Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Founder 'Crippled' WikiLeaks

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the cutthroat-competition dept.

The Internet 278

SETIGuy writes "Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson. Since leaving WikiLeaks, Domschiet-Berg has become one of the cofounders of OpenLeaks. This raises the question: if you had material to leak, would you trust it to someone who has already jeopardized the anonymity of leakers at a site where he worked?" Domscheit-Berg denies claims by WikiLeaks that he damaged the organization or 'stole' material, but did say he took roughly 300,000 documents with him when he left. An anonymous reader notes related news that WikiLeaks is attempting to get around donation blocks by selling a line of T-shirts.

cancel ×

278 comments

fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177334)

I didn't take the money, but I did take the bags FILLED with money.

Re:fail (1, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178072)

Dumbshit-Borg is an "asset", bought-out by corporate proxies, for the TLA's that want this crushed.

His splitting "OpenLeaks" is pure playbook from the US Gov plan to destroy WikiLeaks:

US Intelligence Planned to Destroy Wikileaks [slashdot.org] What! Past-tense?

CIA, State Department Apparently Acting on Plan to Destroy Wikileaks [huffingtonpost.com]

The guy is a stooge, or a pawn. He serves the purposes of State and Corporate collusion in secrecy, to manage their globalist Empire.

Re:fail (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178438)

Is anyone who forks a project a stooge or pawn serving the "purposes of State and Corporate collusion in secrecy, to manage their globalist Empire."?

Re:fail (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178674)

When they cripple the functional technical operation of efforts to equalise asymmetrical dynamics of government and corporate power?

Yes.

Now, go obfuscate the issue with another fallacy.

Re:fail (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178798)

Does that mean Assange is a pawn or stooge for putting wikileaks in a bad light with his sexual misadventures in Sweden?

Or no, those women are stooges, pawns and or assets of the government and corporate powers.

Re:fail (2)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178934)

I don't think you're really reading what Jeremiah is saying. This guy admits to removing a component guaranteeing the anonymity of leakers. On top of that, he's taken with him backlogged (read: not yet published) leaked documents. Assange's alleged wrongdoing has nothing to do with the functionality and business model of the site/company.

Now, strangely, if this guy was a programmer and the component was software, all they would need to do is go to their SCR and put the code back in.. and possibly some data cleanup (redaction of names of leakers). If it was hardware, then plug it back in. If it's damaged, the author of the story needs to report that.

Re:fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35179250)

It's not as though WL was doing a great job at leaking those backlogged documents...

Re:fail (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178616)

National Security Inc. [washingtonpost.com]

"The American intelligence community is an important market for our company," said General Dynamics spokesman Kendell Pease. "Over time, we have tailored our organization to deliver affordable, best-of-breed products and services to meet those agencies' unique requirements."

In September 2009, General Dynamics won a $10 million contract from the U.S. Special Operations Command's psychological operations unit to create Web sites to influence foreigners' views of U.S. policy. To do that, the company hired writers, editors and designers to produce a set of daily news sites tailored to five regions of the world. They appear as regular news Web sites, with names such as "SETimes.com: The News and Views of Southeast Europe." The first indication that they are run on behalf of the military comes at the bottom of the home page with the word "Disclaimer." Only by clicking on that do you learn that "the Southeast European Times (SET) is a Web site sponsored by the United States European Command."

Mubarak Obama or Barack Honecker?

Monitoring America [washingtonpost.com]

Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.

The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation's history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The government's goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States.

Remember, this is in the hands of people who have done things like improve the quality of your air travel experience, over the last 10 years.

I don't believe in the "trade-off" we have had no choice in making. I'd rather risk the chance of a bomb on my plane. The odds are greater that I'll drown in the pool at my destination, or die in a taxi to the hotel, than any so-called "terror" incident.

Divide and Conquer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177358)

nuff said

Re:Divide and Conquer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177662)

Yeah - why make a point when you can just tap in to an emotional knee-jerk response.

Bitter from competition? (5, Insightful)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177366)

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177464)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178338)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178930)

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

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178846)

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

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

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177540)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177712)

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

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178384)

Okay, but parading around a paranoid misanthrope who likes to editorialize about the content he's leaking, but is unable to provide any points to back up his assertions is good for humanity, exactly how?

Assange is what is known as a liability. Usually an organization tries to limit its exposure to damage from its liabilities.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178488)

Care to elaborate, bankster? Yea, I saw the memo.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179240)

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

You miss the point entirely.

Why should there be a "Face"?

The mission (allegedly) of Wikileaks is to establish openness of information. Putting ANY face on it simply makes it a personal vendetta mostly aimed at the U.S. (Assange has admitted as much himself).

If they were true to their mission statement, they would not put any face forward, and would simply put the information out there.

Oh, you HAVE read the mission statement haven't you?

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.
Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context.

Somehow they seem to have wandered off track somewhere along the line.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178544)

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

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178896)

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

If an OpenLeaks submitter doesn't like what is finally released, they're welcome to try again with a different outlet. OpenLeaks just makes connections, and it's up to the submitter to determine what kind of outlet they want to deal with. WikiLeaks takes on the whole job itself, and if a submitter doesn't like the way they do business, tough.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179278)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178748)

Yes buying this T-shirt to support a worthy cause. Although I'd rather have the hot woman wearing the T-shirt! (sung to tune of How much For the Doggie in the Window)

How much is that blondie in the T-shirt? (wolf whistle)
The one with the bouncy chest
How much is that blondie in the T-shirt? (oh yeah!)
I do hope that blondie's for sale

I must take a trip to Southern Sweden
And leave my poor sweetheart alone
If she has a vibe, she won't be lonesome
And I'll give the blondie a good home.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

slashdot_commentator (444053) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179302)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (4, Informative)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177552)

Well whatever Wikileaks is alleging Domscheit-Berg of doing (stealing wikileaks' info, sabotaging their server), it happened a while ago. They're only throwing a fit NOW and threatening to sue because Berg's new book about his experience in Wikileaks hit the bookstores today [independent.co.uk] .

Apparently the book alleges that Assange once threatened to kill Berg over their differences, was intensely paranoid and began travelling with bodyguards, and ruled over his followers as an "emperor".

Re:Bitter from competition? (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177844)

Are you retarded?

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178540)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179000)

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

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

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

He, at the outset, even resisted the idea - when we and the other news organizations put it to him that we were going to redact the names of ordinary Afghans and Iraqis who had talked to the American military because it would put their lives at risk, he seemed quite indifferent to that. And over time, he, I think, came around to the view that at least, from a public relations point of view, it was maybe better to allow for a certain amount of editing out of things that could cost lives.

GROSS: Really? He seemed indifferent to the fact that publication with those names could cost lives?

Mr. KELLER: You know, the Guardian is also publishing its own book on the WikiLeaks episode, mostly a profile of Julian Assange based on their considerably more detailed and extensive interactions with him. And what they report in that book was that - in one of the early conversations, when they said, well, you know, the Times and the Guardian would want to edit out the names of, you know, ordinary Afghans, Assange's reaction was essentially: Well, they're informants. You know, there's no reason for protecting them.

GROSS: Do you think it was you and the editors - like, you and your people and the staff of the Guardian that convinced him that he needed to edit out some names?

Mr. KELLER: I think probably not. I mean, I think we may have played some role, but I think two other factors eventually convinced him to try and redact the documents in that way.

One was there were a number of people within WikiLeaks who felt very strongly that you should not just put this raw material out, that it would get people killed, and they had some raging fights within WikiLeaks over that issue.

Another was that when WikiLeaks posted its first batch of documents, which were the Afghanistan war logs, they did, in fact, include a number of un-redacted names of ordinary Afghans who had spoken to the military. And there was quite an outcry about that - not just from the United States government, which I think Julian Assange could not have cared less about, but from organizations like Amnesty International, which I think he did care about.

Essentially, until it looked like certain organizations were going to start considering it a bad idea, he resisted the idea of editing out names. He didn't care if people got killed if they were working with the US or NATO.

Re:Bitter from competition? (2)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179268)

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178052)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178400)

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

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178718)

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

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

I wouldn't trust D-B with even the whitest lie because... who really knows who he is?

I do know who his wife is though: she's a director for government relations at Microsoft Germany in Berlin.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178958)

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

Re:Bitter from competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35179176)

Thank you for your keen insights, Julian.

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178454)

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

"Killing people is fun." - Julian Assanage

Re:Bitter from competition? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178570)

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

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

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

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

John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business.

Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents.

Young was speaking today to WND senior reporter Aaron Klein on Klein's radio program on New York's WABC Radio.

"I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.

"It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit," he told Klein.

"But they are far from being the only one that does that," Young added. "It's a well-known business model.

See the inside story in "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11"

Asked specifically whether he was charging WikiLeaks with selling classified information and documents, Young replied, "Yes."

Klein then asked, "When you were at WikiLeaks initially, was your impression they were trying to sell information?"

Young responded, "Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year. That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organization."

Now Wikileaks suffers its own leaks [telegraph.co.uk]
Wikileaks is facing questions over its finances as lawyers for its alleged main source, Pte Bradley Manning, said they had not seen a penny of tens of thousands of dollars raised by the site to help pay for his defence and promised to them three months ago.
The development comes as a senior WikiLeaks activist told The Sunday Telegraph that she and others had resigned from the organisation because of their deep concern about its treatment of sources and "lack of transparency with relation to large sums of money".

This newspaper has learned that one of WikiLeaks's main funding channels, the Germany-based Wau Holland Foundation, has been issued with two official warnings by charity regulators after failing to file financial records.

It has also emerged that the online payment service PayPal, which last week cut off donations to WikiLeaks, suspended the site's account twice before, once under money laundering regulations.

WikiLeaks, which says its operating costs are about $200,000 (£125,000) a year, claims to have raised more than $1 million (£625,000) in donations in the first eight months of this year alone, before most of its highest- profile leaks were published.

Since then, according to one person connected with the group, further "serious amounts of money" have come in, mostly in small sums through the WikiLeaks website. However, in its four-year existence, the group and its associated organisations have never produced any accounts.

WikiLeaks promised to publish accounts in August, but did not do so. It now says it will provide them by the end of the year.

The Wikileaks motto could be: Transparency for thee, but not for me.

Re:Bitter from competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178656)

This story reminds me of The Real Book [wikipedia.org] , a musician's fake book (collections of sheet music in a stripped down form suitable for professional musicians) that was widely sold under the table in music shops in the '70s (along with bongs, rolling papers, etc). The preface of "The Real Book" explained the anonymous editor/publisher's high-minded purpose, attention to repertoire and quality, etc. Clearly, they did do a substantial amount of work not only compiling the music, but getting it professionally transcribed in a consistent manner that was easy on the eyes for jazz musicians.

The problem is that anyone could (and did) step in and knock off the entire volume at the copy shop; the original publishers didn't have a legal leg to stand on. So for years a succession of high-numbered "new editions" (16th, 18th, etc) of the Real Book rolled out which were for all intents and purposes the same as the original, perhaps with a handful of poorly transcribed new pieces thrown in.

So again with OpenLeaks we may have a case of lazy, artless successors stealing from the original, more industrious thieves...

Disinformation Campaigns (3, Interesting)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179222)

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

Fast forward six months after those emails, and we have: Wikileaks insiders fighting against each other, splitting off due to distrust, and spreading information about a compromised safe upload system, and spreading various rumors and personal attacks against the frontman for the group.

Now, those rumors may or may not be true, but they certainly are an amazing coincidence considering the the leaked emails from HBGary. I'd personally wager that 99% of news stories about wikileaks have some level of disinformation involved to try to negate the impact on existing power structures. They have after all, decided to take on every government and multinational corporation in the world.

Res ipsa loquitur

There are limits... (5, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177376)

Assange abused my cat: WikiLeaks insider [google.com]

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

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

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

Re:There are limits... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178056)

So not funny, but:

Does this mean there will be another extradition hearing in order to try Assange in Germany, for cat molestation without a condom?

Re:There are limits... (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178226)

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

Re:There are limits... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178892)

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

Re:There are limits... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179116)

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

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

Re:There are limits... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179228)

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

Re:There are limits... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178680)

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

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

I'd say (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177404)

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

Re:I'd say (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177690)

Boy, I'm surprised you were able to pull Assenge's COCK out of your mouth long enough to say that.

Re:I'd say (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178590)

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

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

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

Re:I'd say (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179254)

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

FUD all around (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177414)

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

The theatrics continue.

Re:FUD all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177520)

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turned out to be a piece of performance art.

Re:FUD all around (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177568)

That was the funniest thing I've read on here in a while. I sincerely wish I could mod you up, even if you are an AC.

Re:FUD all around (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177986)

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

The theatrics continue.

Nope, first nameless, then a terrorist, then still a terrorist, then, yep, still a terrorist organization - today, still a terrorist organization. The one good thing Assuage has done is try to be the scapegoat for his whole organization, in truth they all deserve death.

Re:FUD all around (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178450)

Yes, anyone who criticizes the government deserves death. After all that's what America is all about: Unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the government.

I sincerely hope you failed US Government if you grew up here.

Re:FUD all around (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178180)

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

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

Re:FUD all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178256)

This is way better than Jersy Shore on MTV......

Damn that thief (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177430)

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

Re:Damn that thief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178494)

The issue is that they stole the information and aren't guaranteeing the sources the same level of anonymity that Wikileaks was promising. So in effect he's serving the purposes of the US government. Which isn't a surprise since Openleaks wasn't ever a viable place to take sensitive information for leaking.

Obligatory xkcd (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177450)

Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]

Obligatory goatkcd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35179018)

Obligatory goatkcd [goatkcd.com]

Wikileaks leaks... (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177516)

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

Re:Wikileaks leaks... (5, Informative)

Decessus (835669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177994)

I don't know whether it's a big deal or not, but from reading the article it is more than just about documents from Wikileaks being leaked to another site. This Domschiet-Berg guy did something that compromised the anonymity of people who submit things to the Wikileaks website.

Re:Wikileaks leaks... (1, Redundant)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179316)

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

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

How can it be stealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177524)

If the information/documents are intended to be "free" and were never stolen when wikileaks acquired them how can openleaks alleged actions be held with any contempt?

Information 'leaking' from Wikileaks? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177546)

So the news is that information about contributors may have 'leaked' from Wikileaks? The kind of organization that will release information to serve their political agenda might leak information?

Say it isn't so!

Re:Information 'leaking' from Wikileaks? (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177600)

Well the risk of leaking the names of contributors would be the right-wing nutcases in our government who want those people executed for treason. If a contributor even has a hint that their name might get out there they are more likely to shut up completely.

Re:Information 'leaking' from Wikileaks? (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178586)

Yes, that's right, it's only right wing nutcases like John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, and Clair McCaskill who believe that an organization like WIkileaks is a danger. And let's not forget Atty General Eric Holder, appointed by President Obama, who is expending a great deal of effort to build a case against Assange and Wikileaks.

My god, it's just a bunch of neocons after him, it MUST be a right-wing conspiracy!

Re:Information 'leaking' from Wikileaks? (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178752)

Big difference between saying it is a danger and saying he should be put to death for it. I'm sorry but it was a Republican from Michigan who first suggested it.

As a matter of fact - John Kerry is against he death penalty in general.

Where's the provenance? (2)

FtDFtM (873257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177564)

While I wholeheartedly support free speech, "it must be true because it is on wikileaks" is as worrisome as efforts to quell free speech. Would it be too much trouble to get an independent eye to validate the charge before making an accusation?

Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (2, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177570)

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

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

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177816)

No, learn to read. Wikileaks doesn't care about who copies the documents, they are angry because he sabotaged their submission system.

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178270)

No, learn to read.

How ironical!

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178512)

Not he, but another defector who wrote the code disabled access to it because of security concerns. WL so to speak is Assange himself. WL as a core team is gone.

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (4, Informative)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178568)

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

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

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

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (1)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179350)

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

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

It sounds to me like the programmer who wrote the system decided to take his ball and go home. If he owned it, that is more or less his right. Considering that Wikileaks didn't even register as a legal entity until three months ago [swedishwire.com] , the assumption that Wikileaks owns much of anything is a bridge too far.

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177926)

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

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178478)

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

Re:Wikileaks bitter about stolen documents? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178880)

The guy sabatoged their website and took data to start up his own competing site, then writes a book to advertise it.

Doesn't this say enough? I mean, I'm sure there is more to the story than this - but this is too obvious. He wants a piece of the action.

Look, you might be sick of hearing about Assange - and I'm sure some of his peers are irked by his star status.

But the world needs heroes and right now, for many he is that hero.

The government and corporate attacks - which I'll argue are also happening on this site - keep his status elevated.

Its too late.

No going back.

Hmmm (2)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177614)

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

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

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

Re:Hmmm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177788)

You're gonna have to wait a while because Assange is currently trying to ransom out the BoA material for cash from news publication.

You want leaks? You're gonna have to pay for it.

Re:Hmmm (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178554)

[Citation Needed]

Re:Hmmm (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177982)

How much for that hemp rope?

Oh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177624)

I feel so sorry for wikileeks.

sounds like karma to me (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177628)

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

Re:sounds like karma to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178702)

No, they're pissed because the dumbass sabotaged their submission system and violated their ability to keep the identities of leakers secret. It's not about the material, all of that was going to be released anyways, but compromising the integrity of promises of secrecy is really damaging.

Openleaks will never be a viable option for leaks so long as they aren't providing secrecy to the sources, anybody that's fine taking credit for leaking the information already has numerous options available.

Wikileaks-brand FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35177642)

Sounds like a hearty dose of FUD from Wikileaks.

Domsheit-Berg personally stepped on Assange's toes, so there's no surprise here that WL is acting indignant.

In my mind, this is completely backwards. Wikileaks should be encouraging the emergence of such organizations, not trying to sink them due to grievances.

Drama Queens Run Our World (4, Interesting)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177758)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Drama Queens Run Our World (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35179200)

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

Any other fans of RASL read the Reuters article... (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177990)

...and think "Whoa. Déjà vu"?

.

OpenLeaks sucks (5, Interesting)

brillow (917507) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178220)

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

Linking to Wikileaks (2)

Huckabees (1929306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178342)

Slashdot Editors: Please refrain from placing direct links to Wikileaks in your articles (or at least please mark them with a follow on disclaimer) in consideration to members of our armed forces who are prohibited from visiting the website [usmc.mil] .

Re:Linking to Wikileaks (1)

Huckabees (1929306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178526)

My mistake the link is actually hosted by the spreadshirt domain. I retract my comment.

Microsoft lobbyism and more (2)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178440)

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

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

"Former WikiLeaks programmer"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178486)

This has really gotten out of hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets try to get it straight (2)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178642)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Lets try to get it straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35179206)

I think your whole post needs to be taken out back and shot. You honestly believe that a lack of an org chart means maybe DB owned those servers instead of WL?

(Where do I get one of them new-fangled Hybrises?)

More like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178754)

Dumbshit-Berg

T-shirts are a good idea but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35178830)

T-Shirts are a good idea, but nobody wants to have Assange on their t-shirt, and the other ones are just ugly.

all the hallmarks of a "cult" (2)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35178852)

A movement grows very fast and becomes powerful. It is run by an eccentric ego with delusions of grandeur and possible sexual proclivity. Then it collapses on itself from infighting and external pressure. This is not to say the goals of Wikileaks are bad, but its execution may have fallen short.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...