over another.
Now, I personally remember this era of television, but I don't believe I ever heard a newscaster literally say "Film at 11." Any of you other old farts remember this and/or have a reference? I think it's one of those cultural idioms that sounds so good and is fully apropos to many situations, even if it was never really used in its original context. And in English it's an expression with a "nice" meter, a trochee and an iamb. Don't underestimate the appeal of a linguistic idiom based on the niceness of its sound.
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:2, Informative)
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.
The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It there isn't a brand and name associated with the release of information and therefore if there isn't a spokesperson dedicated to the defence of the ability to release that information then those who have a vested interest in quelling the whistle-blowers, discredit the information and shut down the means to the uncontrollable release of that information will not have any opposition, which means they are free to do what they please.
It's the same thing that happens with the old media. If a particular newspiece is published through an anonymous flyer then no one will pay attention to it. Yet, if it is released on a major newspaper then the newspiece in itself will become news. For example, is it reasonable to believe that Watergate would happen if deep throat released that information through an anonymous flyer instead of publishing it through the Washington Post?
The thing is, a leak in itself is nothing. It can only gain any meaning if the leak benefits from an effective means of distribution, free from any public scrutiny. And we can only expect the leak to have a reaction if those who are referred by it do not have the means to both cut off the access to that information and destroy the ability to publish that leak, along with others. And you only get that if the ones distributing the leak managed to build a strong brand and have access to an effective distribution system.
Re:Won't be as popular (Score:5, Informative)
Their early leaks [wikipedia.org] contained things about Somalia, Cayman Islands, Great Britain, etc. Surely you remember the "climategate" emails ? Those were from a UK university. Sure their latest leaks have been US centric but they're just releasing the most high profile, inflammatory, stuff they have. Oh, and as a EU citizen I would also like to read more of "our" leaked documents. Get to it ,whistle blowers !
Re:Murder (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
Re:no, you want to mess with the usa (Score:4, Informative)
No if you cross the US they just kidnap you and send you to some shithole to be tortured. Then, if it turns out you're not the one they're looking for, they'll dump you out in the middle of nowhere and pressure your government to forget the whole thing ever happened. This is what happened [boingboing.net] to a German of Lebanese descent and that's a case we know of, god knows what else the CIA is up to where nobody's looking.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years
In order to be a thief you have to steal and in order to steal you have to deprive someone of something. For someone who has demonstrated an ability to utilize web forms by posting to slashdot you seem to be blissfully unaware of the plethora of online dictionaries.
If a copy artist has been sneaking into homes for years and copying stuff he would never have bought for his own use until he finally broke into one and found a nine year old girl tied up and reported it to the police at risk to himself for being sent up for trespassing then he's a fucking hero and to suggest different is to totally misunderstand and then misappropriate the concept of "theft" just as has been done with intellectual so-called-"property" and criminal copyright law.
Breaking into computer systems without leaving a trace and then doing nothing with any collected data harms no one and to be punished for it is rational only from a paranoid mindset. The rational response is "please show me how you did that and tell me how I can stop it from happening again." The same is true of any information breach, regardless of the level of technical sophistication.
While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl,
...you are willing to mention such a thing in a comment as a way of conflating the two ideas in people's minds, which makes you total fucking scum.
Re:Don't mess with the bad governments. (Score:2, Informative)
US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc)
Okay, where the fuck have you been? What about the mass graves resulting from the US invasion of Panama? What about the torture we don't hear about? What about the sexual abuse our own fucking citizens have to endure before getting on an airplane? What about Bonita (formerly Chiquita, before that United Fruit Company) STILL murdering people to protect its fruit interests in central America... interests secured by US naval bombardment in the 1800s? What about our double-digit number of attempts on the life of Fidel Castro? Or the laundry list of coups against democratically elected leaders throughout latin America? The USA is every bit as nasty as anyone else, don't kid yourself for one second. Testing nuclear weapon fallout on our own soldiers. Testing the results of STDs on black soldiers without consent. Shooting veterans peacefully encamped on the white house lawn to protest not being paid. I could go on forever but I might throw up.
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Informative)
There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.
If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.
Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.
There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again [xinhuanet.com]. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
Here's some background [nytimes.com].
Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people's lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.
Some more [channel4.com]
But Ahmad Nader Nadery, the Commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) told Channel 4 News the damage is already done, because thousands of Afghans have already downloaded the files.
'Thousands of Afghans have downloaded the entire package'
He said: "Release of names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces is an absolute irresponsibility.
"There is no protection mechanisms for these people, be it informant or other community members who as part of the role as an elder meets with the officials or international forces, while wikileaks served greatly in brining to public some of the unspoken files, it certainly also acted against the principle of "Do No Harm" that all civil society and watchdogs have to adhere to.
I don't have the link handy, but AIHRC and other local organizations also stated that the assassination rate went dramatically up after the release.