Dissident WikiLeaks members leave and launch OpenLeaks

[Humodour]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/22...A-New-WikiLeaks

 

Swedish newspaper dagens Nyheter reports: '...everal key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public.

 

"Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye."

 

Basically it's the same thing as WikiLeaks, except these guys will release to certain news organisations/journalists, and let the journos decide what to release to the public, redact, etc.

 

Sounds ideal to me! Thoughts?

[Tigranes]

There's the risks of the whole movement splintering, factionism, information leak becoming a business of its own, etc - basically a trajectory where Assange's excessive political power play & high profile leaking inevitably pushes the practice of leaks towards an 'industry' of leaks. There's no question that WikiLeaks needed to take on more of an editorial function at some point or another instead of just being a dump, but this is likely to bring up new problems over the next few years about power structures, accountability and organisation amongst leakers themselves.

 

Main variable at the moment is just how much momentum OpenLeaks has at the moment, what happens to Assange's legal situation - ideally OpenLeaks can 'inherit' all from the sinking ship of WikiLeaks, not so ideally we get the two roaring at each other or OpenLeaks petering out.

[Walsingham]

You are of course aware that it was standard KGB practice to pose as journalists for precisely this sort of information?

 

An associate of mine was explaining to me today how wikileaks had technical dvantages in reporting issues, and they are interesting in themselves. But why these can't be married to a democratically constituted body is still beyond me. Do we really have so little respect for our society and people that we trust a self-appointed bunch of vigilantes more than the people we choose to defend us? Because if so then I'm defecting to China while I can still get a good deal.

[Orogun01]

Because if so then I'm defecting to China while I can still get a good deal.

Heh, why the hell not? I love Chinese food,women, and kung fu movies. I'm in.

[Zoraptor]

Sounds ideal to me! Thoughts?

Seems utterly pointless. You can already leak direct to the papers. You can already leak indirect to the papers. Can't think of it having a single use.

[obyknven]

Что вы так на Китай взъелись? Почему нам, их соседям, по большому счету все равно, что у них там творится?

Edited December 10, 2010 by obyknven

[Nepenthe]

This thing brings Life of Brian to mind. It even has the messianic figure.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think it's good. Both because wikileaks have been too closely asociated with Julian Assange, and because it makes it harder to shut them up. But Im not crazy bout the idea of letting the commercial media decide if they want to publish or not. Because more often than not they will take the safe route and toss the material in order to avoid the wrath of the goverment. And because the people should have access to the raw data so they can check if the media left anything out.

[Junai]

Sounds ideal to me! Thoughts?

Wikileaks leaks what the media doesn't leak, so to have media control Wikileaks.. ?

 

Well, I'm sure it sounds ideal in Krez' world..

 

Dumbass..

 

 

 

J.

[Gorgon]

Fools, rather than splitting up they should unite against the real enemy ; the people's front of Judea.

[Humodour]

Sounds ideal to me! Thoughts?

Wikileaks leaks what the media doesn't leak, so to have media control Wikileaks.. ?

 

Well, I'm sure it sounds ideal in Krez' world..

 

Dumbass..

 

 

 

J.

 

Yeah but this coming from somebody who believes every conspiracy theory they here.

 

I'm sure if there was anything sufficiently big that Openleaks couldn't convince the media to release they would just do it themselves. Moreover they would likely release it to sympathetic newspapers just like WikiLeaks did.

 

But if people preferred things before WikiLeaks when governments and important safety/security secrets weren't leaked or people's live compromised through lack of redaction, but still want the bad, noteworthy stuff leaked, Openleaks seems like the best option.

 

Fact is, Julian Assange is a dictator in his organisation. Openleaks is run democratically. Says a lot to me.

[Walsingham]

OK Krez, to me you're moving in the right direction. But it's still a democracy founded on an electorate that bears no responsibility to the government/states they are invigilating over.

 

How about if I have HIV? One could argue that all HIV status should be public knowledge to reduce stigma. There's some merit to the case. But should that case be adjudicated by a body I have no say in whatsoever? What about my voting record?

 

You can say that this would not happen because I am a person not a state. But this is simply how YOU would wish to run the organisation in question. In fact the organisation has no training, no meaningdul code of conduct, and no supervisory body. It is a recipe for abuse which would result in abuse as surely as eggs, flour, sugar, and butter make a cake.

[Zoraptor]

Fact is, Julian Assange is a dictator in his organisation. Openleaks is run democratically. Says a lot to me.

Heh, fact. Like an awful lot of 'facts' that is actually an opinion.

 

You are being rather naive; though the ingenious use of and invocation of emotes like 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' indicate a good future in the world of PR...

 

Call it what it is- a self appointed committee- and the reaction is rather different. Not really much different from a self appointed dictatorship whether it's Assange or plain old Joe Random with secrets arbitrarily deciding they should be leaked, except that turning something into a committee is a prime way of making sure that nothing ever gets done.

 

Or in other words, it's still pointless and if you have quis custodes ipsos custodiet concerns, per Wals, then a self appointed politburo (<-My try for a career in PR) is not going to alleviate them.

[Tigranes]

It is a recipe for abuse which would result in abuse as surely as eggs, flour, sugar, and butter make a cake.

 

So, not sure at all?

 

I agree with Wals et al about the dangers of an arbitrary self appointed committee in charge of all this, but that still doesn't mean that a 'democratically' run self appointed committee isn't preferable to Assange's Club.

 

Of course, the degree to which Assange has been a 'dictator' hasn't been clear so far, but I guess the kind of stuff we're hearing is going that way... but then, you have to be sure these days when you read news about that man.

[Humodour]

Fact is, Julian Assange is a dictator in his organisation. Openleaks is run democratically. Says a lot to me.

Heh, fact. Like an awful lot of 'facts' that is actually an opinion.

 

You are being rather naive; though the ingenious use of and invocation of emotes like 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' indicate a good future in the world of PR...

 

Call it what it is- a self appointed committee- and the reaction is rather different. Not really much different from a self appointed dictatorship whether it's Assange or plain old Joe Random with secrets arbitrarily deciding they should be leaked, except that turning something into a committee is a prime way of making sure that nothing ever gets done.

 

Or in other words, it's still pointless and if you have quis custodes ipsos custodiet concerns, per Wals, then a self appointed politburo (<-My try for a career in PR) is not going to alleviate them.

 

I see. Perhaps you should take a read: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...1210-18s0w.html

[Zoraptor]

OK...

 

There ain't relevant facts there, or at least none that support you. There are opinions. Mr Double-Barreled doesn't like Assange = fact. Mr D-B says Assange ~ dictator, fact. But this does not, in fact, make Assange a dictator in the same way as any accusation cannot be used as proof that the content of the accusation is true. Mr D-B admits that- in fact- he resigned himself rather than being; hung drawn and quartered? shot in a Polish forest? delicately flayed and his skin used as a throw rug at Assange's lavish London digs? having... an appeal hearing in a couple of days? Golly, you're not going to make Which Dictator magazine's cover with form like that Julian.

 

I'm fairly sure it isn't the first time two people who have worked together have fallen out and it won't be the last. Taking the word of one as gospel as to whose fault it is is seldom a good way of determining the actual facts. Personally? That Mr D-B waited until he was sure Assange simply could not make any reply due to being held incommunicado at Her Majesty's Pleasure does not speak very highly of his integrity, courage or being a technical member of phylum Chordata.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

Actually he had made those statements back in September, when Assange was still out and about.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, I know. It was an attempt at a meta-ironic illustration (take my opinions as fact! well actually my opinions aren't...) than a serious statement. On reflection I should have made it a bit clearer- generally anything over the top I write isn't just hyperbole.