Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Media United States News Your Rights Online Politics

OpenLeaks Founder 'Crippled' WikiLeaks 278

Posted by Soulskill
from the cutthroat-competition dept.
SETIGuy writes "Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson. Since leaving WikiLeaks, Domschiet-Berg has become one of the cofounders of OpenLeaks. This raises the question: if you had material to leak, would you trust it to someone who has already jeopardized the anonymity of leakers at a site where he worked?" Domscheit-Berg denies claims by WikiLeaks that he damaged the organization or 'stole' material, but did say he took roughly 300,000 documents with him when he left. An anonymous reader notes related news that WikiLeaks is attempting to get around donation blocks by selling a line of T-shirts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenLeaks Founder 'Crippled' WikiLeaks

Comments Filter:
  • by Stregano (1285764) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:12PM (#35177366)
    Now that WikiLeaks has competition, it would make sense to try and stop that competition. When you have a site like OpenLeaks that is all about anonymously leaking information, trying to say that they are not trusted with that would possibly hurt them. I think it is good there are multiple sources doing this. I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.
    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:17PM (#35177464) Journal

      I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.

      All the more evidence to suggest that either
      A) Wikileaks is right in that Domscheit-Berg sabatoged Wikileaks and they don't want you to trust him
      B) Wikileaks is not truly in this to spread information to the masses.

      • My view is that if you aren't set up in such a way that a programmer can't sabotage you, then you deserve it.

        Maybe someone could leak the names of some CMS their way.

        • by icebike (68054)

          My view is that if you aren't set up in such a way that a programmer can't sabotage you, then you deserve it.

          Maybe someone could leak the names of some CMS their way.

          You missed the part where the programmer is one of two key spokesmen for the whole organization. There was no one higher than him to put these practices in place.

      • by icebike (68054) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:31PM (#35178846)

        The fact that Wkileaks is making a big deal of the stolen stash of documents suggest they are NOT in this to provide information, but rather to further a specific agenda.

        Forget for a moment about the irony of bickering over "ownership" of stolen documents. The fact that Wikileaks still HAS a copy of those documents means they weren't harmed.

        As for the anonymous submission system being deactivated, the story seems long on allegations and short on detail. Even the alleged sabotage is only Wikileaks characterization of what is in Domscheit-Berg's book:

        "In (his) book Domscheit-Berg confesses to various acts of sabotage against the organization. The former WikiLeaks staffer admits to having damaged the site's primary submission system and stolen material," Hrafnsson's statement said.

        • by rel4x (783238)

          The fact that Wkileaks is making a big deal of the stolen stash of documents suggest they are NOT in this to provide information, but rather to further a specific agenda.

          Forget for a moment about the irony of bickering over "ownership" of stolen documents. The fact that Wikileaks still HAS a copy of those documents means they weren't harmed.

          They are in this to provide information, but part of their self-given task is also to get the information as much coverage as possible. Controlling the flow of information is part of this in their eyes.

          As their relationship with their formal partners(Guardian, NYTimes, etc) deteriorate, the leaks have been released differently. Instead of trying to create the news, they latch onto existing stories and ride on their coat tails. In Egypt for example: News about Mohamed ElBaradei and Egypt would have been igno

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          When someone leaks some documents to Wikileaks, it's an act of trust - that they can remain anonymous, and that the documents will be carefully collated and published. If someone illicitly copies some documents from Wikileaks, it's potentially a breach of that trust. If I were Wikileaks, I'd be pissed too.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:22PM (#35177540) Homepage

      Having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity, but we cannot assume Wikileaks cares about what's good for humanity. A normal organization hides from slander, moving controversial figures away from the public spotlight and replacing them with new faces. Regardless of Wikileaks' benevolent message, it seems intent on parading Assange around as a sort of "martyr for the rebellion" figure. OpenLeaks stand to take attention away from that image, and in doing so, cut off the stream of revenue from donations.

      Wikileaks hasn't acted like a normal charitable organization in quite a while. Now they're just capitalizing on controversy, and trying to make a profitable business out of it.

      • by sznupi (719324)

        A normal organization hides from slander, moving controversial figures away from the public spotlight and replacing them with new faces. Regardless of Wikileaks' benevolent message, it seems intent on parading Assange around as a sort of "martyr for the rebellion" figure.

        "Normal" is basically just another word for "average"...that's not the best approach regarding activities which could be, how you put it, good for humanity.

        Especially if the organization could be forced into constant reorganizations just by new slander & controversy directed at every new face.

        • by icebike (68054)

          "Normal" is basically just another word for "average"...that's not the best approach regarding activities which could be, how you put it, good for humanity.
          Especially if the organization could be forced into constant reorganizations just by new slander & controversy directed at every new face.

          You miss the point entirely.

          Why should there be a "Face"?

          The mission (allegedly) of Wikileaks is to establish openness of information. Putting ANY face on it simply makes it a personal vendetta mostly aimed at the

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        Having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity, but we cannot assume Wikileaks cares about what's good for humanity. ... OpenLeaks stand to take attention away from that image, and in doing so, cut off the stream of revenue from donations.

        OpenLeaks seeks to change the one thing that makes WikiLeaks effective:
        Releasing the source documents.

        Our media has always been only as honest as they needed to be.
        Without source documents being put out in the public eye, there's nothing forcing news organizations to be as honest as they should be.

        • by Sarten-X (1102295)

          How is a source document inherently better than a properly-scrubbed document? If a hypothetical leak indicates that the CIA meets North Korean arms dealers every Tuesday at 4:00 PM at the Starbucks on Main street, does it really matter that the released version says the meeting takes place on Friday at an old warehouse?

          If an OpenLeaks submitter doesn't like what is finally released, they're welcome to try again with a different outlet. OpenLeaks just makes connections, and it's up to the submitter to determ

          • by bug1 (96678)

            How is a source document inherently better than a properly-scrubbed document?

            How is a free person inherently better than a properly manipulated person ?

      • The "threat" from openleaks.org is not that they will attract attention away from wikileaks. In fact, its the opposite of what they want to do. According to Domscheit-Berg, they plan to only be a "leak collector" and move the information through existing journalism organizations for review/release.

        No, the threat of openleaks is that they will take away the "good scoops" from wikileaks.

      • by Black Sabbath (118110) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:07PM (#35179418) Homepage

        If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.

        In Australia, this behaviour is colloquially referred to as a "c*nt's act".

        You claim that WL hasn't acted like a "normal charitable organisation". I'm sorry? What? They are an organisation trying to change the way governments (of all flavours) deal with their citizenry - i.e. they want to make it impossible for governments to continue to operate on the basis of subterfuge on a grand scale. Capitalizing on controversy is part and parcel of making people (not just geeks) aware. Tell me, how many people on the street had even heard of WL 2 years ago, let alone were aware of the stuff they had released?

        As for making a "profitable business" - give me a break. From what? Selling t-shirts? Do you have any idea how much it takes to fund a decent legal defence when multiple state actors are out to get you? I don't either but it sure as hell won't be cheap.

        • by Obfuscant (592200)

          If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.

          According to someone at WikiLeaks.

          It is not unusual for a company with idiot or malicious employees to try to blame the last guy who left for all their troubles. "Oh, we weren't bad admins, it was George who left a year ago breaking in and causing trouble..."

          For every one city admin who locks down the routers when he leaves there are probably 10,000 admins who are accused out of spite of hacking by ex-employers.

    • by Spy Handler (822350) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:22PM (#35177552) Homepage Journal
      Well whatever Wikileaks is alleging Domscheit-Berg of doing (stealing wikileaks' info, sabotaging their server), it happened a while ago. They're only throwing a fit NOW and threatening to sue because Berg's new book about his experience in Wikileaks hit the bookstores today [independent.co.uk].

      Apparently the book alleges that Assange once threatened to kill Berg over their differences, was intensely paranoid and began travelling with bodyguards, and ruled over his followers as an "emperor".
    • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:38PM (#35177844) Journal

      Are you retarded?

      You don't just take leaked information and leak it to the public. The reason wikileaks doesn't do this is to protect the people who leak info. Believe it or not, they actually do this. There is no such guarantee from openleaks.

      Wikileaks never said anyone else couldn't do this, just that they need to be cognizant of what it takes to anonymize stuff before it's released.

      • by Wyatt Earp (1029)

        No, wikileaks isn't doing this because it's not wikileaks anymore, it's wikiassange now, have you been over to wikileaks.ch lately? It's got more Assange branding on it than wikipedia had Jimmy Wales.

        Its all about Assange and keeping wikileaks and Assange's name in the press.

        • by horza (87255)

          Ok I went there just now. Went to the about [wikileaks.ch] page and found... 0 references to Assange. On the front page, it has his picture as part of a banner... but amazingly nothing about the court case on Assange.

          Er, are you sure you went to the right page?

          Phillip.

      • NYT Editor Bill Keller was on NPR's Fresh Air last week [npr.org]. Here's what he had to say about Assange and redaction:

        GROSS: You say: We regarded Assange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator. But he was a man who clearly had his own agenda. What do you think his agenda was?

        Mr. KELLER: Well, as I said earlier, I think it was a little murky. He professes a kind of ideology of transparency, that, you know, information should be free.

        He, at the outset, even resisted the idea - when we and the othe

        • Are you fucking kidding me? You'd take the self-serving words of the editor of a paper which has for years been a pro-war propaganda machine?
           

    • by DarkOx (621550)

      The only value though in getting the information out there is if someone sees it. Pleople know wikileaks, people watch it, if you have 100s of little leak sites out there nobody will pay any attention and your important relase may go un noticed. If you try to leak the data to multiple place you increase your expose by having to transfer sensitive data multiple times.

      So while I don't think its good to have just one whistle blowing site for the whole of the WWW, to many might prove detrimental to the object

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:08PM (#35178400)

      I suspect it's less about competition and more about Domscheit-Berg being a deep-cover plant.

      All I can say is there is no fucking way I would ever submit any secret government documents to OpenLeaks. That site smells way too much like honey.

      • by tobiah (308208)

        I seriously doubt Domscheit-Berg purposely infiltrated Wikileaks, but I agree with you that I don't trust him or Openleaks. Compromising the security of wikileaks contributors shows he does not respect them, and is unlikely to do so at OpenLeaks. Assange is clearly loyal to his ideals and willing to take great personal risk for them. I might not trust him with my cat, but I'd trust him with my leaked data.

        • Well then, you'd be a gullible, unemployed, and potentially dead fool. What makes you think the whole wikileaks system was secure in the first place? Which I believe was part of Domscheit-Berg's point. Wikileaks is not taking in new leaks, because they have to re-engineer their whole system. In other words, the original setup was suspect even before DB's "sabotage".

        • by elrous0 (869638) *

          All I can know about him is his background is very thin, he came into Wikileaks late, he sabotaged their software before he left, he has actively participated in the campaign to discredit Assange, and his OpenLeaks site does not actually publish the materials submitted (*supposedly* they're routed directly to news sources, or maybe they're routed directly to the NSA or FBI, who knows?). That does not sound like a guy I would trust with jackshit.

    • by GooberToo (74388)

      Wikileaks generates revenue and prestige (which directly fuels Assanage's ego) by leaking secrets. Someone else leaking "their" secrets means Wikileaks suffers.

      "Killing people is fun." - Julian Assanage

      • OK - I've done the search and can't find a reference at all for your tag line in which JA is quoted to have said that "killing people is fun". If it was said, it wasn't reported or Google haven't indexed it - which would imply. If it wasn't said (as I suspect), then you are just making shit up to smear the guy.

        FWIW, the search string I used was:
        +"julian assange" +"killing people is fun"

        The head of CENTCOM on the other hand HAS admitted that shooting people is fun...
        http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/07/09/ki [antonyloewenstein.com]

    • Now that WikiLeaks has competition, it would make sense to try and stop that competition. When you have a site like OpenLeaks that is all about anonymously leaking information, trying to say that they are not trusted with that would possibly hurt them. I think it is good there are multiple sources doing this. I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.

      So far the publicly available formula for Wikileaks has been:
      1. Accept stolen documents
      2. Put them on the web for people to download.
      3.?
      4. Profit!

      Maybe #3 really isn't a blank, and competition from other sites would endanger it unless they coordinated what documents to make available, and when.

      WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder [wnd.com]
      One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange,

    • We know from leaked emails that security companies hired by Bank of America and working with the FBI explicitly had the following plan to destroy wikileaks: Turn wikileaks insiders against each other, and spread FUD to dissuade people from trusting wikileaks as both a source of information, and as a safe haven to give information to.

      Fast forward six months after those emails, and we have: Wikileaks insiders fighting against each other, splitting off due to distrust, and spreading information about a co
  • by sznupi (719324) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:12PM (#35177376) Homepage
    Assange abused my cat: WikiLeaks insider [google.com]

    "Julian was constantly battling for dominance, even with my tomcat Herr Schmitt,"
    "Ever since Julian lived with me in Wiesbaden he (the cat) has suffered from psychosis. Julian would constantly attack the animal. He would spread out his fingers like a fork and grab the cat's throat."

    ...and Assange broke those limits, as far as I am concerned.

    (it even sheds some light on Swedish investigation: Assange touched my pussy [thinq.co.uk])

    • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:59PM (#35178226) Journal

      There are limits, and an ex associate of Assange's claims he broke those limits. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't know. How do we know Assange is the wingnut, and not Domscheit-Berg? It's pretty clear that at least one of them is a monomaniacal loon, if not both.

      • by spun (1352)

        Damn it, monomaniacal? Megalomaniacal. Teach me to accept the spellchecker's suggestions without looking more carefully.

        • I thought the word was intentionally placed there - it sounds nice as people /expect/ to accuse him of megalomania but the problem (if any) may be monomania, causing him to disregard the effect on people (and animals?) around him. Like Churchill said, a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

          This all remains drama bullshit to detract from the actual purpose of Wikileaks to release pertinent information on misbehaviour. Disliking Assange and his seconds in command doesn't m

          • by spun (1352)

            Good point, but people like their myths in black and white, thank you very much, we'll have no shades of gray here. If someone is a hero, they must be all hero, and if a villain, they must be pure evil. Anything else just confuses people. They just want to know whether they should love or hate someone.

    • So he knowingly let an animal abuser stay with him while he was housing a cat?

      Assange might be guilty - we have no evidence. But this tit has just confessed to aiding in cat abuse. Isn't this the bit where /b/ turns up?

  • That Wikileaks may have just found themselves a new revenue stream. Provided of course that this guy has money. He did a pretty sleazy thing and should be called out for it.
    • by Wyatt Earp (1029)

      So its wrong to steal documents from someone who trades in stolen documents?

      It's like a thief calling the police on the thief that robbed him.

      "Officer, Daniel stole the stolen documents I had!"

      • by tobiah (308208)

        1) Domsheit-Berg took the documents and deleted the copies out of spite, Wikileaks stole nothing, they received the documents with the higher objective of exposing corruption and wrong-doings. Morally and legally their actions are very different. Wikileaks actions are legally indistinguishable from news organizations, and they have yet to be convicted of a crime. There is plenty of precedent that taking documents from a former employer with the intent to harm them IS a crime.
        2) Betraying the whistle-blowers

  • FUD all around (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:14PM (#35177414) Homepage

    So first, Wikileaks is a great boon to democracy, then it's a threat to security, then it's the victim of a multi-government conspiracy, then it's the noble banner over coordinated multinational attacks, and now it's the victim of sabotage, and perpetrator of its own slander campaign!

    The theatrics continue.

    • Kind of reminds me of that Maple Street story from the Twilight Zone.

      You don't need government assassins and moles to ruin and slander you, at least not when you have your own healthy dose of paranoia.

  • Damn that thief (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm amazed (not really) that anyone from Wikileaks has the gall to bitch about someone 'stealing' information from them.

  • Not sure what the big deal is... People leak documents from the gov't to wikileaks and so people are now leaking documents from wikileaks to another site... ...Karma...

    • by Decessus (835669) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:48PM (#35177994)
      I don't know whether it's a big deal or not, but from reading the article it is more than just about documents from Wikileaks being leaked to another site. This Domschiet-Berg guy did something that compromised the anonymity of people who submit things to the Wikileaks website.
      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by DNS-and-BIND (461968)

        So, an organization dedicated to leaking information was in possession of certain information that it preferred to keep secret. Then, someone leaked the info.

        I'm pretty sure this is the definition of literary irony. It certainly contains the classical elements of comeuppance.

  • While I wholeheartedly support free speech, "it must be true because it is on wikileaks" is as worrisome as efforts to quell free speech. Would it be too much trouble to get an independent eye to validate the charge before making an accusation?
  • So WikiLeaks is angry that their former member stole 300,000 documents, and plans on leaking them to the world? That's the finest example of irony I've heard all week.

    It's also the finest example of organizational inertia I've encountered for a while, where an entity is created to further some basic principle, but slowly mutates into something more interested in its own survival and aggrandizement.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:37PM (#35177816)
      No, learn to read. Wikileaks doesn't care about who copies the documents, they are angry because he sabotaged their submission system.
      • Not he, but another defector who wrote the code disabled access to it because of security concerns. WL so to speak is Assange himself. WL as a core team is gone.

      • by mcvos (645701) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:15PM (#35178568)

        As I understand it, WikiLeaks' submission system used to be full of holes. Some guy ("the architect") took it upon himself to fix it. Then Assange went on an ego-trip and Domscheit-Berg left, and the architect joined him and founded OpenLeaks with him. And yes, took his code with him.

        Maybe Assange should have realised a bit earlier that he doesn't run WikiLeaks on his own. WikiLeaks depends on a lot of people, and if he kicks them out, the organisation crumbles.

        By the way, WikiLeaks is also suing Domscheit-Berg over a number of documents that Domscheit-Berg has been trying to give to Assange for quite some time now, but Assange keeps ignoring him. At least, that's what my newspaper said about it.

      • by DRJlaw (946416)

        Wikileaks doesn't care about who copies the documents, they are angry because he sabotaged their submission system.

        In the absence of evidence of a copyright assignment, a license agreement, or an employer-employee relationship, I'm not going to agree with the assumption that it is their submission system.

        It sounds to me like the programmer who wrote the system decided to take his ball and go home. If he owned it, that is more or less his right. Considering that Wikileaks didn't even register as a legal e

    • We should have known the site would be full of drama the moment the out Wiki in the title. Just like Wikipedia, it's turned from something cool to a haven for the pedantically-challenged,

    • They should be thankful for the help; aren't they always bitching about lack of manpower? After all, if you really care about releasing the information responsibly (like they do, Pentagon lies aside), rather than just publicity, wouldn't you be glad for 300,000 items off your to-do list? I would.

    • by gambino21 (809810)

      So WikiLeaks is angry that their former member stole 300,000 documents, and plans on leaking them to the world? That's the finest example of irony I've heard all week.

      You should at least read the first sentence of the summary.

      Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson.

      They are upset because they believe he jeopardized the anonymity of the sources.

  • by koan (80826) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:26PM (#35177614)

    Wasn't the American government consulting to find a way to discredit Assange and Wikileaks? Didn't defense contractors and Bank of America work together with Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies to discredit Wikileaks?

    I can't wait till all the bank info comes out, I got a nice long section of hemp rope I've been saving.

    I welcome it all, let everyone come forward and spill the secrets.

  • So let me get this straight, Wikileaks is upset that someone did to them, what their informants have been doing to others?

  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:33PM (#35177758) Homepage Journal
    The more I pay attention to all the news surrounding wikileaks the more I realize that the only people who get air time anymore are drama queens. On the one side, we have Assange acting like a pissed off idealistic teenager (not necessarily a bad thing) making comments about how it is his duty to end two wars in the world. In another corner, we have the dumbshit media pundits in America calling for his head on a platter without even having a crime to charge him for. Then there is the Swedish legal system, which is dumping money and time into investigating rape charges that are spurious at best, but more like a downright "he says she says" game from prom night. Then there are all the other wikileaks employees, or volunteers, or whatever, that have to compete with Assange's ego, like this guy who swiped a bunch of data and intends to use it to start his own project ("I don't like your secret club anymore! I'm starting my own!")

    Hell, the only folk who seem to act rationally when it comes to this issue are the folks in the Middle East that read a few cables relevant to their lives and said, "Fuck it, it's time to change things for the better!"

    I mean, seriously, look at this shitfest. This is something straight out of Freddy Prinze Junior movie, complete with all of the hyperbolic, dramatic characters. And yet, these are the people delivering our news, getting voted into the leadership roles of our society, and generally steering the direction this world moves in.

    What The Fuck? Why do we tolerate this kind of bullshit? Maybe I am just clinging to a pipe dream, hoping to one day see our world led by people with some god damned sense and humility, but this has gotten ridiculous.

    I don't know. Maybe there are some other countries out there where these issues are less glaring (or nonexistant?), but here in the States, I am afraid we've turned world politics into a fucking high school based reality T.V. show. It makes me nauseous. Maybe we really should just vote the retard beauty queen Sarah Palin into office already and get it all over with.
    • by vadim_t (324782)

      Well, people with a sense of humility probably don't start a lot of things like Wikileaks. I mean, it's the hell of a bold move, with the implicit statement "I know what's wrong with the world (lack of transparency) and I will do something about it". It's not very humble.

    • by gambino21 (809810)

      On the one side, we have Assange acting like a pissed off idealistic teenager (not necessarily a bad thing) making comments about how it is his duty to end two wars in the world.

      Citation needed. Maybe you are referring to the quote [vanityfair.com] from Domscheit-Berg's book. Not exactly the most objective source. AFAIK, Assange never said this in public.

  • ...and think "Whoa. Déjà vu"?

    .
  • OpenLeaks sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brillow (917507) on Friday February 11, 2011 @02:59PM (#35178220)
    The problem I have with OpenLeaks is that, as far as I can tell, they don't make information public. You leak them info, and put yourself at risk for doing it, and then they just give it to journalists. This process is not unambiguously indicated to be free. They do not guarantee an audience for your information. They don't make the information publicly available. They expect us to trust journalists to go through this information and report what we plebes need to know about it. The problem being of course that even with the Wikileaks documents received by the NYT, the journalists worked with the gov't to decide what they would report. Luckily though, WL lets us all see the original material, we need not trust the journalist more than we care to since we have access to the same information they do. OpenLeaks would not allow that. So I guess if you're going to risk your life or your livelyhood to leak information, you'd probably not want to give it to someone who can't guarantee that the information will be available to people. So in the process this guy sabotaged, and likely stole, anonymous submission software from his competitor before going out and starting his own business. Which he seemingly did because he didn't like Assange. Assange being mean or asinine is a red-herring meant to deceive you.
    • by hey! (33014)

      Well, any such guarantee would be a double edged sword at best, so far as the security of the source is concerned. If you can get a trustworthy journalist to stand between the public and the source material, you as a leaker are much safer from identification and retaliation. The reporter has both an ethical and a selfish interest in protecting his sources, and should have some knowledge about how to do that.

      Any documents this guy may have taken and whether he sabotaged Wikileaks' servers are of course entir

    • For "desirable" effect, the information supplied needs to be vetted (for veracity), and presented in a manner that does NOT burn the whistleblower, or create unintended victims by release of the information. You don't achieve that with a bunch of UNPAID volunteers, of wildly varying competence, and no way of providing quality control OR security. Its INEVITABLE you're going to need news media organizations to provide those functions.

      There is nothing in the openleaks model that indicates it will EXCLUSIVE

  • Slashdot Editors: Please refrain from placing direct links to Wikileaks in your articles (or at least please mark them with a follow on disclaimer) in consideration to members of our armed forces who are prohibited from visiting the website [usmc.mil].
  • by Elektroschock (659467) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:10PM (#35178440)

    Trivia: Domscheit-Berg is the husband of a Microsoft top lobbyist [frauenmach...laender.de].

    Domschiet-Berg means Cathedralshit-Mountain. His name is Domscheit-Berg.

    "Former WikiLeaks programmer"

    --- he was a German spokes person, an one other Wikileaks guy working closely with Assange, he didn't claim to be a programmer.

    "Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers,"

    -- A colleague of Daniel who also left wikileaks disabled the submission tool because they had security concerns over the submission system and found it irresponsible. The claim that he threatened the anonymity of leakers or sabotaged wikileaks is without any evidence.

    "Since leaving WikiLeaks, Domschiet-Berg has become one of the cofounders of OpenLeaks. This raises the question: if you had material to leak, would you trust it to someone who has already jeopardized the anonymity of leakers at a site where he worked?"

    -- Obviously he has not done this and you cannot name a single case where he did. You cannot confirm your allegation by referring to your former mentioning of the statement. It works for FOX news but not for educated discourse.

    Domscheit-Berg also never said he would use them in his openleaks project.

  • Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MoldySpore (1280634) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:12PM (#35178486)

    This has really gotten out of hand.

    1) Of course WikiLeaks is pissed. They were the ones who took up the banner for having a reliable place to leak data. I am sure they had some sort of process to gauge people's reliability and willingness to be part of WikiLeaks before they "hired" anyone to be part of the organization. It was a matter of trust. Which Daniel Domscheit-Berg has violated and betrayed. The only way a leak operation like WikiLeaks can work right is if it's members see beyond their own issues. So he didn't like Julian Assange? Really? Huge news? What employee ever likes their boss?

    2) The irresponsibility of Daniel Domscheit-Berg for trying to make a name off WikiLeaks and Assange is sad at best, and dangerous for people at worst. Specifically for the leakers. WikiLeaks is already a known, trusted organization for handling leaked information. The new OpenLeaks crap and Daniel Domscheit-Berg are only going to confuse this very NEW process (leaked information over the internet to a central source). Having more than 1 organization right now isn't good timing. It is only a publicity stunt that is meant to harm wikileaks credibility and to confuse their leakers into trying OpenLeaks.

    3) If OpenLeaks had opened by itself without any connections to WikiLeaks, then maybe it would have been ok. But for it to open the way it did, I can't see it ever being as trustworthy or "open" as WikiLeaks.

    4) Those claiming that it is all theatrics are right, on the part of OpenLeaks and Daniel Domscheit-Berg making a scene merely for the sake of attracting attention away from WikiLeaks. It is literally like walking into a crowded movie theater and screaming "Quick! Look over here! Don't pay attention to the movie you were all already enjoying! We've written a play for you all to watch instead!"

    5) Rather than pushing forward and just shutting up for the good of the world (or rather, the good of the people of the world who live under governments that use secrecy and shady deals to accomplish their goals) Daniel Domscheit-Berg decided it was a better idea to gather as much media attention as possible, steal from and disrupt the image of WikiLeaks, while conveniently writing books [amazon.com] that make him $, which I'm sure won't be funneled into helping people expose leaks and rather funneled into his own pocket. If that doesn't make people realize he is a douche, I don't know what will

    6) People who claim, such as Daniel, that Assange's ego blah blah blah are bad are missing the point. Assange's job was to draw the ire of the governments they were leaking about. He is the media spokesperson, and the figure head. Regardless if he started WikiLeaks or not, that was his role and he has played everyone like a fiddle when it comes to this. Granted his liberties and freedom are on trial right now in Europe, but he had to of known that might be the repercussions.

    • The problem is that Assange is not the figurehead. He's autocratically calling the shots for what supposed to be a volunteer group effort. He's the one who's releasing tons of unedited Afghanistan war logs potentially jeopardizing the lives of Afghani "collaborators" with the US military. Assange didn't put that to a vote.

      Some people believe an autocratic cult is a good thing, with the right dictator on top. I'll take a pass.

  • by drolli (522659) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:20PM (#35178642) Journal

    Domscheit-Berg gave an very interesting interview (on netzpolitik.de, in German).

    a) Assange assumed that everybody who worked with him has to follow his orders

    b) Assange rejected to give wikileaks any legal structures or organizationl structures

    c) Assange assumed that everybody works for WL, but left the modalities of influence or money completely undefined.

    Domscheidt-Berg was "suspended" (from what exactly, if i may ask if there is no organizational structure behind?) and he decided to keep the hardware with the information in his possession (where it was) until wikileaks can give him convincing instructions what to do. Since there is no organization the ownership of the servers in unclear, and he askes Wikileaks to settle it with the foundation which collaborated with them to return the servers.

    Endangering of the infromers was due to Assanges unwillingness to restrict themself in a meaningful and planned way and due to his promis to the newapapers to redact the documents, a task far beyond WLs capacities at that time, and DB claims he warned of that ans got increasingly frustrated with not having a organization structure behind.

    DB describes the personality structure of Assange consistently with the other persons who have met Assange personally and gave interviews.

    If you would ask me to hand over a server with unclear ownership containing critical information into the hands of some person coming in a due to circumstances strongly fluctuating non-organization based on the need and the evaluation of a self-proclaimed leader with a personality structure which for sure is prone to the usual tricks used during infiltration, at a time when this leader is under big stress and may be even more leaning towards no fully rational decisions, i would seriously *not* transfer that.

    So while some personal connotations of the whole story may be irritating, i can follow DBs thoughts and arguments.

    To put it in a nice way: Assange is somewhere on the line between madman and genius; i would say he is a case for a therapy (a mild ambulant one) to fight the problems he seems to causing constantly in personal interactions and his Hybris.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:32PM (#35178852)
    A movement grows very fast and becomes powerful. It is run by an eccentric ego with delusions of grandeur and possible sexual proclivity. Then it collapses on itself from infighting and external pressure. This is not to say the goals of Wikileaks are bad, but its execution may have fallen short.
  • A leak "superstore" is a stupid idea. A centralized repository is a centralized target. A centralized target is bad for everything except Assange's need for attention.

    Assange is a pig. He hoards information so that it can be disclosed for maximum benefit for himself, rather than sharing it freely with others. He is only a conduit--he doesn't provide any analysis.

    He created publicity for a service category that has social value. Great. His 15 minutes are up. Now, maybe a more responsible service, or b

  • that, this whole bickering has a negative effect on the willingness of potential leak sources to actually leak information. I sincerely hope this war of egos will not escalate any further.
  • by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Friday February 11, 2011 @05:38PM (#35180526)

    Two posts from different sides of the same story make for interesting reading. I believe the truth will be somewhere in the middle. It does make me wonder, however, if D-B was really not involved in any part of Wikileaks like the article from the Wikileak's spokesperson claims, it would have been difficult to remove the key piece of software that they claim he did and therefore sabatoged Wikileaks. It seems, from reading between the lines that D-B was actually much more involved in Wikileaks and since his characterizations of Assange have been corroborated by other ex-Wikileaks staff, there may very well be some truth to his side of the story.

    Personally, I like the idea of having a leak repository and other outlets decide what to release or not. Putting editorial control under the caretaker of the source documents (as in Wikileaks) seems to allow for quite a bit of abuse of power.

    It has been said that information is power. Wikileaks and Assange have accumulated quite a bit of information/power. Too bad, it has also been said that power corrupts.

All this wheeling and dealing around, why, it isn't for money, it's for fun. Money's just the way we keep score. -- Henry Tyroon

Working...