Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Insiders Resign

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Communications 210

Americano writes "Wired reports that at least six WikiLeaks insiders, including Daniel Domscheit-Berg, WikiLeaks' spokesman in Germany, have resigned in the past few weeks. Those who have spoken with Wired cite differences and disputes with Julian Assange, and his autocratic leadership style, as the motivation for their departure. From the article: 'Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers — far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of US collaborators and informants in Iraq.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it was just a psy-op (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721176)

nobody ever got fired for a wikileak.
there's much better stuff on [projectcensored].

Then again, this is from (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721186)

...Wired, known for its constant barrage against wikileaks.

Re:Then again, this is from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721242)

...Wired, known for its constant barrage against wikileaks.

[citation needed]

I haven't noticed Wired doing anything more than constantly reporting [wired.com] what everyone else is reporting -- albeit in their own words. Did they fabricate the Assang/Domscheit-Berg dialogue in this article? Because that would be funny.

Re:Then again, this is from (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722810)

Posting as AC, for obvious reasons.

I don't think anything has been fabricated, but the coverage from WiReD has been consistently, if a bit subtly, negative to Wikileaks in general, and Assange in particular.

It is no surprise to anyone who spent time in the parts of the hacker community that they showed up in that Assange and Poulson are not exactly good pals. Check the bylines on the articles about Assange.

No citations from me, but I'm sure you can pick up the whiff of the tiff via googling around a bit.

Re:Then again, this is from (5, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722078)

So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.

Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.

Right?

I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...

Re:Then again, this is from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33723072)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but that wired article smells awfully like shit.

/yes, I read the 'Der Spiegel' article as well ...

In other news... (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723074)

In other (completely unrelated) news, Wired also reports that an "unspecified anonymous whistle blower" has revealed to the press, that a vast corpus of proofs and other material has been given by anonymous sources to the Swedish justice, proving irrevocably and beyond any doubt that in fact, Julian Assange is an evil Pedo-Terrorist Pirate.
The anonymous whistle blower insists that the source of the material has absolutely nothing to do with three-lettered US agencies. And it's completely coincidental if these proves were provided on 17. Oct.

Meanwhile, the Swedish judge who where contacted all commented "Looks photoshopped. Like the previous batch"

Oh really (3, Interesting)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721204)

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

Re:Oh really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721232)

That or, you know, there isn't some grand conspiracy and Julian really is just an egomaniac.

Re:Oh really (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721452)

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

NYT: [nytimes.com] 'The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down'

So there is some precedence, there is a plan [wikileaks.org] and a 120 strong department [thedailybeast.com] working around the clock to make it happen. Does not sound far fetched to me.

Re:Oh really (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722262)

Very Interesting stuff, from the point of view of the wikileaks surrounding EU's Open Source Initiative [slashdot.org] . This AC post below [slashdot.org] point out that the wife of Domscheit-Berg works in the political department of Microsoft Germany. The plot thickens...

Re:Oh really (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722540)

....there is a plan [wikileaks.org] ....

Pop quiz; what is the plan? Have you actually read that document? The most direct "plan" in the leaked document is as follows:

(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by
protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful
identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the
information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org
would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar
actions.

In summery, go after whistle-blowers / leaks. That's it. No grand government conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks staff. No grand plan to get Assange personally. Yet every time anything remote touches on Wikileaks or Assange, we get post after post about how it is the latest evidence of powerful enemies pulling strings all in accordance with The Plan.

Seriously folks, where that skepticism that prevents you from swallowing everything fed to you by your government? Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?

Re:Oh really (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722690)

What would you call this then? [thedailybeast.com] - it was even linked to? You do know the meaning of the work "conspiracy", don't you? i.e. "a plot involving two or more actors to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)"

Re:Oh really (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722984)

Let's see... once again, according to the material you've linked:

In his battle against Assange, officials say, Carr’s central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.

The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

Carr’s team was given an important head start with the arrest in June of a 23-year-old Army intelligence specialist in Iraq, Bradley Manning of Potomac, Maryland, who is suspected of leaking the Afghan war logs to WikiLeaks and whose computers have been seized.

So his job is to analyze Wikileaks' activities and prepare a case for prosecution if the Government wants to go that direction? And that's the evidence of Government leaning on Wikileaks staff? Investigation.

Furthermore, the article does fall in line with what I've already pointed out. They were given a lead on an accused leak. And presumably have been involved in putting together a case against Manning. Which is exactly what that leaked document outlines; going after the leaks.

Once again - I have to ask if you even READ what you're linking to. You even quote a definition for conspiracy that hardly fits the material you're providing.

Re:Oh really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721928)

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In my experience, it usually is.

Re:Oh really (2, Insightful)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722032)

No way. Impossible. And no way anyone associated with wikileaks would be against his showmanship and partisanship. They're in for the fame, not the freedom of information.

Re:Oh really (3, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722678)

It's a site that leaks classified information. I think the chances of their being no conspiracy against it are pretty slim.

Re:Oh really (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721234)

Yes, the CIA has infiltrated WikiLeaks. Their agent is destroying the organization from the inside by posing as an attention-hungry egomaniac with an autocratic leadership style.

Re:Oh really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722704)

You don't think the CIA would try to infilitrate WikiLeaks? The CIA has a l-o-n-g history of infiltrating political dissident groups, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Re:Oh really (4, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721244)

I doubt it. At this point it would appear the governments of the world don't need to do anything to deal with wikileaks - they simply need to wait.

Something like this is _very_ delicate. If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

Re:Oh really (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721350)

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on".

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

Re:Oh really (2, Insightful)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721402)

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities, and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function.

Re:Oh really (2, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721442)

When an organization has been publicly demonized by a government, it's hard to avoid thinking that if it falls apart, it's due to the actions of that government.

One piece of why this explanation may be BS: If these volunteers wanted to continue working for the cause Wikileaks represents, but without Assange, they could fairly easily set up their own servers, see if Assange is interested in releasing the Wikileaks data to them, and even if not set up a forked project. If they're worried that it's become too autocratic, their forked project could be formally more democratic. These volunteers probably have the skills, experience, and cajones to make this sort of thing work. So not doing anything like this suggests that this is similar to a politician wanting to spend more time with his family.

At the same time, I've run voluntary organizations before. Volunteers come and go all the time, sometimes over policy disagreements. That's just the way it is.

Re:Oh really (2, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722458)

Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here [spiegel.de] .

SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

Short memory (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721494)

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy.

It was only about two months ago that people in government were demanding his head. Reacting to this event may well be unfounded paranoia but that does not change that powerful people do want to get him. Now what should happen is that it should stop at the noise of unprofessional weasels demanding his head, but it may go furthur and somebody may be sent on the pointless useless and deplorable task of stirring up trouble from him to "teach him a lesson". It would be as unprofessional as outing a CIA agent because her husband pointed out a blatant and stupid lie, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Re:Oh really (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721774)

'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

Re:Oh really (2, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722016)

'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

uh, no. Especially not 'round those there parts. I know what happens to sheeple 'round those there parts...

Re:Oh really (1)

magical liopleurodon (1213826) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722448)

not if the conspiracies are real.

Re:Oh really (1, Insightful)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721556)

That would make for a great conspiricy theory, but the my guess is that Julian Assange is probably just an ego maniac douche bag, who sucks to work with. Reality is usually far less interesting than fiction, and I can almost guarantee most people working at wikileaks were doing so because of moral reasons, which conflict with Assange's money making goals.

Re:Oh really (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721618)

Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic is so abhorrent to you that you first reaction is that the US government got to them.

This is the worst kind of hero worship. If you keep this up there can only be two results.
1. I life of mindless devotion to Assange.
2. Deep depression when you finally find out the Assange isn't perfect.
I suggest you read the story first. Even if you think Assange is right then it comes down to a simple battle of egos which Assange as a leader didn't handle correctly IMHO. And that is the best case for Assange.
Assange I feel that Assange is a publicity hound and shows no journalistic integrity.
That is my take on things you are of course free to disagree.

Re:Oh really (1, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721736)

Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic

No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him. Now, it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head, but it's a slightly more complex idea than yours.

Re:Oh really (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722182)

Not really. As the publicity and mindless fandom increases so will narcissism. Also people can and do get feed up with dealing with a jerk after a while. I suggest you read the story.
Slightly more complex? Not really. A lot more paranoid? Yes.

What a coincidence (0, Redundant)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723164)

No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him.

You mean, the same way as he suddenly also became a rapist, also around the same time ?~
I've also heard that some anonymous source have given both the press and the Swedish justice irrefutable proofs that Assange is, in fact, an Evil Pedo-Terrorist Pirate !~

(and in completely unrelated random news, Adobe is selling Photoshop-license to three-lettered US agencies like hot cakes).

Re:Oh really (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722108)

You've sure got an imagination!

Re:Oh really (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722432)

Do you also hold the Kennedys responsible for your favorite band never having a hit song?

Autocratic? (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721206)

== Tyrant? If true it sounds like he's as bad as the leaders he's trying to expose?

I found the following interview with the Wikileaks founder interesting. In it the host says that while the thieves of classified information can be punished, the publisher of the info can not. For example during the Watergate scandal the government tried to due the reporters and newspaper, but the Supreme Court found them to be protected by the "free press" clause of the Constitution. Probably the same is true for Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Google, and other publishers.

Interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FkRHSaQ4aI [youtube.com]

Re:Autocratic? (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721416)

-1 Overrated? Really? Why? I thought it was informative myself, especially with the link to an Interview with the Wikileaks founder.

Re:Autocratic? (2, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721506)

"..he's as bad as the leaders he's trying to expose.."

Came off a bit trollish maybe?

Rest was interesting though. /. mods just being oversensitive I guess. Though maybe you pissed off some lefty in another thread that is exacting unjust revenge. But then why they'd go for overrated as opposed to troll I don't know. Could also be the sig, It reads like spam ... seriously, I wouldn't open an e-mail with that title. The all caps are sorta sad too.

I guess what I'm saying is thanks for the link to the interview.

There can be only 1! (1)

rabidjoe (1854904) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721216)

God Complex [wikipedia.org]

Re:There can be only 1! (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721526)

Highlander complex? To be fair, I've not heard of anyone accusing Assange of beheading any opponents.

Re:There can be only 1! (1)

BrettJB (64947) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722566)

...I've not heard of anyone accusing Assange of beheading any opponents.

I keep trying to get that evidence up on Wikileaks, but for some reason they won't take my submission...

Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2... (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721230)

If there's one thing Freedom Fighters can't stand more than the Romans^W Military Industrial Complex, it's each others' company.

Note: this is +1 Sadly Insightful, not Funny.

People's Front of WikiLeaks (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723252)

Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2...

WikiLeak's Liberation Front : "You splitters !"

another daze of head in the sillysand egotism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721246)

the search continues for 'stuff that really matters';
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati (remember, we came from monkeys, & they ?didn't?) is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck, (while sucking DOWn/destroying/wasting immeasurable amounts of stuff, & feasting on nubile virgins of both sexes). if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germany (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721248)

So I ask what is MS doing supporting wikileaks? An organization that released MS's own disclosure policies for xboxlive and other services.

If MS supports wikileaks how is that not a security violation and a conflict of interest?

Furthermore, Daniel's wife is in a POLITICAL ROLE for microsoft, does anyone question what this could have to do about the the leaks of the EU's OSS initiative which Microsoft et al. probably ran off of the rails?

There are legitimate questions about Daniel's role in Microsoft's EU presence, especially with respect to Wikileaks.

Remember the EU OSS leak was detrimental to FLOSS but not to behemouths like Microsoft who are FLOSS's main competitor.

I'm not saying anyone was involved in anything, it just looks really bad.

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721694)

A picture and article on the Anke and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at end of this interview [cryptome.org]

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722596)

More on Domscheit-Bergs role in leaking details of the EU's OSS initiative [techrights.org] to wikileaks (to the detriment of OSS and Microsofts gain. Probably to the Domscheit-Bergs financial gain as well, I would imagine...

Re:Daniel's Wife is Microsoft Govt Liason in Germa (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722094)

She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!

Or perhaps people aren't always blind slaves to the corporations they or their family members work for and personal motivation can be both varied and complex.

Typical (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721260)

As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin), I find this type of thing fascinating.

This type of situation happens a lot in small business. Most successful smal businesses face failure when they make the hurdle to medium-sized businesses. They either end up folding,or going back to a smaller company.

To get a company up and running requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling. To successfully grow you need a staff around you that shares in the power and is trusted to make decisions. The original personality type fails in this regard. Either the person in charge must change his leadership style or the person in charge must change (i.e. get rid of him).

So from the 50.000 foot view, it seems like we have this situation at wikileaks. This is a shame as I think this type of organization can truly be a benefit to freedom and democracy.

Clarify one point (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721264)

As I reread my post, the "requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling" is not stricly true. However, the vast majority of small businesses that do not fail and actually grow tent to br run by these personality types. There are cases, of course, of other types. I only wanted to point out that WikiLeaks appears to fall into this majority case.

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721388)

Most successful smal businesses face failure when they make the hurdle to medium-sized businesses.

Also interesting is when a successful medium sized company makes the hurdle to large. What you have is power struggles, and original lower level employees (presumably trusted) ending up in upper management positions they never wanted nor yet have the experience to do well, at least initially. So the status que seems to be to go from medium sized success to large sized mediocrity. Then the consultants and experts are called in to blindly cut waste and shake things up yet again... focusing not on individual personalities, which actually tie the company together, but on outsiders' misunderstanding of what certain positions entail, regardless of title.

Re:Typical (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722626)

I've seen this sort of transition occur firsthand. It's not pretty. The company was better for it in the end, though--they just had to shed a lot (and I mean a lot) of people. Over a third of the company was gone by the time it was all said and done and virtually the entire leadership structure was changed.

Re:Typical (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721640)

As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin),

What, did you find your "handjobs in the YMCA parking lot" enterprise left you with too much self-respect?

Sorry, sorry... but you DID invite it. ;)

Re:Typical (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721770)

:)

Actually, a decade as a developer. Some projects made the whole YMCA parking lot seem like a step up :) It is fun to actually be in management and get to have an impact on the culture rather than be the victim of it.

Re:Typical (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722212)

So you're saying that their little rock band has had their first number one, and the lead singer and the bassist struggle with artistic differences? Sounds plausible to me. Besides, Julian gets all the groupies.

Re:Typical (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723066)

Besides, Julian gets all the groupies.

No matter what it takes. [nydailynews.com]

dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722830)

Right. Because CEO's of major league corporations are not very confident and controlling. You are stupid; no wonder you are in an MBA program.

Flameware (3, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721268)

Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below), it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap [newsweek.com] . When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question. You'd be hard pressed not to fire an employee like that, in any organization. I guess the bags of money [nytimes.com] from the WWR [thedailybeast.com] is finally beginning to pay off dividends [arabcrunch.com] .

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him." Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me? Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from? Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you? Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already. Domscheit-Berg: what messages? Domscheit-Berg: and what three people? Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says Assange: Was this you? Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other Assange: who, exactly? Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what? Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue? Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there Assange: those are the only persons? Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007 Assange: how many people at the club? Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents Assange: How many people at the club? Assange: In what venue? Domscheit-Berg: in private chats Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions Domscheit-Berg: and not mine Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC? Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007 Domscheit-Berg: go figure Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care Domscheit-Berg: so i dont care anymore either Domscheit-Berg: other than that, i had questions first, and i need answers Domscheit-Berg: like what agreements we have made Domscheit-Berg: i need to understand this so we can continue working Domscheit-Berg: you keep stalling other peoples work Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC? Domscheit-Berg: start answering my questions j Assange: This is not a quid-pro-quo. Assange: Are you refusing to answer? Domscheit-Berg: i have already told you again that i dont see why i should answer to you anymore just because you want answers, but on the same hand refuse to answer anything i am asking Domscheit-Berg: i am not a dog you can contain the way you want to j Assange: I am investigation a serious security breach. Are you refusing to answer? Domscheit-Berg: i am investigating a serious breach in trust. are you refusing to answer? Assange: No you are not. I initiated this conversation. Answer the question please. Domscheit-Berg: i initiated it Domscheit-Berg: if you look above Domscheit-Berg: twice already Domscheit-Berg: i want to know what the agreements are in respect to iraq Assange: That is a procedural issue. Don't play games with me. Domscheit-Berg: stop shooting at messengers Assange: I've had it. Domscheit-Berg: likewise, and that doesnt go just for me Assange: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed. Domscheit-Berg: you are not anyones king or god Domscheit-Berg: and you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now Domscheit-Berg: a leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself Domscheit-Berg: you are doing the exact opposite Domscheit-Berg: you behave like some kind of emporer or slave trader Assange: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately. Domscheit-Berg: haha Domscheit-Berg: right Domscheit-Berg: because of what? Domscheit-Berg: and who even says that? Domscheit-Berg: you? another adhoc decision? Assange: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.

Re:Flameware (2, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721340)

For the love of God, <p> tags!!!(10+1)

Re:Flameware (5, Informative)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721698)

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are

Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."

Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.

Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

Assange: who, exactly?

Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

Assange: those are the only persons?

Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

Assange: how many people at the club?

Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

Assange: How many people at the club?

Assange: In what venue?

Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

Domscheit-Berg: go figure

Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

Domscheit-Berg: so i dont care anymore either

Domscheit-Berg: other than that, i had questions first, and i need answers

Domscheit-Berg: like what agreements we have made

Domscheit-Berg: i need to understand this so we can continue working

Domscheit-Berg: you keep stalling other peoples work

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: start answering my questions j

Assange: This is not a quid-pro-quo.

Assange: Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i have already told you again that i dont see why i should answer to you anymore just because you want answers, but on the same hand refuse to answer anything i am asking

Domscheit-Berg: i am not a dog you can contain the way you want to j

Assange: I am investigation a serious security breach. Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i am investigating a serious breach in trust. are you refusing to answer?

Assange: No you are not. I initiated this conversation. Answer the question please.

Domscheit-Berg: i initiated it

Domscheit-Berg: if you look above

Domscheit-Berg: twice already

Domscheit-Berg: i want to know what the agreements are in respect to iraq

Assange: That is a procedural issue. Don't play games with me.

Domscheit-Berg: stop shooting at messengers

Assange: I've had it.

Domscheit-Berg: likewise, and that doesnt go just for me

Assange: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed.

Domscheit-Berg: you are not anyones king or god

Domscheit-Berg: and you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now

Domscheit-Berg: a leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself

Domscheit-Berg: you are doing the exact opposite

Domscheit-Berg: you behave like some kind of emporer or slave trader

Assange: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately.

Domscheit-Berg: haha

Domscheit-Berg: right

Domscheit-Berg: because of what?

Domscheit-Berg: and who even says that?

Domscheit-Berg: you? another adhoc decision?

Assange: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.

Mod me up as I'm desperate for ka-ka-ka-karma

Re:Flameware (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722208)

I think I'm safe in assuming that the CCC is the [wikipedia.org] CCC.

I'm not up on my Wikileaks history other than that it was founded in 2007. Big question here seems to be what happened in 2007 that would anger (the CCC || people in the CCC)?

Re:Flameware (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722908)

That's very interesting - it seems to me that Assange is the right person for the kind of job he does. He's like a vulcan in that chatlog, refuses to get into any emotional exchange. In fact that's not really a flamewar, because Assange avoids completely a who said what/did what kind of back and forth bickering. Instead, his only concern is the leak itself: how many people and who exactly heard the information. Domscheit-Berg comes off as a typical forum prick, likening Assange to a slave trader, king, emperor...

Re:Flameware (2, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723286)

Instead, his only concern is the leak itself

Which is deliciously ironic... apparently the seekers of transparency, themselves, need not be transparent. Nice.

Meanwhile, Assange's paranoid need to root out this defector is clearly preventing wikileaks from actually doing the job they exist to do, as evidenced by that very transcript.

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721794)

Here's a formatted version.

Assange: A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him.

Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.

Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

Assange: who, exactly?

Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

Assange: those are the only persons?

Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

Assange: how many people at the club?

Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

Assange: How many people at the club?

Assange: In what venue?

Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

Domscheit-Berg: go figure

Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

Domscheit-Berg: so i dont care anymore either

Domscheit-Berg: other than that, i had questions first, and i need answers

Domscheit-Berg: like what agreements we have made

Domscheit-Berg: i need to understand this so we can continue working

Domscheit-Berg: you keep stalling other peoples work

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: start answering my questions j

Assange: This is not a quid-pro-quo.

Assange: Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i have already told you again that i dont see why i should answer to you anymore just because you want answers, but on the same hand refuse to answer anything i am asking

Domscheit-Berg: i am not a dog you can contain the way you want to j

Assange: I am investigation a serious security breach. Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i am investigating a serious breach in trust. are you refusing to answer?

Assange: No you are not. I initiated this conversation. Answer the question please.

Domscheit-Berg: i initiated it

Domscheit-Berg: if you look above

Domscheit-Berg: twice already

Domscheit-Berg: i want to know what the agreements are in respect to iraq

Assange: That is a procedural issue. Don't play games with me.

Domscheit-Berg: stop shooting at messengers

Assange: I've had it.

Domscheit-Berg: likewise, and that doesnt go just for me

Assange: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed.

Domscheit-Berg: you are not anyones king or god

Domscheit-Berg: and you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now

Domscheit-Berg: a leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself

Domscheit-Berg: you are doing the exact opposite

Domscheit-Berg: you behave like some kind of emporer or slave trader

Assange: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately.

Domscheit-Berg: haha

Domscheit-Berg: right

Domscheit-Berg: because of what?

Domscheit-Berg: and who even says that?

Domscheit-Berg: you? another adhoc decision?

Assange: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.

Re:Flameware (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722578)

Indeed; I can't be bothered reading a mess like that. Hell, he doesn't even need a <p> tag, all he has to do is select "Plain Old Text" and hit "enter" after every line.

If he can't be bothered to make his comment readable, I can't be bothered to read it.

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721358)

Looks to me like Domscheit-Berg answered Assange's questions perfectly to the point where he felt he was being interrogated in a chat he initiated.

"Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this"

I don't know if Julian normally speaks to his friends in the way he spoke to this guy, but he comes across as a total prick in those chatlogs. He sounds on the verge of losing it.

Re:Flameware (1, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722396)

But he did admit that he had passed it on to others, and got annoyed and refused to cooperate when he was pressed on the question of who the others were. If this were anything but Wikileaks then we'd expect that to be a disciplinary matter. Because this is Wikileaks, of course, Assange shouldn't be surprised that the team don't take leaks of information seriously. I think he's yet to learn the lesson of the goose, the gander, and their respective sauces. It's not a management-style failure, it's a sense-of-irony failure.

Re:Flameware (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722116)

Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below

Dude, that's not all they're basing it on. There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization. If this were an isolated incident with a single individual, I might believe you, but it's clear there's far more to it than this.

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722380)

There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization

[CITATION NEEDED] - All we see is about resignations is what Domscheit-Berg has claimed. Where is the proof? Also the Domscheit-Berg family appear to be leading double agent roles [slashdot.org] on a number of different fronts - Microsoft - Wikileaks - Domscheit-Berg's playoffs, anyone.

Re:Flameware (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722604)

So you're saying this quote:

At least half a dozen WikiLeaks staffers have tendered their resignations in recent weeks

And this:

Snorrason, the Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.

Are lies? Alright, where's *your* proof? I mean, if this is an outright fabrication, there must be published quotes countering these statements somewhere. Right? So where are they? The only thing I've found is a twit from Assange where we confirms that Domscheit-Berg was suspended, which only serves to confirm the contents of the transcript.

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33723012)

Snorrason and Domscheit-Berg - is two is enough to arrive at "half a dozen resignations"? Or are there no hard facts to this story?

Re:Flameware (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723168)

Gotcha, mindless denialism is the name of the game, here.

Wait a second... Julian? Is that you??

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722292)

It's interesting how different people's pov's can be.
For me a statement like:

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this
Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

is 'nuff said about this from an honest person. I don't see any weaseling out in DBs' statements.

But all signs of a paranoid egomaniac on Assage's side: pressing the same point over and over again and not giving any statement to back it up, like:
"I think we are being infiltrated and I won't discuss anything, before that problem is solved."
That would a least been valuable for a discussion.

Re:Flameware (3, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722314)

it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap

Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."

For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.

You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.

Re:Flameware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722544)

Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."

No? It looks like Domscheit-Bergs Wife [cryptome.org] , political relations for Microsoft... did instead. They have already set a precedence [techrights.org] of leaking between them to political and financial advantage.

Re:Flameware (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722762)

No?

That's right, NO.

Assange asked him directly, "did you speak to Newsweek about this."

Domscheit-Berg responded directly, "I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this."

I'd hardly call that weasel language, or refusing to answer the question. As far as him leaking this information for "political and financial advantage," what advantage at all is there for Domscheit-Berg in this? Please explain how he's going to reap rewards out of... leaving Wikileaks?

It's funny, apparently when we criticize Assange we need ironclad proof, and even with video we're not sure that it wasn't heavily doctored by the CIA/MSFT/Barack Obama/UN/UK/Germany/Swedish Prosecutors/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/et. al., but when anybody else is involved, a bit of baseless conspiracy theory and a few twists of innuendo ("I'm not SAYING he leaked it for financial gain, but he's never specifically DENIED it, either!"), and that's good enough to assume the people we disagree with are guilty.

Double standard? I think so.

the cause is greater than the man (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721334)

assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him

he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man

this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind

Ahh...the Sweet Irony (5, Funny)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721366)

FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

Re:Ahh...the Sweet Irony (1, Interesting)

rhizome (115711) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722856)

FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

Which is when Domscheit-Berg tries to change the subject, gets all pissy and starts whining about how nobody likes Assange.

You know, FTA...

Sounds like (2, Funny)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721404)

Sounds like WikiLeaks is leaking.

Julian is a busy man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721410)

Rape and pillage!

I can't say I'm surprised... (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721446)

The idea behind Wikileaks is a good one, but Assange has an agenda (as the Collateral Murder site clearly showed). I hope these people are heading off to form their own organization, with perhaps something closer to neutrality.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33721954)

"but Assange has an agenda"

What's wrong with having an agenda?

Re:I can't say I'm surprised... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722148)

"but Assange has an agenda"

What's wrong with having an agenda?

Many prefer the old format (present the public with raw data and allow them to decide), Assange should be acting as curator, not hype or spin man.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722952)

Of course they have an agenda, dumb ass. Just who, exactly, do you think would be trying to protect sensitive documents from widespread distribution? Your Grandma? It's a populist rebellion against the powerful. You can like that or dislike that as you see fit, but discounting the value of someone's work because, gee whiz, they have a FUCKING OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING is inane. Are you a robot?

Re:I can't say I'm surprised... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723370)

Good luck staying neutral when it takes more than one year to dig around one facet of truth. Someone digging info about how USA wage a war, will find facts that accuse USA of wrongdoings. Someone who digs around Hezbollah will find Hezbollah's wrongdoings, someone who digs around Tsahal, will find Tsahal's wrongdoings. Neutrality comes from the variety of news source. But you can't ask to a journalist that finds a scoop about one fact, to release it only accompagnied by a scoop about a blancing fact that gives a "neutral" point of view.

how is wikileaks safer than 4chan? (2, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721458)

tell me again how leaking to wiki leaks is safer than just firing up a proxy chain / tor and posting to 4chan?

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan? (4, Interesting)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721598)

Because they hopefully some expertise whereas the random guy who wants to leak something probably hasn't even heard any of the terms "proxy chain", "tor", or "4chan".

Because wikileaks claims to do some checking which will give the leak more weight than some random post to 4chan.

Because wikileaks has media contacts and can push the leaked data out to them, which would be very hard for most people to do anonymously.

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan? (4, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722068)

And because the admins of 4chan might just out you for the lulz

Stand Tall and Proud WikiLeaks (2, Interesting)

CitizenPlusPlus (1867870) | more than 4 years ago | (#33721876)

May WikiLeaks long continue to embody the tradition of: raising hell and getting the facts out; which a free press has a duty to honor.

Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722058)

Just fork it already.

Not surprised. (2, Informative)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722090)

Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.

One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.

I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to leak information. It's nice to have a single, organized source, but it also makes for a convenient target.

Wiki leaks is all about media whoring. (4, Insightful)

Theovon (109752) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722168)

The US government has too many secrets. Certainly, they need SOME, otherwise they can't have a tactical advantage over enemies. But there's stuff decades old that just should not be closed up in some government filing cabinet. I think the excessive government secrecy, cover-ups for mistakes, and all sorts of other crud need to be blown wide open by those who care more for the American people than for their government (which should be for the people, by the people, of the people, etc.).

The problem currently is that those people doing the blowing-open appear to be kindof shallow on ethics themselves. Assange comes across to me as a serious ass-hat who get's a kick out of doing this stuff more because it's "naughty" than because he really cares about freedom of information. Of course, this impression, along with the sexual misconduct charges, could all be the result of Pentagon brainwashing. But if you're going to take the "moral high ground" against government secrecy, you have to be above reproach, and you have to use tactics much less douchy than the ones we've been seeing, what with the "I'm going to release this stuff in two weeks, so I can get lots of personal attention, up the suspense, etc. Maybe I'll be arrested for not having yet released anything, which will be a high profile embarrassment for the government. Strisand Effect."

Wikileaks seems to be more about media whoring than truly doing good things.

Re:Wiki leaks is all about media whoring. (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723266)

Unfortunately if it wasn't like that I doubt we'd get any leaks and secrets would just stay secrets.
That "agenda", whoring, whatever you wanna call it is the nerve that push them hard enough to actually do something about it.

Fully moral, ethical people cannot convey such tasks because they'll be blocked by their own ethics pretty quickly, and have only low scale events no one will get informed about.

Ideally, it takes a smart - bad - guy to convey the task in the best way possible. The bad guy has his agenda too, but successfully deceive people into thinking his ethics, moral, etc are perfect and untouchable. In the end, while he'd prolly have done a lot of bad, he'd have done a lot of good too, a lot of good that would stay as he would have gained a strong unbreakable trust.

Re:Wiki leaks is all about media whoring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33723292)

No. Governments should not have secrets from their own people. A government exists solely to serve its people; all government information is public property by definition. Anything more is tyranny.

Fork already! (3, Insightful)

LordFolken (731855) | more than 4 years ago | (#33722694)

Just fork the whole thing. Build a new org and run it from there. 1. The world needs more whistle blower sites. Redundancy is key. 2. The service is too valuable to fail because of any number of persons. just my 2 cents.

Jimmy Wales brought into the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722766)

... by the Frankfurt Allgemeine [faz.net] newspaper (in German).

The article starts out with "The Revolt against Julian Assange" and follows that with "The On-Line Network Wikileaks is flying apart."

It mostly follows the Wired article but about half way down it brings in some quotes from Wales including "They aren't a Wiki" because wikis allow for viewers to edit and contribute material.

I'm not giving you my name! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33722884)

This a conspiracy to make me look paranoid!

redacted? (2, Interesting)

Snodgrass (446409) | more than 4 years ago | (#33723372)

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

And here I thought that no secrets were worth keeping.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?