Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Former Wikileaks Spokesman Destroyed Documents

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the shredding-the-leaks dept.

The Internet 469

bs0d3 writes "Former Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files that had been sent from unknown informants and are now apparently lost irrevocably. Among the files destroyed are the US gov's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right wing organizations. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is now known as one of the founders of openleaks."

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

Tragic... (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162076)

I would really like to have seen the No-Fly list. My older brother has been "randomly selected" for several flights in a row and I strongly suspect it is a name association with someone else. But our democratic republic uses "secret lists" now to persecute people. What can you do?

Re:Tragic... (3, Funny)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162106)

Hey, it gets better, there's been a push by certain democrats in washington you can probably name to expand the no-fly list (terror watch list) in both size and scope.

They want to be able to revoke constitutionally-guaranteed rights from people by putting their name on those lists.
the lists that work so well, as you've discovered.
and not a "oh, you're not the guy you thought we were", which is what your brother keeps getting -- they're talking about "oh, sorry, we think you might be this other guy who we think is a terrorist, so sorry, you can't purchase that firearm!"

Re:Tragic... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162174)

No. You must be wrong. The Democrats stand for truth, justice, the American way, jobs and transparency. What you've described is those low down scum teatard fucking teeeee-bagger bible beating thugs who've ruined the entire nation in less than two years of interaction with the guberment. The Democrats have been fighting those guys and the neo-cons tooth and nail to restore your freedoms and tax the rich. It's just that they can't do it because of the nasty evil right who can wave a wand and stop any legislation even when the Democrats had a majority in the legislature and the whitehouse on their side.

So don't lie to us. It's not the democrats. It's those republifuckinteabaggers. They're the ones to blame for everything. The new boogeyman to keep your dumb asses in line and voting for the two party scam.

Re:Tragic... (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162320)

Consider this:

Before the Republican party allied itself with the bible-thumpers, the Republican party was considered the Liberal side while the Democrats were the conservatives. The democrats didn't change. The Republicans simply swung even further to the extreme than the Democrats... enough to make them look "liberal" by comparison. It wasn't always the way we see it today you know.

Re:Tragic... (4, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162380)

Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.

Re:Tragic... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162530)

Then you must be withering away at a rate faster than Superman can fly.
Truth is, ignorance is allowed because it breeds fear like rotting meat breeds maggots.

Would that be... (2)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162954)

...a pre-crisis or post-crisis Superman?

Re:Tragic... (1)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162624)

modern day libertarian would be considered an anarchist in the classical liberal days

Re:Tragic... (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162680)

A modern day libertarian in my book is extremely conservative. Technically, they're not anarchist as they do want a form of government, just *their* form of government.

Re:Tragic... (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162748)

It is hard to call someone who wants to end the war on drugs and end the policy of imprisoning millions a "conservative." Your confusion seems to arise from the belief that anyone who represents a free-market point of view is a "conservative" (if that were the case, there would be practically no conservatives in America, since the major parties both strongly support various regulations on what businesses are permissible and both parties support government hand-outs to big businesses).

Re:Tragic... (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162808)

It is hard to call someone who wants to end the war on drugs and end the policy of imprisoning millions a "conservative."

Why? War on drugs is a 20th century invention in US policy; if you go back far enough, it doesn't exist, and even the concept would seem absurd.

Progressive Party an offshoot or Republican Party (4, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | more than 3 years ago | (#37163016)

Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.

And the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party created by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist and monopoly buster. "Libertarian", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Republican", etc all representing different beliefs depending upon the timeframe you look at.

Which brings me to the silliness of party loyalty. Even if beliefs aren't shifting in your lifetime party loyalty is counterproductive. If you are a party loyalist then your party can ignore you, they already have your vote. Meanwhile the other party can also ignore you because there is nothing they can do to receive your vote.

If you want your opinion to count you can not be loyal to a party. You must give every candidate a chance and make them earn your vote through their policy positions.

Re:Tragic... (4, Insightful)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162516)

Consider this:

That's completely false.

Prior to a certain point in history, the word "liberal" was used to describe a platform of liberty. In other words, the exact opposite of today. At some point, the progressives co-opted the term so that they could sound more appealing to people that loved liberty. Much like how many nations that ruled by communist or military dictatorships have had "Democratic" or "Republic" in their names. Also, around the time of the founding of this nation, the word "Democrat" was a slur, used to indicate that a person pandered to the whims of the uninformed, emotional masses. Just putting that out there.

So, you can see how that worked out because people like you are running around saying how liberal the Republicans used to be. Yes, they were. They loved liberty. Some still do, but unfortunately, many have come along that like use fear of terrorism to increase the power of the federal government and thus reduce liberty. But that's not just a Republican issue, because the Democrats kept it going when they had the chance to change things.

And while I'm not really a religious person myself, I have to recognize that faith has been an important part of the lives of many, many, many people since the birth of this nation (and obviously long before that). The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them. Your words are tinged with disdain, and that's your prerogative, but try and understand history before you come off spouting about the "bible-thumpers" as if religious people have not been around since the beginning, and as if they don't deserve a place in modern society and a say in government.

Re:Tragic... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162764)

. Also, around the time of the founding of this nation, the word "Democrat" was a slur, used to indicate that a person pandered to the whims of the uninformed, emotional masses. Just putting that out there.

Oh sure. The federalists thought it was a slur. But once the unformed masses realized that the federalists were a bunch of elitist prigs, the Democratic Republicans took over.

Re:Tragic... (5, Insightful)

djlowe (41723) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162940)

Oh sure. The federalists thought it was a slur. But once the unformed masses realized that the federalists were a bunch of elitist prigs, the Democratic Republicans took over.

And now, both the Democrats *and* the Republicans are "Extreme Federalists", and they are ALL elitist prigs now.

Regards,

dj

"Bible Thumpers' (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162602)

Consider this:

Before the Republican party allied itself with the bible-thumpers...

The lack of awareness of history in that sentence is stunning.

  The Republicans were "Bible Thumpers" from their very creation. The biggest motivation in their anti-slavery crusades was religious. Until the Democrats starting turning against the churches in the 1960's, every major American political party... Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Republicans... had a huge, heapin' helping of the Bible in their platforms. Even when parties opposed each other, they often used Biblical citations in their party planks. Both the conservative and progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th century were largely motivated by religious concerns. The Temperence movement was religiously based. The progressive movement was religiously based.

"Bible Thumping" in politics is part and parcel of American history. It's been deeply intertwined in American politics since the nation came into being.

Against the churches??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162762)

Until the Democrats starting turning against the churches in the 1960's, ...

That's news to me. Every Democrat that runs for office that I've seen is right there professing their own faith.

Re:"Bible Thumpers' (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162774)

By Bible Thumpers they mean white Southern Baptist types, that's pretty easy to discern. Yes, there are other Bible Thumpers, but 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64(iirc?). Obviously, these Bible Thumpers didn't bring race into the picture like Democrats of the time were.

Re:Tragic... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162548)

really..... REALLY.... You do realize pointing the blame just continues this worthless retarded fighting that has gotten us in this situation of the last 20 years. Open your fucking eyes for once and you'll you head out of your ass and you'll see that the partisan fighting is just a ploy to cover the unconstitutional bills that they keep fucking passing. Grow up and co-exist for fucks sake.

Re:Tragic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162556)

Yes, bash the other party, because they are obviously to blame. They are all politicians, regardless of what party they parade under... *sigh*

Re:Tragic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162858)

You say "tax the rich" like it's a good or honorable thing.

How about taxing nobody?

Re:Tragic... (2)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162120)

I would really like to have seen the No-Fly list. My older brother has been "randomly selected" for several flights in a row and I strongly suspect it is a name association with someone else. But our democratic republic uses "secret lists" now to persecute people. What can you do?

I would have liked to seen the list too.

Is there a reason he destroyed it? /. description has no details, and the article simply says "Domscheit-Berg has "in the last days shredded [the files] to ensure that the sources are not compromised," said Domscheit-Berg."

I don't understand, he couldn't save the lists without the sources? Why not just put them up on torrents without the sources on there? At least then *someone* would see them. Now they're gone. What a waste.

Re:Tragic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162154)

I wouldn't be surprised if it was to protect the sources, and because they weren't going to publish that kind of data anyway.

Re:Tragic... (0, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162162)

His name makes me think "dumb shit-bird."

I read something not long ago asking a question I instinctively wanted to answer "never" to. The question was "when is it okay to kill cops?" Then the article pointed out that The WW2 era tragedies (note, I am something of a holocaust denier, but I don't deny horrible and horrific things happened... just not all as it has been claimed) were carried out by cops and people appointed by "authority."

Instinctively, I still want to say "never" to that question. I hope if that questionable moment ever arises, I chose the right answer whatever it may be ...

Re:Tragic... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162270)

It's sometimes okay to kill cops and you already named the case. When the cops are murdering people, or even you, you have the right to defend yourself and others with lethal force.

Cops are no different than any other people. I'll say it again. Cops are no different than any other people. Bad people who desire power go to where the power is, and cops have power. Cops are also just as likely, independent of this, to be bad as any other ordinary human being.

When is it okay to kill another human being? When they are murdering people, or murdering you, to prevent that death or deaths. Cops are human beings, and thus, this rule applies to them as well.

I'm not saying people should preemptively kill cops because they might be bad, or to kill them after the fact in revenge, but if killing a cop saves another human's life that's about to be murdered, do it. They should enjoy no special protection because they wear a badge.

This will not be a popular viewpoint from the law enforcement community, who like to feel they are above the law or are the law, but the majority of them have not, nor will end up murdering anybody, so relax. I am simply saying that cops aren't special when it comes to self defense and the defense of others when it's the cops doing the killing.

Re:Tragic... (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162362)

Certainly though, if a cop is lawfully arresting you, and has his gun drawn, you shouldn't pull yours out and open fire. That's not self-defense. Self-defense is protecting your life, not your ability to evade capture from arrest.

Of course, if somebody is actively shooting at you unprovoked, defend yourself by whatever means and you'll be ethical and moral. I don't think somebody's employment status matters in that case, and in that moment, can you even know with certainty that the person shooting at you is not impersonating a cop, abusing their power as one for non-sanctioned action, or even simply has made a mistake and is posing an unwarranted danger people's lives? There's no reason you have to roll over and take it, but do be prepared for the consequences of saving your life or that of others. Legal difficulties may be worth it, if just one innocent is still breathing, but those decisions are something everyone will have to live with on a personal basis.

Re:Tragic... (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162458)

What if the cop is "lawfully" arresting you? What if the law insists that you sit quietly and watch your child die rather than grabbing the life saving medication from the pharmacy? What if the cop is violating your 4th amendment rights with the full support of his CO, the DA, and their pet judge?

That's not to say there will be no consequences nor even that the courts would in any way acknowledge any of that as a mitigating circumstance, but it is a different ethical/moral situation.

Re:Tragic... (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162574)

There is "right" and there is "lawful." They are not always the same things.

Re:Tragic... (5, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162860)

Certainly though, if a cop is lawfully arresting you, and has his gun drawn, you shouldn't pull yours out and open fire. That's not self-defense.

Not necessarily true.

What if the current law says that you need to be hauled away to a concentration camp and murdered, and the cop is "just doing his job" in arresting you and sticking you on the train bound for the concentration camp?

In this case, you're entirely justified in shooting the cop, whether he's arresting you, or anyone else. In fact, you're not just justified, but you're doing the right and moral thing by executing him. He deserves to die for upholding such an evil law.

Personally, I think punishments for police and other government officials should be much, much, much harsher than for regular people. If you can't even trust your own government, then your society is failing, so strong protections should be put into place to protect the people from government abuses.

Re:Tragic... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162286)

In theory when a cop breaks the law badly enough they cease to be cops.

Something about the stripping doctrine where state actors lose their authority if they commit an act that is ultra vires.

Re:Tragic... (3, Insightful)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162374)

I don't understand... what is the difference between a "cop" and any other person? When is it ok to kill a human being? When is it ok to kill a dog? When is it ok to kill a rat? When is it ok to kill a spider? When is it ok to kill an ant?

Re:Tragic... (2)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162568)

I just killed a spider because it was in my bathroom.

Re:Tragic... (5, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162440)

Is there a reason he destroyed it?

This is just the latest in an epic series of back-and-forths between DDB/OpenLeaks and Julian Assange/Wikileaks that has been going on for a year or so, particularly in the German scene/press. The first order of business seems to be: Don't believe everything you read, there has been a lot of misinformation spread by both sides, by other people who are involved and, worse yet, speculation by those that are not. Despite the fact that DDB looks like the bad guy, and I'm virtually certain he will be absolutely crucified here on Slashdot, DDB might just be a tragic figure and it's likely that there are no really good guys involved; Wikileaks and OpenLeaks were caught in a crossfire of Egos.

DDB left/was fired from Wikileaks because he felt the organisation was in some way corrupted/they felt he was a corrupted. Other people left along with him, people that were apparently important to the basic functionality of Wikileaks. DDB subsequently wrote about about Wikileaks and started to talk about an alternative leak sites, OpenLeaks. The book contains fairly serious allegations against Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Purportedly, DDB (or possibly: one of the other people leaving WL) took those files because he did not think they were safe at Wikileaks. Note that the files do not contain any information on the identity of the leakers, Wikileaks simply does not store or even collect this information. They wre removed, not copied, and apparently Wikileaks did not have an extra copy (or the extra copies were all taken or destroyed). They were, of course, encrypted and he (or his allies) may or may not have access to some or all of them. Sidenote: At least one of the datasets he may have destroyed now (60k emails of a German neo-nazi party) made their way to the German media in some way, months ago. That may have been a coincidence, however, the newspaper involved is now a "media partner" of OpenLeaks. End of sidenote.
DDB says he never had any intention of looking at or publishing the stolen data himself, and that he intended to return the files to WL, once WL has shown itself to be trustworthy (whatever that means). He also once intended to hand over the files to a trusted third party, people from Germany's Chaos Computer Club. He never followed through with this promise. He was recently thrown out of the CCC, an extraordinary measure, due to this but mostly other events related to a sorta-kinda security audit of OpenLeaks (this alone would require several paragraphs of explanation).

Anyway, DDB had this very sensitive data, which he didn't want to give to WL, and pretty much no one else either. He also had the encryption keys. I think initially he talked about just deleting the encryption keys in order to prove that he has no intention of using the leaks himself. But if you don't trust him, why would you believe he deleted his keys? And now he apparently figured the only course of action left was to "simply" delete the files themselves. I don't quite understand that final bit, either.

I have tried to summarize a very complex situation full of half-truths and unproven allegations to the best of my ability. Note that I have absolutely zero inside information, I know no one involved, this is all public information (though fairly inaccessible to many Slashdot users due to the language barrier).

Re:Tragic... (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162760)

Egos and emotions overriding reason?

Re:Tragic... (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162888)

Inconceivable, I know.

Re:Tragic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162190)

Look for SSS on the boarding pass. Serious Security.

Re:Tragic... (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162290)

I was a screener for a while. I saw those a lot... unfortunately, at the time, I was told it means "random selection" not "you are on the list."

Screeners aren't in the know -- they are as clueless as the rest of the travelling public... possibly moreso.

Re:Tragic... (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162460)

Sometimes the selection is random. Sometimes it is not. But it always called "random".

Re:Tragic... (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162338)

I would really like to have seen the No-Fly list. My older brother has been "randomly selected" for several flights in a row and I strongly suspect it is a name association with someone else. But our democratic republic uses "secret lists" now to persecute people. What can you do?

If they had published the list, there would've been the problem that everybody has access to it. I imagine that if anybody could read the no-fly list, alot of employers might deny jobs to people on it.

Re:Tragic... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162404)

So rather than denying employment and the like we instead seek to remove their constitutional rights!

By bringing it to the attention of the public we can expose the "security" scam and show that they are destroying our rights for no good reason.

Re:Tragic... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162446)

Good, then maybe we could get rid of the whole concept.

If it were public everyone would see what a joke this whole thing is.
Fine, give them extra scrutiny. But if you pass screening, and have no weapons, then what's the risk in letting Joe Jihad fly?

Re:Tragic... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162390)

You're confusing (like another poster in this story) the No Fly list with Selectee List [wikipedia.org] .

The No Fly list literally says you are not allowed to fly. The "Selectee List" is a list of people the government is suspicious of but doesn't feel rises to the level of banning them from flight.

Re:Tragic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162414)

The no fly list is the funniest thing ever. The official advice to people who get hassle due to having names similar to people on it was to change your name. Hopefully the bad guys never do that. Sen Ted Kennedy used to get hassled at airports because his name was on it.

Re:Tragic... (5, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162494)

Actually, they're not using 'secret' lists anymore. They're just going after people because they have been granted the authority to do so. I live about 100 miles from a US border (within the 200 mile from any border that the DHS has been granted full authority) and even though it was promised to only be used for external threats, recently the US Border Patrol in conjunction with local police recently used heat seeking drones to find pot plantations in the area and made arrests.

Re:Tragic... (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162950)

even though it was promised to only be used for external threats, recently the US Border Patrol in conjunction with local police recently used heat seeking drones to find pot plantations in the area and made arrests.

A citation would be nice. That is the kind of thing that ought to be widely documented to demonstrate exactly how this "security" feature creeps beyond the official justification.

Re:Tragic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162960)

They're just going after people because they have been granted the authority to do so. I live about 100 miles from a US border (within the 200 mile from any border that the DHS has been granted full authority)

They claim this, but don't believe it. 2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border [wired.com] - there is no way DHS has full border enforcement authority over that much of the US.

Re:Tragic... (4, Interesting)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162496)

as it turns out, if you are a single male flying one way, you pretty much ALWAYS get 'randomly' selected for extra screening. regardless of ethnic origins. whenever I fly on a 1 way ticket, i get 'randomly' selected.

Re:Tragic... (5, Funny)

forty-2 (145915) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162792)

Eyah, been there. 5 weeks of traveling as a single male passenger on one way tickets, booked by a 3rd party.
I might as well have been wearing a "Death to Infidels" T-shirt.

Re:Tragic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162848)

Interesting. That never even crossed my mind when I last flew on a one-way ticket home, after taking the train to that destination. Though I did not think about it because I have been randomly selected every single time that I have flown in the past two years (all of 4 times).

I do not have a weird name, and I am young, white male.

Re:Tragic... (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162896)

The wife and I went on a trip a while back.. I bought us both some new luggage.. for her a nifty pink polka dot set and for me a green camo covered set.. I was "randomly" selected and my luggage dumped at every checkpoint.

Re:Tragic... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162902)

This. Likewise, myself. It's the behavior/circumstances that inspire a closer look, not skin color or name per se.

Re:Tragic... (1)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162650)

Not really tragic. DDB deleted his copies. There's no reason to believe the original leakers don't still have their copies and won't give the files to someone who will actually publish the information. The point of these organizations is to publish data, not to sit around waving their cocks at each other, which is precisely what the Wikileaks vs. Openleaks contretemps is to anyone not involved.

Is that all he deleted? (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162078)

@#D%*H#&NO CARRIER

20 right-wing organizations? (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162082)

Maybe, maybe not.

Assange said the material would also have insider information from 20 right-wing organizations. Domscheit-Berg would not confirm that.

Re:20 right-wing organizations? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162114)

Next week: Daniel Domscheit-Berg buys Greece with unexpected funds.

Re:20 right-wing organizations? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162192)

Greece? Those right-wing organizations are cheapskates.

Irrevocably? (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162100)

What, did he smash a hard drive or something? Please tell me he didn't just click "Delete" and move on!

For that matter, how do you lose something irrevocably?

Re:Irrevocably? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162130)

I don't know. But with a name like Danny "DumbShit" Burg, you gotta figure something like that was bound to happen eventually.

Re:Irrevocably? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162224)

Fairly simple : disassemble the hard drive and melt the aluminium plate

Surprise, surprise. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162122)

This shouldnt have been any surprise when it recently came out that cia had undertaken a program to break up wikileaks 1-1.5 years ago.

probably, this SON OF WHORE was up in arms with them. the uppercase phrase was was used to convey my thoughts and feelings about his persona in precision.

Re:Surprise, surprise. (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162160)

Surprise surprise? What that wikileaks cant find people to run it that actually believe what they proclaim?

Re:Surprise, surprise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162168)

The CIA started, is continuing to run, and will to continue to run wikileaks. They never had to break it up because it's their baby.

What im wondering is (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162156)

Why this person is still able to freely roam the streets without fear. someone betrays people, like this, and still is able to live a normal life. noone stops them on their way home and holds them accountable.

Re:What im wondering is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162354)

Who says he is roaming without fear? He may have threatened a data release by a number of his acquaintances if anything suspicious happens to him. His fear would be that the government doesn't believe him or that the data is released from a different source.

Not somewhere you want to go (1)

primerib (1827024) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162416)

Much the same has been said about Assange and WikiLeaks volunteers. If you start a culture of vigilantism, Domscheit-Berg would not be the first or only person targeted. It's a bad, bad precedent to set.

Re:Not somewhere you want to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162540)

It'd be nice to see Adrian Lamo get what's coming to him. He's free while the patriot he lied to had his life ruined.

Damage done:Dumscheit+OpenLeaks are untrustworthy (1)

uufnord (999299) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162450)

If this is true, then he hurt his own cause by doing this. The self-inflicted damage to his reputation is severe, and noone can trust him now. This is how he will be held accountable: by the lack of faith in him and his organization. Sad, really. Entirely preventable, had he taken 2 minutes or less to think about it. It is good that this information is being presented to the public, as this gives a chance for the original leakers to re-present the material to Wikileaks, if it is still available to them.

Re:What im wondering is (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162620)

Why this person is still able to freely roam the streets without fear. someone betrays people, like this, and still is able to live a normal life. noone stops them on their way home and holds them accountable.

There's nothing more pathetic than an Internet bad-ass.

Re:What im wondering is (2)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162920)

noone stops them on their way home and holds them accountable

What are you waiting for? Go beat him up, since that's your notion of accountability. Or is it? What did you mean by that? Should he be killed? Should he be photographed, 'shopped, and circulated as head transplant donkey porn?

/rage (5, Insightful)

drobety (2429764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162182)

If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)

I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece [rollingstone.com] .

In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.

Re:/rage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162636)

Yes, how could you trust anyone who would rather destroy data than compromise your identity?

His demand that wikileaks prove their ability to handle those data securely is not ridiculous, given that what DDB knew to be wikileaks whole technical staff left the organisation with him, as they couldn't bear dealing with Julian Assange any longer.

Wow.. he seems trustworthy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162188)

It looks like Daniel Domscheit-Berg is trying to make the crossover to 'mainstream.' That world consists of invites for 'expert' testimony to such unbiased networks such as CNN or Fox News. Now that he has violated agreements with Wikileaks and also started a competitor, he looks more and more like our everyday politicians that us Americans know and trust..

Re:Wow.. he seems trustworthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162298)

lol, i hope that was meant to be modded funny. It was to protect informants.
Although, the sad part is that with summaries like that it does seem that slashdot is trying to align itself with FOX news as you mentioned.

Re:Wow.. he seems trustworthy (0)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162398)

You mis-spelled FAUX News.

Bullshit Summary, after Bullshit Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162202)

Are we all stupid, why can't editors treat us with some respect?

_To protect informants_ former Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files.

FTFY

Re:Bullshit Summary, after Bullshit Summary (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162288)

Maybe because that's a lame and implausible cover?

Re:Bullshit Summary, after Bullshit Summary (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162302)

the no fly list is HUGE.

If he wont release it to protect informants. . . whats the point? Whats he holding out for?

Re:Bullshit Summary, after Bullshit Summary (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162432)

Right. Because so much of this would really protect informants. Like the no-fly list? Unless they randomly included a name in the middle that would show that it was a certain person's copy of the no-fly list how would that harm any informant? And if there was a random name surely multiple copies of the list could be found and you can combine the two and leave out whatever names aren't found on both of the copies.

More information please (2)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162226)

The essential point is that Daniel Domscheit-Berg does not trust that Wikileaks can guarantee the safety of the documents. He agree to return them as soon as it is safe, however it does not seem to be like that.

There are more weird things going on like a long continued throwing of mud onto openleaks/daniel by julian/wikileaks

i am not sure who is right, but this could be covered more deeply by somebody who submits it to his journal

Re:More information please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162664)

There are more weird things going on like a long continued throwing of mud onto openleaks/daniel by julian/wikileaks

I wouldn't be so quick to blame them. Domscheit-Berg lost lots of credibility by abusing the reputation of organisations like the German CCC (from which he was expelled for this reason, they even publicly distance themselves from him) for his project.

It looks more like he is hellbent on screwing up badly; be it out of incompetence or intentionally.

Re:More information please (3, Interesting)

drobety (2429764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162822)

If you have been following DDB and Wikileaks since last year, the mud was actually flowing from DDB toward Wikileaks/Assange, not the other way around. DDB went so far as to write a book about his time at Wikileaks, generously throwing mud at Assange in the process. There was such retarded stuff in there that it made DDB look silly, obviously he was holding a grudge. In the few instances where Wikileaks referred to DDB was to say he had been fired at some point in the past, period. No mud-slinging. This week only Wikileaks addressed the DDB-saga [wlcentral.org] by disclosing more about DDB when it appeared the unpublished leaked materials was not going to be returned.

No need to speculate, stick to the track record so far to judge, and Wikileaks' track record is impeccable when it comes to standing up for whistle-blowers, to publish their leaked materials, and to defend in court the publication of their leaked materials. On the other hand, DDB's track record rather shows a trampling, not support, of the whistle-blowers' wishes.

Bullshit excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162280)

It's a shame what happened to Bradley Manning but it wasn't Assange or Wikileaks' fault that he got caught. To destroy these documents that someone ALREADY took the brave risk to leak wastes their effort, their intentions, and darkens the world to information that should get out. Daniel is a turncoat fascist.

Tactics (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162400)

If you want to kill something off, you don't fight it. You appear to support the cause, but you divert resources from legitimate organizations to your own. Then you f*ck up the job, thereby protecting your actual sponsors.

Which organizations' documents were destroyed? And were they completely destroyed? Or does Domscheit-Berg still have a list of the names of the informants that can be used to encourage future good behavior?

so much for transparency (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162410)

so much for transparency, even if these allegations turn out to be false as the "tiff/bad blood" between him and wikileaks is not as "transparent" as they advocate their operation to aspire to on their website.

either way, it's interesting to see where this will lead...especially on a slow news day.

Domscheit-Berg has just killed OpenLeaks (5, Insightful)

Crouty (912387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162490)

There are two things an architect of a whistleblowing platform must never do: revealing the identity of informants and accepting submissions without publishing them. I despise Domscheit-Berg for keeping WikiLeaks from publishing that data. Who knows what risks were taken to get this information on that hard disk.

"Lost irrevocably"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162532)

Doubtful. Surely those "unknown informants" still have copies of the documents.

Re:"Lost irrevocably"? Yes. (1)

evought (709897) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162992)

Surely those "unknown informants" still have copies of the documents.

Many times it is dangerous for an informant to keep copies of leaked documents because if they are caught with them, or caught with them somewhere they were not supposed to be, they would be compromised. Manning, for instance, carried a CD-RW into secure facilities with music and wrote files to them during the work day. He was then able to access a non-sequestered network on his off-time and send the documents. Good spy-craft would require getting rid of such data and removing all traces of it as quickly as possible. If someone had discovered him in possession of these files outside the SIF (or on improperly-labelled/controlled media inside the facility) that would have been enough for him to get in serious trouble even if the transfer were accidental.

I don't trust DDB (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162546)

He might just as well have given or sold them to the CIA and claimed to have destroyed them to cover it up, or he may have lied about it so he can use those leaks to get his own platform off the ground, pretending they were fresh submissions to OpenLeaks (would any of the whistleblowers complain? surely not). What a shame about the idea of such a platform, being dismantled by big egos ...

No one can possibly believe this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162562)

How can any bit of information, for such a data-centric organization, only exist in one location without a back up? He may have irrevocably deleted the files, but not before he snagged a copy for himself.

this story has another side (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162590)

Rather than just raging against DDB, maybe his side of the story should be heard as well.

It goes somewhat like this:
Once upon a time, there was a big fallout between Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheidt-Berg, and Julian kicked Daniel out.
Daniel took his personal hardware with him, which happened to contain this hard-drive full of leaked documents.

A couple of other wikileaks staff sided with Daniel and also left. This included the so called Architect, who took down wikileaks submission-site for the following reasons:
- he built it
- he knew it was insecure
- once he was gone, there was no-one left to fix it

Given that Julian accused Daniel of stealing these documents in order to use them for his new site OpenLeaks, Daniel didn't wan't to publish them himself.
There have been attempts to give these data back to wikileaks, but these failed. Daniel insisted that after the loss of much of its technical staff, wikileaks had to prove that is was still able to protect the sources' identities. The CCC tried to mediate the exchange. Whatever happened here was not made public, so one can only guess what kind of mess it was.

Re:this story has another side (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162810)

This is not really "another side" but a whole lot of words describing exactly what DDB is accused of: taking the information that someone took great risk to make public and turning it into his personal bargaining chip. It is a colossal arrogance of DBB to assume for himself the role of the judge over Wikileaks' abilities. They don't have shit to prove to some asshat. The fact that this bridge burning upon leaving Wikileaks took place at all speaks volumes about egos of these little shits, but betraying the initial leakers in this way is unforgivable.

BS (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162608)

I think this bit pure BS. There is never a proof that some digital data has been deleted. One copy has been deleted at best.... If it was the only copy, only few people know.

And the public loses again (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162638)

<tinfoilhat>It could be that DDB is either an FBI double agent, or has been threatened / enticed to go mole.</tinfoilhat>

In the end, it's the public that gets hurt by deleting this information. We've long gone past the "Who watches the watchers" question, because the answer has been "None" for a long time.

What about the leakers document? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162640)

The thing I've not seen mentioned in all the responses to this is that there are really two lists - the one supposedly destroyed, but ALSO the one the leaker sent in the first place.

Why could that person not simply send the same list to Wikileaks again? Is there some reason why they would not or have not done so?

There is a lot more going on with this story than meets the eye, if the list is not simply being re-transmitted to Wikileaks.

The real reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162738)

Domscheit-Berg?
Douche-Bag?

Coincidence? I think not.

which right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162826)

one of the big reasons openleaks was created, is it was felt by many that wikileaks was too anti-bush, pro-soros, to have credibility and there's a lot of truth to that - stop leaking pentagon data to make us look like thugs... How about someone leak kremlin data, and lets see who the real thugs are?

so, if this data was destroyed to stop the american rightwing witch hunt - i'm cool with that. But if this was done to protect the european right wing nazi movement, not so much.

Berg is an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162862)

If you want to pick a side the Assange/Berg war, and there is no need to, or even much desire to, I would distill it down like this:

Assange is a leak-promoter who releases leaks and these releases have effects.

Berg is a leak-promoter who does not release leaks and destroys some he has.

Who is better at their job?

Am I the only one that read his name as douchebag? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37162874)

If you read it quick, "Daniel Domscheit-Berg" looks kinda like "Daniel Douchebag".

Excellent! (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37162934)

My plan to destroy/discredit wiki/openleaks is working like a charm.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?