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 Competitor In the Works

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the more-is-better dept.

Censorship 333

airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"

cancel ×

333 comments

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

Broader approach (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418432)

The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"

More broads? Sounds good to me...

Re:Broader approach (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418652)

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
They Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

Re:Broader approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419406)

It sounds to me like WikiLeaks was receiving plenty of international material, then, and Assange was not publishing it all, deciding instead of focus on the US. Or these ex-WikiLeaks people wouldn't go to the trouble. Which is kind of what we understood all along - that WikiLeaks receives lots of material and publishes it selectively.

In other words, those defending Wikileaks claiming that for mysterious reasons only American data was being leaked were wrong.

Wikileaks World! (0, Flamebait)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418440)

Shocking development: Much of European government occupied by spoiled far-left quasi-socialists. Film at 11.

Re:Wikileaks World! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418466)

Feel better now that you've shit that out?

Re:Wikileaks World! (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418522)

Which news channel shows films at 11?

Re:Wikileaks World! (1)

Crashspeeder (1468723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418620)

11/10c

Re:Wikileaks World! (4, Informative)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419106)

Which news channel shows films at 11?

I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).

On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."

Re:Wikileaks World! (3, Informative)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419506)

It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry, and fast methods of getting prints out), but it took longer to get film ready to broadcast because of hard constraints on the processing time required.

Getting 16mm film from the camera to broadcast in a matter of hours was actually a pretty impressive, pretty expensive accomplishment, and would be a significant competitive advantage for one news agency over another.

Now, I personally remember this era of television, but I don't believe I ever heard a newscaster literally say "Film at 11." Any of you other old farts remember this and/or have a reference? I think it's one of those cultural idioms that sounds so good and is fully apropos to many situations, even if it was never really used in its original context. And in English it's an expression with a "nice" meter, a trochee and an iamb. Don't underestimate the appeal of a linguistic idiom based on the niceness of its sound.

Re:Wikileaks World! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418718)

<raspberry>PFFFFFT!</raspberry>

Re:Wikileaks World! (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418730)

Quiet, you. :)

Slashdot Competitor In the Works (1)

Keith Curtis (923118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418460)

Finally Ireland is kaput - screw you Mickey!

Good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418470)

More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.

Re:Good (1)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418514)

Where's the showmanship in that?

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419088)

I don't care about the bragging. I do think, though, that the more leaking the better.

Most of the really foul stuff that the public has ever discovered about their government has been via leaks. There used to be investigative journalists that would try to make those leaks happen. But eventually most news organizations realized that they depended on easy access to insider sources, and the way to keep that access was to cover things the way those insider sources wanted them covered, so as a result instead of meeting Deep Throat in a parking garage we have reporters lining up to deep throat Scooter Libbey in exchange for the latest scoop on Joe Wilson's wife (for example). So now we need citizen efforts to make those leaks happen, and I view Wikileaks as a proof of concept as well as a source of specific leaks.

Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.

Re:Good (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419294)

I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.

And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years until he finally broke into one and found a 9 year old girl tied up and reported it to the police. The fact that he may have saved some kid from horrendous treatment does not excuse the fact that he is/was a thief. While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, I am saying that the positive outcome doesn't excuse the motivation because it wasn't to help, but to hurt in the first place.

Anonymous releases are possible (4, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418502)

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".

But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418598)

Strange how many comments on this post are by anonymous cowards.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418710)

Julius? Is that you?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418748)

Anonymous coward said

Strange how many comments on this post are by anonymous cowards.

I think you just made my head explode whilst pondering the recursion potential.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418614)

While I don't entirely agree with Assange's style of doing things, it's worth remembering that there is a significant difference between just making information available, and actually making sure it's heard.

Of course, you could easily argue that any effort to publicise the data puts some spin on it, but I'd rather they take that route than have the information sitting on some server where nobody bothers to look at it.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418644)

And that's a good point. Forbidden docs floating around in a darknet doesn't constitute "public dissemination".

OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419050)

OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.

I agree. It should be "Assange, Bernstein, Woodward." Alphabetical order is much better.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418640)

Except that you're being judgmental and lacking any comprehension about what's going on. The reason why Wikileaks needs to be in the press is that many people who have information that they'd like to leak are unaware of how to go about it. Sure there are other methods of doing it, but that makes precisely zero difference if the people wanting to leak the material don't know about it.

What I'd like to know is whether you're being deliberately obtuse or are just trying to tow the line that Wikileaks is bad because some news program told you it is.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418708)

Assange wasn't a public figure until all those Iraq/Afghanistan papers were released. He stated his reason for coming out in public was b/c Wikileaks had created a shitstorm and someone had to be their public voice. Assange doesn't seem like the type of person who is enamored with celebrity. He's putting his life at risk doing all of this, it's hard to believe that becoming a celebrity is what motivates him.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419084)

Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419470)

Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.

Sounding like an idiot? Try being a huge freakin' idiot. Opening his mouth and targeting Hilary Clinton pretty much ensured that he's a walking dead man.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (5, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418712)

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner

On the other hand, most people were unaware of this. What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life. Wikileaks has done more by being on TV constantly than by the service they offer imo.

My opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not is still un-decided.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (4, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418862)

Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418994)

A leaking platform won't prevent people from either being caught with their hand in the cookie jar or bragging about how they were not catched. Manning fucked up by not staying silent.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419074)

That wasn't the method he used to leak the data..

It was how he _got_ the data.. and bragging about it probably didn't help much either.

Key word in my post was "necessarily". Obviously you can get hosed at any step in the process.. but before wikileaks I think most geeks assumed there really was no safe way to upload something to the internet.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419138)

* most non geeks .. sigh

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419334)

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner

On the other hand, most people were unaware of this. What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life. Wikileaks has done more by being on TV constantly than by the service they offer imo.

My opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not is still un-decided.

Tell that to Bradley Manning who is sitting a Millitary Jail in Quantico.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419486)

He talked. You can't break the law (and make no mistake, he very plainly broke the law) then talk about it and expect to come away clean.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418796)

To play devil's advocate, perhaps his goal was to achieve some level of trust. Look at how we treat "anonymous cowards" here on slashdot. With suspicion by default.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418924)

We should treat Wikileaks with suspicion by default as well. Same goes for the media.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419212)

Trust logged in users implicitly though.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418800)

The original idea of Wikileaks was for whistleblowers to submit their scoops to them. Without the brand, there are no leaks, as whistleblowers don't know how to contact in the first place. Sure, the leak might get out, but Wikileaks provided a well known, secure platform.

These cables also came from somewhere and someone, and they approached Wikileaks with their information. Without Wikileaks, this wouldn't have happened.

I would agree that Wikileaks and Assange inject their bias a little heavier than what I feel appropriate as the leaks really do speak for themselves. They didn't need to call the video Collateral Murder, etc.

Assange has done more good than bad when handling this, and there are really two stories going on. The first being Assange and Wikileaks, the second the actual leaked information. Yes, they're tied together closely but the cables themselves can be read and examined without Wikileaks in mind.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419230)

I think it's important to note a couple of things:

1. Wikileaks has not as yet released anything that the New York Times has not also released, with the same redactions, and with the informed consent of the State Department.

2. Aside from the "sexual misconduct" accusation in Sweden, Assange has not been accused of breaking any law. He has, however, been tried and convicted in the minds of many people, but even in their minds, of breaking no specific law.

I believe that Assange is a convenient scapegoat that allows government to avoid confrontation with people in the military, the diplomatic corps, the foreign services office, etc.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418846)

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419376)

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

I really have to agree with this. You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest. It took the GOP deciding to push that narrative to suddenly put them on the front page.

If wikileaks did not make itself a big deal, the story would have languished. How many stories out there were you thinking "Oh my god, why is this not HUGH!!!1 and driving the media cycle?" Just didn't spark the right level of interest, didn't get the right people pushing it.

I would think that political prosecutions would be pretty huge news, the idea that the Bush DOJ set out deliberately to prosecute Dems over Reps for political advantage. Never generated much interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman [wikipedia.org]

Now the question remains whether the media will stick with with the bullshit side of the story or actually talk about the content of the leaks like Obama pressing to prevent foreign prosecution of Bush admin players for war crimes.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419420)

I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I think abuses, crimes, and the like should be exposed in general. I do feel Wikileaks made a large blunder by releasing names that could put peoples' lives in danger in some of their releases, but it appears they're no longer making that mistake at least.

On the other hand, I think one must always consider the potential harm every leak could cause. For example, if you had a video of General McChrystal burning a Koran and laughing about it, you probably shouldn't make it public. Send a copy to some higher ups in the US government and make sure they know they should get a leash on him before he does cause an incident, sure, but releasing it will just stir up hatred and could lead to many deaths.

This is why I'm much more skeptical of the benefit of the more recent diplomatic leaks than I am of the Iraq/Aghanistan ones. Much of the information that was released revealed nothing criminal or even unethical but could still lead to international incidents. I believe secrecy does have it's use in diplomacy much as it does for individuals. Being able to frankly discuss opinions of foreign dignitaries without fear of word getting back to them could very well aid in the establishment of good diplomatic relationships with other countries.

Besides, while some people may hope for complete transparency in government, I don't think Wikileaks will lead to that in the long run. I suspect it will just mean billions upon billions being spent beefing up security and coming up with procedures making it easier to discover who it was who was behind a leak. If they stuck to releasing only actual crimes and abuses, it would be harder to justify such expenditures without looking like they have something to hide.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (3, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418852)

I have more respect for the former than the latter.

Maybe you should focus more on the info than either... The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of diverting attention to the messenger. The reaction has been far more educational than the info itself. Though it is an intriguing glance into how power works. And that makes it all okay.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (2)

pwilli (1102893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418914)

Having a face to associate with an organization can be advantageous. Wikileaks wouldn't have had that much impact if it were a completely anonymous organization, without Assange and without the recent newspaper cooperations.

No interviews, no discussions, nobody to defend the organization in public makes it too easy to morally justify any measures deemed necessary against it. IMHO

Wikileaks was probably the first platform of its kind that people heard of (e.g. cryptome doesn't ring a bell for most people). Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them, having more and "faceless" platforms appearing is a nice thing. Wikileaks created the demand for such platforms (or better said, helped people discover their need for such), which means supply can be increased massively.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419028)

Now that you mention it, it is quite possible to release the information in a completely anonymous manner and still make people realize it's published by the same source.

That's what Public Key cryptography is for. You distribute your public key (under an anonymous trademark, like "anoni-leaks" or something), and distribute the files signed with your private key. Voila.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419042)

Personally, I have more respect for someone who isn't a coward. If it weren't for cowards we'd have no DHS or TSA.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419174)

Maybe if Assange wasn't so high profile he'd be enjoying bed and breakfast in a CIA operated secret prison by now instead of just being character assasinated by their black ops.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419258)

Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another.

Why, that's almost like real journalists operate, always wanting to get the scoop first is one of their motivations... *This is a good thing*.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

marcobat (1178909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419260)

I don't know Assange nor I know much about him so i can't comment on the person but the information that is circulating from wikileaks is nothing new or odd or unexpected, anyone paying attention to international politics knew the substance of these documents if not the actual words used by such and such. What i find new and unexpected is that, possibly because of the way the materials were released, the mainstream press decided to publish and write long commentaries on them. Now that's new.

Re:Anonymous releases are possible (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419512)

Problem is, anonymous, quiet leaks tend to fly under the radar.

In fact, what happened with WikiLeaks is exactly what WikiLeaks wants to happen. The absolute worst possible outcome for a leak is to have it published but no one notices. With WikiLeaks making a big stink about stuff, it forces reactions from those involved.

Those leaked cables? They didn't carry anything new or surprising, but the way the government reacted though, gives it an element of truth. Make a big stink, and they suddenly gained popularity and the story grows from there. All you needed to do was say "there is no new information revealed in these documents that weren't public before". Instead, you have people trying to get WikiLeaks classified as a terrorist organization and other things, which naturally gets people interested in seeing the forbidden fruit in the hopes of finding something juicy.

People whose information is being leaked are best served by being quiet and discreet. If someone posted some leak on some server somewhere few know about, all you have to do is get a way to take it down before it gets mirrored. However, start making a big stink about it or public, and soon everyone knows about it. It's the Streisand effect.

If a leak gets ignored by the public, is it still a leak?

Won't be as popular (2, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418506)

A good amount of the world hates America for various reasons.

Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?

Re:Won't be as popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418528)

Like Russia?

Re:Won't be as popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418608)

Yep, no one will care about corruption here in England. Face it, we are just as bad as the Yanks.

Re:Won't be as popular (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418792)

Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.

Re:Won't be as popular (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419360)

Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.

Ken Livingston would beg to differ.

Re:Won't be as popular (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418764)

Perhaps not, but if they released confidential documents about the EU, Russia Federation, or Chinese National Socialist Government, I'd certainly read it.

Unfortunately wikileaks hasn't been doing that.

Re:Won't be as popular (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418966)

How do you know that any factual & juicy information on those countries has been submitted to Wikileaks?

Re:Won't be as popular (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419002)

So what? It doesn't invalidate what has been released... Besides, everybody expects Russia and China to be corrupt. What can be said about them that would surprise anyone?

Re:Won't be as popular (3, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419390)

Anti-Americanism.. sigh. I don't think most people in the world hates America, but certainly a percentage do, and some of those I've met go on like nut-jobs. I think most of the criticism America gets is unfair, undue, and way out of proportion especially compared to other countries ... the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc. ... frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites. However, like Jews, people also hate Americans partly because American is successful, and there seems to a stupid success-hating gene in our gene pool (probably it's the same social hierarchy resentment when you're not the alpha dog). Then America is also a lot more "in our faces" than other countries, which is in fact due to its success ... people don't care about North Korea because it doesn't enter the average person's life in any way on a daily basis. Then there is also an element of America's negatives being amplified by the perception of hypocrisy relative to the hype: America "markets itself" as "great", so naturally people will look for reasons to say it's not, kind of like Google and their 'do no evil', they draw attention and analysis to their behavior. Finally, we've all been brainwashed by anti-Westernism, and finally finally, the critics are cowards, they criticize America because nobody will kill them for doing so, they don't criticize Islamic countries because they'd get a fatwa and get killed.

Re:Won't be as popular (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419032)

But is that a conscious choice, or are they just releasing what they get? I can imagine Russia and China might have fewer whistleblowers willing to risk their lives than the US, for instance.

Re:Won't be as popular (1)

RadioElectric (1060098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419016)

I've heard people complaining that the data is not being leaked from countries considered to be the "enemies of America", like China, Russia or Iran. Two points in that vein...

1. Strictly practical. There is a sense in which America is so arrogant that leaks are more likely to happen when some disillusioned individual who has been permitted access to the data decides to cash his chips. Government employees in Iran are much more likely to feel like they are part of a valiant and worthy battle against foreign oppressors.

2. It is actually far more powerful to release this sort of information about a country that claims to be "the land of the free". If you live in a country where government censorship and control is considered a fact of life, you're not going to find the fact that your government keeps secrets from you outrageous. Obviously the danger of claiming that you are the only force in the world that believes in Freedom and Democracy (tm) is that you might someday be expected to live up to those ideals.

Re:Won't be as popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419444)

A good amount of the world hates America for various reasons.

*shrug*

Odd, so many NON-Americans seem to be convinced that we should care about how we appear to them. America shouldn't care if the rest of the planet hates or loves us just as people from other countries don't give a single damn about what we think about them.

It is small minded, one-sided, and hypocritical to think otherwise.

Iceland (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419474)

Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?

If by "media" you mean "US media", then no. Otherwise: the banking scandal in Iceland!

If Americans wouldn't take Wikileaks as an attack on their national ego but as an opportunity to hold their beloved leaders accountable, much could be accomplished.

Not rivals (4, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418536)

There are enough secret documents and nefarious backroom deals to go around. If Wikileaks has put a stop on submissions because it has too much, then there's clearly room for more, and Wikileaks should welcome them as such. It appears there is at least some indication WL feels that way, but while the people may not be the best of friends their organizations will at least be allies.

Unrelated - Why does TFS refer to TFA as such?

Re:Not rivals (3, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418802)

The idea of non-profit organizations "competing" is strange. It's kind of like how, with tech products, journalists always want to say "product X is winning" even though product Y is profitable, just not as profitable as product X. I think it's a part of sensationalist journalism that's become the norm: everything is a conflict or it's not worth reporting.

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418540)

The more, the better. And if one initiative gets taken down, there are others. Perhaps they can even cooperate on some fronts.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418874)

If it's done responsibly sure. And by responsible I don't mean censoring anything that might be embarrassing or national security, etc. Responsible would be making sure that the information is correct.

Don't mess with the bad governments. (4, Insightful)

elh_inny (557966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418542)

I hope they understand the risks.
US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc), but I'm pretty sure once they start messing with China the response will be far more radical than rape charge.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments. (4, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418704)

Or Russia... Litvinenko released data about FSB staging false-flag bombings, and see how ended up. And instead of a plausible accident, Russians went a long way to leave their signature on his assassination.

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments. (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418746)

China will simply:
  • Block $WEBSITE so it's not accessible from within China
  • Deny everything said by the international media

Re:Don't mess with the bad governments. (0)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419000)

I hope they understand the risks.
althought I know there have been cases of torture etc

I love how that just gets hand-waved away. I am ashamed of what the USA has become.

I'm surprised they're willing to do this (1)

Crashspeeder (1468723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418590)

With the negative attention Assange has gotten around the world for publicizing mostly US leaks, what do these people expect will happen when they leak documents and practices of the other 202 countries (according to Wolfram)? They won't be safe anywhere.

Work with what you've got (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418672)

If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.

I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him with stuff.

Should he have not published the cables because he had recently published the war docs? Should he not publish stuff on Goldmen Sachs because he's about to publish stuff on Bank of America?

-Rick

Re:Work with what you've got (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34418856)

Except there were submissions for global stuff that used to be there and now they are not. What happened to them? Why take any of it down at all?

Re:Work with what you've got (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419140)

It's probably slightly cyclical as well. People know about the site in the West because it's reported in the Western news. It's reported in the Western news because it leaks information pertinent to the West. If the news around the rest of the world glosses over the leaks or fails to pick them up at all, it's obvious the site will be better recognised as the go-to for whistleblowers in the West and less so in the rest of the world, so it will attract more leaks from Westerners accordingly.

Wtf title? (5, Informative)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418702)

(emphasis mine)

TFA: "The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote."

Title on Slashdot: "Wikileaks competitor in the works".

The only part in TFA that mentions the word "competitor" is the sentence stating what this new site won't be.

Re:Wtf title? (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418946)

That's the media for you nowadays. OT: this is obviously tapping in on some of the public responses that WikiLeaks focusses too much on America. What are they going to do, ignore leaks they receive that are related to America? It just happens to be so that the biggest leaks they received, or rather, the biggest media spectacles around leaks, were related to the American gov.
If you take a look at their past leaks it also includes a lot of other leaks related to Scientology, the Bildenberg Group and Australia's censorship list.
This site has been around for years now, as most /. readers will know, but has only recently gained fame in the media due to major leaks related to the US military.

Re:Wtf title? (3, Insightful)

mqduck (232646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419098)

Not only are they "not rivals", but anybody who supports what Wikileaks does should be relieved that a new group is springing up. Assange can be locked up, Wikileaks can be taken down; we need two, three, many Wikileaks's.

Re:Wtf title? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419168)

Maybe the submitter got some inside information about the real purpose behind the site...

Re:Wtf title? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419242)

There will be never be a shortage of corruption to expose, so "competitor" is simply the wrong word in this context. The more information outlets, the better.

Re:Wtf title? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419476)

You must be new here.

Cryptome (5, Informative)

NBolander (1833804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418724)

Cryptome [cryptome.org] has been up and running since -96 and if anything having Wikileaks show up in -06 has only made them more relevant. This should be a good development, the more targets the harder they will be to take down.

Good idea (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418818)

I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.

A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.

Re:Good idea (1)

Mr. Pibb (26775) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419044)

A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.

And what would make people stumble upon and wade through the thousands of documents? Not everyone has the time or interest to read everything that comes across their path. While I hate editorializing, it is necessary to get most people interested enough to read about it.

Re:Good idea (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419096)

You're just making stuff up now. The airstrike video was labeled exactly that: "Baghdad airstrike video" pre-release and later "Collateral Murder" (which is exactly what it was). And then there's the "Iraq War Logs". The media gave it titles as "murder by us troops" not WikiLeaks.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419148)

Collateral Murder is editorializing.

Re:Good idea (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419350)

Maybe so and I do not applaud this behaviour but please don't generalize the entire organisation for a slip-up in a TITLE. The OP is assuming they do this with all their releases creating a wrong picture of the organisation. Also he is misquoting the title as "murder by US troops". People don't realize that misquote after misquote end up being entirely different quotes.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419346)

> and later "Collateral Murder" (which is exactly what it was).

Says you. Do you see the problem?

Re:Good idea (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419438)

Please see my previous reply. I agree with the title but I see how it makes assumptions and I do not applaud it. WikiLeaks should only summarize the information that it is leaking without bias.
I'm wondering though. If WikiLeaks did a leak on some mass murder of dealers/whatever in Mexico by armed forces and named it "Mass murder by armed forces in Mexico" would anyone give a shit about the title? Sometimes things that happened are pretty damn obvious, especially when you have the act itself on tape from the perspective of the one with the smoking gun.

Whistle blowing? (2, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418830)

There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.

Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.

I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual so I think that even the 5th estate of our society needs to be held to a certain level of accountability. That is why I do not consider most bloggers "journalists" because they are not held accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is even a blogger but just some asswipe who is looking for money and attention and does not give a damn if the information he stole damages lives, reputations or brings us closer to a war.

Re:Whistle blowing? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419300)

It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain. If these things are meant to be secret, you'd kind of hope that the agencies responsible for keeping things secret would be all over them. If they can leak to a benevolent source such as Wikileaks, what's to stop them being passed on to a malevolent source such as an opposing nation? Maybe there's more chance of the harmful stuff going to an opposing nation because there's more of a financial reward than when it's just "chatter" - we have a right to know that, too. And even the chatter, if embarassing, can be used as leverage and is therefore dangerous in itself. There are a few things in these cables I can imagine people might want to keep quiet to protect their own careers or personal interests, even if that means doing a few favours. That's a threat to national security, and if the agencies responsible for ensuring national security are doing a poor job of that, don't you think the people have a right to know? I'd much rather this information was out in the open where it's highly embarassing but otherwise harmless/can't be used as leverage than see it fall into the hands of one or two nations with their own personal agendas.

Re:Whistle blowing? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419482)

It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain.

No, it's not. The government should be able to do whatever they want, and everyone knows the government has absolutely nothing to do with the people!

Re:Whistle blowing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419396)

What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private. I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual...

You're not an elected official. We let those people run our countries and we expect accountability. We're not interested how they spend time with their family and friends, but in what ways they shape the country and its politics, on or off the record.

Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total coward (0, Troll)

xscess (1482615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418926)

Why in the world is he not leaking any real secrets of how governments are run, their atrocities and human rights violations in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or the operational details along with hideout locations of drug lords of Mexico, Columbia, and alike ?

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow (0)

mqduck (232646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419052)

Why in the world is he not leaking any real secrets of how governments are run, their atrocities and human rights violations in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or the operational details along with hideout locations of drug lords of Mexico, Columbia, and alike ?

You're right! Because right now, everybody loves those guys.

The media characterization of those countries may be one-sided, but not in a positive way.

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419158)

China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia don't make you a rockstar.

If you wanna be a rockstar you have to use the US.

The others will probably make you briefly famous and then dead or perhaps the other way around.

Re:Great news.. 'coz Julian Assange is a total cow (2)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419162)

Why are you assuming he gathers his own intel? First of all, it's an organisation consisting of multiple people. Secondly, they have to work with what is leaked to them. They are not people who infiltrate governments or hack databases.
Your examples are laughable to say the least. Do you think they can pull such documents out of their ass or something? They need to be LEAKED to them.

Suicide pact (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34418930)

Was this new website even mentioned in their suicide pact?

Why the U.S. focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419370)

You go public with the documents you have---not the documents you might want or wish to have at a later time.

no, you want to mess with the usa (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419432)

because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"

you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is politically free, in terms of thought, but not free when it comes to the commerce of media. its becoming more and more a corporatocracy, but its political arena is still wide open in terms of what you choose to speak

but you really have to know that when it comes to sensitive government documents, china and russia will simply kill you. china and russia are authoritarian countries, they derive their power from intimidation, not consensus with their citizens. these countries explicitly derive their authority and their power from controlling the information that you hear, and the thoughts you wish to express. go ahead and tell an american that their government sucks, and prove it with supporting documents showing this to be true. the american government, and the american citizen, pretty much considers this standard operating procedure in the world at this point

but if you tell a chinese citizen their government sucks, and then proves it to them with the actual secrets the chinese government has been hiding from their citizens, then you are going to be a target. there is no freedom of choice when questioning the governments of these countries. here in the west we take political speech for granted, but you really have to think twice before you loudly question beijing or moscow in china or russia. for all of the sins of the usa, its still ruled by consensus (of citizens... and corporations). consensus often warped by corporate cash, yes, but at least the usa, as a matter of cultural and legal status quo, still considers the free exchange of information to be a virtue, and no one in power is going to say you don't have a right to say whatever you want, politically. china and russia quite simply do NOT like the free exchange of political information, that you can be sure of

again, go ahead and hate the usa if you want, that's your choice. but don't be so naive to believe that other countries out there, if they saw someone like assange as a threat to their secret government communications, that there wouldn't be a rapid succession of dead bodies and dead links, without any hesitation, and you wouldn't get any wikileaks about those countries whatsoever. china derives its power by walling its citizens off into a political garden of false benevolence, and no one is going to threaten that placid wall of lies. so for all the heat and moaning and whining on assange coming now from the usa, its amateur hour compared to what other governments would do to assange: it would be quick, it would be cold, and it would deadly, and there would be no such leaks... just a western lie, you see, by this CIA operative assange, who has been dealt with appropriately

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>