Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Media

Openleaks Goes Live 158

Posted by timothy
from the your-safe-house-or-mine? dept.
Underholdning writes "Ars technica leaks the story of OpenLeaks launching. OpenLeaks is an alternative to WikiLeaks, with a few differences. 'OpenLeaks will not accept or publish documents on its own platform, but rather create many "digital dropboxes" for its community members, each adapted to the specific needs of our members so that they can provide a safe and trusted leaking option for whistleblowers.' Time will show if this will live next to WikiLeaks, or they will compete. For more information, check out the OpenLeaks website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Openleaks Goes Live

Comments Filter:
  • by Deathnerd (1734374) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:04PM (#35025880)
    When you bring down or threaten one site, six more pop up in its place. I would have thought that the lessons learned from fighting torrent sites would translate to government. I guess they'll never really learn.

    Row row row FIGHT THE POWAH!
  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:12PM (#35025992) Homepage Journal
    and who will do its advertising, so that the mass media will HAVE to carry the leaks into the headlines ?

    if you think material will just get carried into headlines and prime time news because of the contents, dont fool yourself - entire american public is unaware of what ACTA is, even as of now, despite it has been internationally fought over by all major players in the world. so, its indeed possible to keep public ignorant.

    wikileaks is using the publicity assange generates through media and publicity stunts. in case you noticed, assange is always making the opening for a new leak a few weeks before it is published, and continuing to generate publicity for the upcoming leak.

    you just dont create a dropbox and expect leaks to be seen by people. corporate contolled media WONT use it. they have successfully kept any potential leak in the dark since watergate, until wikileaks.

    openleaks must find a way to make advertising.
  • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:17PM (#35026050)
    Yeah, my thought exactly. For all the limitations of Julien Assange, he's not a narc, he won't pass your name to the authorities, and he will try to get your leak out there and make sure that people actually notice. Alternatives to Wikileaks might also do the same, but I wouldn't want to be the first to test the waters. I definitely hope that these guys turn out to be legit though. Competition in leaks would be a very good thing for everybody. Still, let's not ignore that Assange and Wikileaks have a huge head start.
  • Politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Q-Hack! (37846) * on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:18PM (#35026068)

    It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.

  • by neiras (723124) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:22PM (#35026110)

    So these guys plan to release only to 'need-to-know' news organizations, approved by themselves and some sort of vote process? Yeah, that'll work well. If the media won't touch a certain story shopped around by OpenLeaks, we'll never know about it. I don't trust OpenLeaks; I hope they fail hard.

    Wikileaks had it right - public disclosure with a reasonable attempt to scrub names not directly responsible for the crimes being exposed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:24PM (#35026132)

    you just dont create a dropbox and expect leaks to be seen by people. corporate contolled media WONT use it. they have successfully kept any potential leak in the dark since watergate, until wikileaks. Openleaks must find a way to make advertising.

    From their FAQ [openleaks.org]: "OpenLeaks is not involved in the direct editing and release of documents. Our intention is to function, as much as possible, as a mere conduit (akin to the telephone exchange and the post) between the whistleblower and an organization of their choice. This means that OpenLeaks does not accept submissions or publish leaked material directly. "

  • by poity (465672) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:27PM (#35026186)

    So some people want to try their own hands at helping.

    I hope they fail hard.

    You want them to fail because they're not helping in the way you want them to.
    Rush Limbaugh, is that you again?

  • Re:Politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jez9999 (618189) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:31PM (#35026230) Homepage Journal

    I think this argument is utter crap. Wikileaks offered an unedited version of Collateral Murder, and what they did edit they did to clarify things and in my opinion they didn't distort the content in any significant way.

    Other documents they have edited have been to remove people's names and they'd have gotten more criticism if they hadn't done it.

  • Re:Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dbIII (701233) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:40PM (#35026308)
    With the greatest possible respect (watch "Yes Minister" if you don't know that this is a polite way of saying you may be very good at something but have no clue about this subject) they had both an edited version that can be considered "highlights" and the full version. That renders your complaint pointless nitpicking that could be applied to nearly any media source on the planet but can not be applied for this video.
    Also Orwell was writing about the USSR in such a way as to get the message across that it could happen in your hometown if everything went wrong. He also sidestepped the ideologies that really are irrelevant if there is totalitarianism hiding behind them by setting it in a fictional place. It wasn't really prediction but extrapolation of the sort of thing that was already occurring and presenting it in such a way that people would take it seriously without bringing in their own ideological baggage.
  • Re:Politics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:44PM (#35026352)

    The "collateral murder" highlights reel was all that was needed. When the soldiers shot the van that was collecting the bodies, that was a war crime.

  • Re:Politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:08PM (#35026602) Homepage

    A reporter, newscaster or presenter will report on the facts, a commentator gives opinion.

    Fox News is all commentary and skew and flip stories. BBC News is mostly news casting, and only report on the fact, with no biased slant, in most cases.

    Only time you see reporting getting slightly skewed at the BBC is when they are dealing with very sensitive subjects, for example they have embedded journalists in Iraq where the story is that given to them by the American and British forces, and is not representative of what is really going on. 'Collateral Murder' went through the press as the story given by the USA army that was totally inaccurate to what happened. The embedded journalists have to obey the news given out by the forces, if not agencies such as the BBC wont get on the front-line of what is happening. Wikileaks served to undo the PR machine that the US government have.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:16PM (#35026668)
    Assange for all his weaknesses is in some respects a realist. Those complaints weren't particularly valid. He's got a limited number of people that he can trust to do the redactions and other work necessary to release the material. There's a lot of material in the world that can be leaked. I don't think it's a fair criticism of him or the organization that there's a huge backlog. Choosing to prioritize the materials that are the most interest to the general public is hardly unethical. Organizations have to make priorities or they get nothing done.

    It's sort of like if Shakespeare or Mark Twain had chosen to write one act or chapter from each work before moving onto the second. Both men almost undoubtedly had a back log of ideas at various points and only a limited amount of resources with which to realize them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:26PM (#35026760)

    So Julian Assange and WikiLeaks work brought about what Dubya said he wanted to do by attacking Iraq: spread democracy in the Middle East. For a lot less than the trillions of dollars and tens of hundreds of lives (including the much more valuable American lives).

    Suck on that, Dubya..!

  • by gknoy (899301) <gknoy@anaLISPsaz ... m minus language> on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:27PM (#35026770)

    Wikileaks did not expose Manning -- Manning did by being an idiot and talking about it. Assange did not blow the whistle, he merely published it, and is deliberately non-anonymous in order to be the Wikileaks Drama Lightning Rod, or something.

  • Re:Politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Friday January 28, 2011 @01:27AM (#35028900)

    Sorry for double post... But I just went and watched the "full" video here [collateralmurder.com], and around 4:35-4:45, I very clearly see a cut. Is that how such videos generally work? Is there any reason to believe that too was not edited, or can we trust that THIS time, it was the full video?

    And I thought the point of a site like wikileaks was to be a neutral, thrid party publishing site; sticking orwell quotes onto a video doesnt seem very neutral to me.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 28, 2011 @07:11AM (#35030192)

    So Julian Assange and WikiLeaks work brought about what Dubya said he wanted to do by attacking Iraq: spread democracy in the Middle East. For a lot less than the trillions of dollars and tens of hundreds of lives (including the much more valuable American lives).

    Suck on that, Dubya..!

    George Walker Bush was actively supporting the government of Egypt. Since many US presidents before him, although he and his father is perhaps the ones that has most utilised their services, Egypt have been a place where people is sent to be tortured on behalf of CIA and other US acronyms, or where people have been sent when the US government want them to be behind lock and shackle with no questions asked. [ This has of course never happened to anyone born in USA, just dirty foreigners, according to US policies, people born in USA are the only human beings on this planet and the only ones that get a humane treatment. ] Many of the Egyptian government employed torturers have been trained by CIA or the US military in their profession.

    I doubt Dubya ever had any interest in spreading democracy in Middle East. Most US presidents only want the oil of Middle East and that the countries there stay in a constant state of weakness and US dependency because of internal conflicts.

  • Re:Politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by metacell (523607) on Friday January 28, 2011 @10:21AM (#35031560)

    It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.

    It's not unlikely you're trolling, but I'll respond just to be on the safe side.

    The US military didn't just classify the video where a US attack helicopter shoots down journalists in Iraq - they lied to the court and claimed it didn't exist.

    Wikileaks exposed that lie by leaking the video. They published both an edited version with commentary, and the complete, unedited version, so everyone could see for themselves that they didn't distort anything. That Wikileaks bothered to publish the unedited version, proves that they were honest. It's more than what a regular news agency does.

    Of course, when they release unedited material, they get criticised for that too. It's used to argue that they're not "a real news agency", since "real news agencies" provide reports, not raw data, and this in turn is used to support bizarre arguments that they shouldn't have the same right to free speech as other news providers.

    So whatever Wikileaks does, they get criticised. I think it's amazing they haven't made more mistakes than they have, considering the sheer amount of material they've received and the controversies surrounding it.

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.

Working...