×

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!

OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks'

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-way-valve dept.

The Media 538

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

538 comments

Assange gets arrested. (5, Informative)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34507948)

And ten more shall take his place

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Informative)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508002)

The new site doesn't appear to have anything to do with Assange's arrest. It's more about a disagreement regarding how to handle leaked information. OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists, whereas WikiLeaks is there to disseminate the information to everyone.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508060)

Wasn't there some aspect of Assange not playing well with others too? No doubt some of the reports were inaccurate, but there were more than a few.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (2, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508180)

There were indeed. So it's less a case of "Assange is arrested, and 10 more shall take his place," and more a case of "Assange is a douchebag, and 10 more shall take his place."

Hopefully we'll end up with 10 more *Leaks sites and not 10 more douchebags.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Insightful)

spynode (1377809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508536)

It's as if you know him personally. Do you have more first hand experience with controversial personalities?

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508078)

So let me get this straight. WIKILeaks, judging by the name, is about everyone doing their bit to get the bad stuff out there. A collaboration of sorts. And OPENLeaks is about sharing leaked information freely. Oh, wait...

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508182)

Why are journalists a special protected class in your opinion? Would they release information without filtering it? What if they were pressured to not release it by a government? Or what if it exposes the wrongdoing of the corporation that owns the journalists?

The ideal journalist will disseminate the information to everyone anyway, why add the extra step?

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508554)

Exactly. In an ideal situation, middlemen aren't needed. In practice, those who leak don't have the resources or know-how to give the information directly to the public.

In the past, before the web, leakers had to talk to journalists because there was no alternative to reach the masses, even though journalists have never been paragons of objectivity.

Wikileaks today is much better than talking to a professional journalist, because what it publishes is closer to the raw leaked information, and it doesn't care about market share or editorial slant like newspapers do.

But wikileaks is still a middleman. If there was simple free software that any would-be leaker (nongeek) could use to put raw information directly and untraceably on the web, then the ideal would be one step closer.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508206)

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

Ah. So, it's not really "open" at all then. Following the classic tactic of naming your product/service exactly what it's not (I'm looking at you, Great Quality).

oh gee. then they are fools. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508252)

so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?

i think the fact that there has been no major leak that is detrimental to a government or a company has occurred since watergate, escapes these people. werent there any scoops ? werent there any brave journalists to handle them ? surely. why didnt anything in the scale of watergate came up ?

information must be provided to EVERYONE. we are the people, we are the owners of these governments and countries. we have the right to see them first hand. not anyone else, regardless of their profession.

by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.

Re:oh gee. then they are fools. (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508550)

Yeah, why have journalists or media at all, they've never worked to uncover secrets or to publish the words of whistle blowers, there's obviously no reason to ever have news agencies now or ever again.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508290)

Can we DDOS this Openleaxe as a protest?

Re:Assange gets arrested. (3, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508334)

as someone else pointed out, that means it's not an open site. it's a bunch of useless bullshit phrases then. May as well have called it opencloudleaks to cram in more buzzwords.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508494)

> OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists,

I don't think "interested parties" is the word you're looking for. Wikileaks only provides information to interested parties. Anybody "interested" can go to wikileaks, anybody who's not, won't go there.

I think you're looking for a phrase like "officially approved good guys who will censor the info responsibly and release only information that sells papers but doesn't piss off the executive branch of the federal government much"

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508042)

And ten more shall take his place

You say whack-a-mole.

I say fragmentation and infighting.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (2)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508194)

I say fragmentation and infighting.

Steve Jobs, is that you?

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508476)

I say fragmentation and infighting.

Steve Jobs, is that you?

Ironically, when Jobs finally retires or dies, the same thing happening to WikiLeaks (chaos, disarray, loss of faith) will happen to Apple. That's what you get when people directly associate an overly charismatic "leader" with a company. How's Microsoft doing now that Gates retired?

Re:Assange gets arrested. (-1, Troll)

Rifter13 (773076) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508138)

I think the concept of WikiLeaks is good... when they leak information that is just detrimental to the government without a real reason... it is petulance. I think that a site like this HAS to have some kind of standards. Assange is out to just hurt the US, nothing else. The site has done good, and I hope this new site continues to do so, as well. The problem, is Assange has overstepped his bounds. When you get people killed with leaks like this... you have screwed up.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508270)

when they leak information that is just detrimental to the government without a real reason

And much of what was leaked was exactly that, simply embarrassing but not at all unusual. Every country has ambassadors and diplomatic staff that expect to be able to give their private opinion to their employers. Even Australian embassy staff does this, probably in language much more blunt.

The stuff released to date is nothing more than than gossip.
There is no point in releasing this.

Why is he holding back the "good stuff" as he claims? Self aggrandizement perhaps? Political Blackmail? A get out of jail free card?

I'm betting he has nothing that would get people killed, other than one drug lord ratting out another.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508486)

I am not allowed to read the leaks directly, but if the allegation of a us corporation pimping children to Afghan warlords a coverup of that are correct? That would be a hell of a lot more than gossip.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508562)

I did read that one.

They paid for a traditional party.
Boy toys are not all that unusual in that culture. Some were present.

That's about the extent of it. The cable contained nothing definitive, certainly nothing stating that the corporation payed the boys or forced them to be there.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508346)

*sigh*

Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.

Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0, Troll)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508434)

*sigh*

Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.

Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.

Likely, the identity of anyone who was killed because of Wikileaks would remain secret. Unless Wikileaks got a hold of it. In which case, well, it would probably remain secret.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1, Interesting)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508212)

No, these folks are unhappy with how he's gone about the whole thing and believe they can get it right. That is they will provide the same service but have a half a clue about the balance and responsibility that goes along with doing so. Frankly they are sounding like a breath of fresh air in a sh*t storm.

what responsibility ? (4, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508406)

the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?

wikileaks already has removed names from those leaks. there isnt any sensitive info in them in regard to 'people's lives'.

and what will these people do ? release information to NEWS outlets. 90% of news outlets in usa are owned by parent corporations of 4 movie studios. and they are the very corporations who are also pressurizing and villifying wikileaks.

i fail to see your logic regarding 'fresh'. that seems like what we have been NOT having since watergate : journalism.

i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.

Re:what responsibility ? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508546)

i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.

then go get it yourself

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508262)

This is AGAINST Assange

You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508442)

You're either with Assange or against him.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508376)

And ten more shall take his place

But what if one or two of these gets duped into releasing forged documents? Intelligence agencies all over the world could easily feed plausible false information.

How would this all end? Not very well, I suspect. At least not as regards the credibility of such sites.

Re:Assange gets arrested. (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508556)

How many of the ten are going to be set up by the CIA/DHS/Pentagon as honey pots to catch would-be leakers?

Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34507970)

Wikileaks' value is in its reputation - its ability to summon leaks. All this is going to do is diminish that.

Re:Pointless (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508204)

What's to prevent a "leaker" from submitting his/her content to both Wikileaks and Openleaks? It's one additional address in the cc field.

What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34507982)

If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.

Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508024)

Wikileaks has credibility; Assange does not. I mean, he told a reporter that he was too busy to talk to them because he "too busy ending two wars." That kind of narcissism is profoundly stupid.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508058)

He gets himself on the news and he stays there. What good is a leak site if after the first leak it disappears from the public eye and any remaining data will miraculously disappear along with all the people that work for it who have "accidents"?

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508318)

What good is a leak site if after the first leak it disappears from the public eye

If the public doesn't think it warrants their continued attention then it probably does not.

For the most part the public has looked at what was published and said "big fucking deal".

If his motive were true, he would publish it an let the chips fall where they may.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (-1, Flamebait)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508070)

His doctoring of helicopter video did not help his credibility either.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (0)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508174)

So you are saying said civilians didn't get killed by gun happy American soldiers firing live ammo in a residential area ?

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508214)

No, she's saying that it was their fault for standing in the same area as a guy with an assault rifle, only shown on the "full" version of the tape.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508308)

Hold on there, are you saying the second shooting incident (where the pilot lied to his commanding officer about people collecting weapons and bodies in order to get permission to kill some more people who had quite obviously only went to the aid of a wounded man at that point) was in some way justifiable as anything other than a war crime?

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508050)

The appearance of 'competitors' is taken as validation of the 'business model.' Besides, so long as there is always another one out there, they can't stop the leaks. So consider this a distributed protection of service attack.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508098)

Credibility means fairly little to the organization organizing the leaks - what matters are the outlets.

I think Wikileaks got it exactly right this time, using some of the most respected newspapers in the world to filter and disseminate the cables, rather than attempting to dump them directly. Sure, they got stick from the usual suspects, but the reality is that nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks themselves: if The Guardian posts a cable reporting that, to use a real example, defense contractor Dyncorp organizes child rape parties for Afghan warlords in order to close the sale, and the US government's complicity in covering it up, we pretty much accept it, in a way less likely to happen if it's some random voice on the Internet posting what they claim is a cable.

OpenLeaks is made up of people who know this. I don't think they'll have an issue.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508440)

There's another aspect to credibility though, and that's credibility of protecting the whistle-blowers. I can think of no faster way of preventing 10 more Wiki-Leaks than by setting up one successful honeypot to chill potential leakers.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508118)

If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.

Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.

Who will the US Go after I wonder?

Perhaps this leadership will actually remain Anonymous - therefor making it more difficult to run a successful smear campaign.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508148)

They will go after the one with the ring. Everybody thinks it is magic, but it is just a tracking device.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508184)

With no public leaders, it is all the easier to paint the organization as some kind of fanatical anarchist sect seeking to overthrow world order. Take a look at media coverage of Anonymous. When it isn't intentionally funny, it is funny in the sad way.

Re:What's wrong with wikileaks? (2)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508178)

What Assange has done is great, but he is quite an egotist and that was getting in the way of making wikileaks effective.

For him, this had to be about him, and it shouldn't be. The focus on him (or any individual) was the biggest weakness of wikileaks.

Second leak! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34507984)

(Someone had to do it. Actually, nobody had to do it. But I did it anyways. I'm so, so sorry...)

One for all.... (1)

XsCode (639295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508012)

Seems moral responsibility != solidarity

Re:One for all.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508082)

Why should moral responsiblity == solidarity?

Isn't that one of the problems with many movements, the leaders (w/ all of their faults) are often deified and thus are become easy targets for the opposition. Of course you can argue vaguely about a greater good or the lesser evil, but why not strive for an organization that isn't about a person, but is about an ideal? Do we always have to have egomanics representing a cause?

Re:One for all.... (1)

XsCode (639295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508226)

But that's my point. If all it takes is the targeting of a single member, we should expect several more wikileaks clones, all staffed by diminishing senior member counts!

Re:One for all.... (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508402)

Do we always have to have egomanics representing a cause?

Yes.

1. People who aren't egomaniacs don't want to be the face of a cause.

2. Causes aren't successful without faces attached to them.

Thus, causes that become popular will always have egomaniacs leading them. Even Gandhi was a bit of an egomaniac, though less reprehensibly than most.

Horrible Timing... (4, Interesting)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508014)

Just as the US government, and a bunch of private companies (perhaps guided by the US government) are attempting to destroy wikileaks?

I don't know, with all the trouble going on - Assange getting arrested, sites getting DDOSed, more people getting arrested for DDOSsing... I think that now is defentally not the best time for this. Public sympathy is too erratic at the moment - adding more sites like that will only make the situation worse.

When its one site, its an anomaly - what's next, a law to prevent similar sites? If they keep popping up like mushrooms, there's going to be less "Please stop letting them get funds" and more "We classify protecting the identity of leakers to be a terrorist act.. bla bla bla"

Re:Horrible Timing... (2, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508064)

Well, the strategy of multiplicity works pretty darn well. And laws are already bouncing off the Wikileaks people pretty hard—they're going to be far harder to apply to hundreds of similar leak sites than just one! It's standard guerilla warfare.

Re:Horrible Timing... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508474)

Lets say you start a leaking site. MI6, GCHQ, NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB, ... all sit up and take notice.
Who are you, whats your background, skills, who is your protector, where are you getting quality info ect all takes time, are you under long term deep cover on our side?
Everyday your server is up and the press is interested is a win.
When the above finally work out your leaking for real and hunt you down, the weeks, months the site was online add up.
One site, ten sites, 100 ... vans rolling in suburbia, strange 'mishaps', deaths, tax issues, porn, sex traps, can all stop a few people, but long term text is easy to move and mirror.
The fix is in the backhaul of the embassy networks. Stop using unhappy young people to run your networks and you dont leak as much. The GCHQ learned that the hard way via their young, low end, under paid, home sick, smart communications staff been picked up by the Russians ect.
The Russians cleaned up their networks after the one time pad issues.
The US needs clean up its networks? But then what really leaked? A lot of time and geographically filtered low grade info that was mostly in the public/edu/press.
US exporters getting help to push their export grade crypto on the world?

Re:Horrible Timing... (4, Insightful)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508192)

I disagree, I think it is the perfect time for another institution like Wikileaks. The best defense is attack. Already the U.S. and other governments are starting to show their true face concerning free speech. This is starting to look like a real litmus test. Whatever is in the leaked documents is secondary at this point. Much more important is to see how far governments are willing to surpress anyone that they see as a potential danger to their power structures. And this war is fought pretty much in the open, for everyone to see. Maybe this is going to play out without much drama, maybe not. Interesting times nevertheless.

Re:Horrible Timing... (0, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508322)

There's a difference between free speech and putting people's lives in danger.

While you may be informing the public of abuses by an institution, you may also be violating the rights and security of people identified in those documents. Wikileaks has been sloppy and arrogant about that, and deserves nobody's support. Several of its own members are demonstrating the right action in that situation: distance yourself from the criminals and do the same job properly elsewhere.

Re:Horrible Timing... (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508404)

Yes I know the arguments and I also agree that the structure of Openleaks looks to be much more sound and transparent, being more of a broker of documents. In either case I still think it will be interesting to see how much force and polemic will be applied by governments to surpress any publication of "leaks" in the future.

Re:Horrible Timing... (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508538)

Bullshit. Name one person who has died because of a Wikileak? Furthermore, the people who are claiming this as some kind of crime are sadly mistaken. We need more sites like Wikileaks to expose the bullshit that you're apologizing for. My taxes pay for the backroom dealings; I want that out in the open for all to see. Transparency is a bitch, when you've got something to hide, friend. What are you trying to hide or cover-up?

Re:Horrible Timing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508274)

Keep that kind of talk up, and I'm all FOR armed revolution!

Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo ring a bell?

Ones ability to speak freely, absent of context, is a right inalienable, and shall be defended.

Re:Horrible Timing... (1)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508500)

A spin off directly from wikileaks doesn't exactly seem to lead to the assumption that similar sites will "keep popping up like mushrooms." Talk to me when we have a third player from outside the wikileaks lineage.

coming soon iLeaks (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508062)

and VisualLeaks, DynamicLeaks, and TeenLeaks (oh wait that one already exists) Seriously, anyone else bothered by the predictability of made up internet words.

Re: iLeaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508576)

There is an iLeaks already, but for leaking as-yet-unreleased music, instead of secret political documents.
http://ileaks.com/ [ileaks.com]

CIA trick (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508096)

And who's to say that they really are former Wikileaks members, and not agents of the CIA seeking to intercept leaks and trace them back to the source?
*dons tinfoil hat*

Re:CIA trick (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508432)

Why create a new site when this is just as likely to happen with Wikileaks? The people who originally leaked these documents had to be found somehow.

Protection (3, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508116)

Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.

Who are these other organisations? Surely one of advantage of wikileaks is that leakers are separate from publication. Under Openleak's nebulous "other organisations" leakers might feel more, rather than less, vulnerable. Or am I wrong?

Re:Protection (1)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508330)

not following. I read it as ADDing a layer. I leak to OpenLeaks,.. they post,..."other" organizations post. The leaker is insulated by two layers of obfuscation now, much as these current leaks from Wikileaks actually as I understand it. Perhaps I'm missing something though.

Re:Protection (2)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508448)

Under Openleak's nebulous "other organisations" leakers might feel more, rather than less, vulnerable. Or am I wrong?

WRT the US -- there is precedent that a journalist publisher of leaks is not prosecutable.

So organizations like the New York Times or Vanity Fair, for example, might be willing to take on the risk of publication.

Re:Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508472)

And the other issue is now there is a filter between the readers and the data.

Take Heed (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508130)

People fragmenting away from an organization that has shown it upholds moral law, especially at a time like this, are probably not people you want to be sharing your information with; they might just decide to leak you rather than it.

Re:Take Heed (1)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508460)

an organization that has shown it upholds moral law

That is debatable, and indeed _is_ being hotly debated. IMO I would say they are hardly above reproach, let alone being placed on a moral pedestal.

they might just decide to leak you rather than it.

Do you have anything that might indicate that to be true? Any info on these individuals at all in fact? That doesn't even seem logical to me. If they did so, one would certainly expect to see their endeavor fall on it's face immediately following such a choice.

In fact, it might be more logical to ask if this action is informing us that Assage and wikileaks might not deserve the moral high ground and holiness some are anointing them with? After all if his own people are fed up enough to bail and try to do the same type of thing in a different way, and this during the highest publicity even for them so far, one might wonder what is happening internally that is so objectionable.

How is this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508160)

How is this more transparent then WikiLeaks when the public can't even see the information when it finally IS released?

Double cross? (5, Interesting)

Albinoman (584294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508176)

The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Re:Double cross? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508354)

CIA did this with reporters without borders. Documented by NY Times in 1998, cant find the link right now.

Sounds good to me (2, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508188)

the *idea* behind wikileaks was good, but Assange is an Ass-hat with an overinflated ego, who needs to go.

Another site that does what wikileaks does, without Assange, sounds like a good thing.

Re:Sounds good to me (4, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508256)

Well, his inflated ego is what got wikileaks on the map. I sort of believe we need someone as bold as him.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

XsCode (639295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508382)

Agreed, Microsoft wouldn't be what it is today if it hadn't had and Ass-hat at the helm.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508418)

Is this some American cable news narrative about Assange that i'm not aware of? Every time I read comments regarding wikileaks on American sites someone mentions his ego.

What makes you think he is such a narcissist?

Wrong name! (2, Interesting)

rilister (316428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508200)

One of Wikileaks biggest problems is their name: they aren't actually *leaking* anything - they are publishing other people's leaks. Leaking is legally dubious, but publishing is protected by the concepts like Freedom of the Press in many countries. Calling yourself FooLeaks implies that you commit some kind of crime for a living.

So the plan is to pass the raw data to... (5, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508286)

...politically-correct organizations who will decide what we need to see and what would "confuse" us.

Bugger that. Release all of the raw data to the public or you're no better than Fox News and Huffington Post.

Misleading summary (5, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508288)

What kind of a misleading summary is that? From TFA:

Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.

So there's no leaking, only controlled information transfer to participating organizations. If I was a whistleblower, I'd worry that the serious risks I'm taking to make information available will be wasted.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34508340)

I just launched "MyAssLeaks", and I've already gotten 2 hits!

Equivalent (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508384)

So I take it that this new site is what Citizendium [wikipedia.org] is to Wikipedia. Why do you even need a website to leak documents? Just dump the contents at the doorstep of every news organization you can find. If you can't find a "mainstream" source, there's plenty of bloggers who don't know what they're talking about who would be more than willing to rattle some cages for you.

But I guess the issue here is credit. Like the fools at TMZ who want to put their stamp on their "exclusive" video of some starlet picking her nose, these sites want credit for being the first to publish all kinds of international gossip. And Julian Assange is biggest glory hog of them all.

If I had a whistle to blow... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508400)

...I'd turn to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, through all the crap it went through, gained the necessary credibility. Another purportedly whistleblower site might just be a honeypot. No thanks, not yet. WikiLeaks all the way.

Re:If I had a whistle to blow... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508518)

FTA:

"Earlier this year, WikiLeaks experienced accessibility issues. According to information revealed to DN.se, the problem was not linked to outsiders trying to sabotage, but came from the inside as a signal to Julian Assange to step down. The colleagues were dissatisfied with the operation's association with Assange's personal problems and how he used the organization in his explanation of the criminal charges."

So if this article is to be believed the "colleagues" behaved in an underhanded fashion, and they have already convicted Assange of the crimes with which he is charged in their minds, without any evidence.

I totally agree with you. Give me Assange over these people, whomever they are, any day.

They can't take the heat (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508452)

Seems to me like Assange was the only one who is willing to "take it" for his cause, the others want to dish out dirt (which I welcome) but don't want to deal with the consequences that come with it?

Also anyone donate to WikiLeaks through XipWire yet? https://xipwire.com/give/wl [xipwire.com]

Re:They can't take the heat (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508598)

No, as this has been covered here and on Wired over the last few months, people started leaving Wikileaks after the Apache gun camera came out and Assange started trying to grab headlines and put himself out as Wikileaks.

Assange is not willing to take anything for his cause, I've not seen Wikileaks do anything put push it's agenda regarding Assange's innocence. Assange has been hunting for places to go where the US can't extradite him from, not really a shining example of being willing to take it for a cause.

Who is this bad for? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34508588)

More leak sites is a good thing for everyone who isn't evil or profiting from evil. Eventually I see a web of them, getting information from each other, sharing with governments and journalists and the public by some criteria that change as demand changes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...