Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Wikileaks — Anonymous Whistle-Blowing

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the weapons-of-mass-conscience dept.

The Internet 162

too_old_to_be_irate writes to tell us about a site that word got out on before they were ready. Wikileaks aims to be an anonymous and uncensorable repository of leaked documents, posted for commentary by interested parties. It's expected to go live in a month or two. From the site: "Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.1 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources."

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

uncensorable, etc WTF? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562044)

"word got out on before they were ready."

anybody else want to raise the B.S. flag?

"It's expected to go live in a month or two."

and die about a month PRIOR to that.

" We have received over 1.1 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources."

You mean folks that bitch and UNRELIABLE sources?

"Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact"

Tell me, how is this going to be any different from any other site pushing a political agenda?

"We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people."

How does political impact have anything to do with your interface being like Wiki?

Oh, and BTW doesn't

"leaked documents"

mean leaked documents? Ones that are already 'out of the closet'?

I guess I just don't get how this got our attention.

Suck it, fascist AC (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562350)

This is a good thing. You just don't like it because you are an authority worshipper who loves having his ass paddled by Daddy. You hate it any time anyone stands up to power, don't you? Thinking about Hitler gives you a stiffy, doesn't it? You fascist authority worshippers can suck it.

Re:Suck it, fascist AC (1, Redundant)

Malenfrant (781088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562906)

No, I am aqgainst authority as much as any of you here, but this is, at first sight, complete BS. Leaked documents that are traceable and verifiable will be publicised anyway, that's what a free press means. Especially in the current climate, the fact that they specify documents from regimes that are considered enemies by the current powers that be in the Western world, just makes more alarm bells ring. Our governments already publicise such things as much as they can, in order to justify their own behaviour, and the listing of these countries as 'Rogue States'. This will either be irrelevant, or propaganda designed to make us hate our 'enemies', and justify our ruler's immoral actions. Either way, it would be better off not existing.

Re:Suck it, fascist AC (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563306)

Leaked documents that are traceable and verifiable will be publicised anyway, that's what a free press means.

What free press? There's no free press. That's a fucking myth. You can and will be hauled off to gitmo for what you write or publish if the powers-that-be deem that it should be so. Of course, first they'll paint you as some kind of secret terrorist to justify it, and that will be enough for the majority of the population to accept their actions.

Re:Suck it, fascist AC (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17563712)

Drinking the anti-freeze again?

(According to your nick, you're actually drinking the poo, either way it is not surprising)

abuse of moderation (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564036)

  1. I believe everything I wrote above.
  2. Trolling is when you say something you don't believe in order to elicit a desired response. Here I am saying something I do believe and don't expect any particular response - although I guess I should have expected the powers-that-be or one of their sheep to mod me down for speaking my mind.

Perhaps you don't remember this [harpers.org] :

"People need to be careful what they say," said Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld stood up in front of the press in the white house and said that people need to be careful what they say. If you follow the link you can see that this is about allegations of desecration of the Koran by U.S. soldiers. If that wasn't a warning, I don't know WHAT it was. You can find more on that story in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] . This was a case where abuse of prisoners (if we adopt their methods, we become them - of course, we already Are them, we just have money so we don't have to use humans as munitions delivery systems) had been reported and Newsweek was threatened into dropping the story.

If you truly don't believe that this kind of abuse goes on in the USA, then you are part of the problem. Waking up to reality and the fact that a government that will treat other peoples as subhuman doesn't think too much of you either is the first step towards a solution.

Re:abuse of moderation (4, Insightful)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564186)

If that wasn't a warning, I don't know WHAT it was

It was a very true statement - people DO need to be careful about what they say. For those whose mouths tend to be heard, one offhand comment can spark riots around the world.

Re:abuse of moderation (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564312)

It was a very true statement - people DO need to be careful about what they say. For those whose mouths tend to be heard, one offhand comment can spark riots around the world.

You're blaming the messenger. Especially given my example what you're doing here is suggesting that it's better to cover up abuses than to let their natural consequences occur. You are a tool of the entrenched power structure.

It's better to have a shakeup and solve the problem than simply let it continue, which in the final analysis ends up having hurt a lot more people.

The implication in your statement is that the truth is less important than the status quo.

Re:abuse of moderation (2, Funny)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564604)

The truth is written by the winners. As simple as. If you're on the side which doesn't get heard, what you know to be true suddenly doesn't matter any more.

After all, the War against Terror was a huge victory, after minor injuries and a few deaths before the Mighty and Valiant Coalition fully grasped the lowly depths the Evil Terrorists would sink to. Diplomacy was granted to the people of Iraq following years of oppression by the cruel tyrant Saddam Hussein. This Vicious Monster, responsible for the cowardly murder of possibly millions of innocent people, was hanged following a Fair and Just trial in the name of Freedom led entirely by The Iraqi People. The execution was carried out in full view of the international community and was conducted in full accordance with every international law, despite Saddam's Evil Followers releasing doctored 'film footage' of the execution to turn the people of the Great and Free United States of America against the Noble Life President George W Bush...

I really wish I couldn't see it coming.

Re:Suck it, fascist AC (3, Informative)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564154)

You can and will be hauled off to gitmo for what you write or publish if the powers-that-be deem that it should be so.

Care to cite examples? In the last couple of years I only recall a couple of cases where journalists were jailed, and it wasn't for what they wrote but for not revealing their sources.

Re:Suck it, fascist AC (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564792)

In the last couple of years I only recall a couple of cases where journalists were jailed, and it wasn't for what they wrote but for not revealing their sources.

Not revealing their sources is the tool used to jail journalists because of what they wrote. "State secrets" is a very convenient excuse.

Re:uncensorable, etc WTF? (4, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562496)

The problem with non-technical documents is that they rarely contain actual data or fact to justify the wild claims. Making them great for politics and politicians, but worthless for genuinely smart people to make good decisions.

On the other hand, god help the world if defect tracking databases (or issue subsets) were made public on this. Any bug you ever had could become a lawsuit if it could be construed to have caused financial loss. The world would grind to a halt.

Trade secrets (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564446)

Expect this to last about a month, until someone posts some company's trade secret and the site gets sued off the face of the planet.

Better Information (4, Interesting)

Roofus (15591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562104)

For some real information, check out the 'Leaked' WikiLeak mailing list via (my favorite) Cryptome:

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm [cryptome.org]
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm [cryptome.org]

Where is the wiki? (1)

choongiri (840652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562332)

I looked all over the linked site. No wiki to be seen. It says something about using FreeNet, Tor, and PGP [wikileaks.org] . Last time I checked none of these were wiki software packages.

Re:Where is the wiki? (5, Interesting)

Roofus (15591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562472)

That's the hilarity of it all. John Young (owner of Cryptome) was asked by the people behind Wikileaks to be the owner of the domain (since it would end up being public, and Mr Young is no stranger to Government intimidation). He agreed and participated in the private mailing list, but became disillusioned after it appeared the creators had no actual product and were only interested in funding. He posted all the private and internal conversation his own site.

Read the two links I provided, and you'll get the story.

Short Version: This 'secure and untraceable' Wiki software probably doesn't exist, it's a PR ploy for cash.

Re:Where is the wiki? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562776)

I browsed the two links -- they're both long, disorganized, and incoherent email threads. Can someone summarize?

Re:Where is the wiki? (5, Informative)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563270)

I've read through parts of it briefly (skipping a lot). It's quite entertaining. There was an anonymous mailing list about this project. They've talked John Young into being the frontman for the site (domain name registration, basic contact, etc.). After that there's endless self-congratulating discussion about how cool things are going to be. Since there is no real technical discussion shown it appears that they were not in the process of actually developing anything. Although they claim to have a huge number of leaked documents in store already, no evidence of that was given. Instead, this degenerated into overly ambitious and suspect fundrasing effort.
  At that point John Young pointed out that instead of trying to raise millions on empty promises, they should do the actual implementation and work hard for a year or two on a shoe-string budget to prove that they are real. As a sarcastic ploy he suggested that if their goal is to fleece CIA (which is most likely to cough up $5M they're trying to raise), than they should ask for more. Astonishingly enough they took the joke seriously, and said they'll try :)
  And John posted their mailing list discussion to the public (without the real names/addresses, which he said will come next), accusing them of simply being a scam to raise money.

Re:Where is the wiki? (2, Insightful)

kasperd (592156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563348)

It says something about using FreeNet, Tor, and PGP. Last time I checked none of these were wiki software packages.
It also says something about modified versions. It also says something about wikipedia, maybe they are using that software as well. So here follows a few quick questions and answers. Can this set of software be used as basis for an anonymous uncensorable wiki? Yes. How much work would it be to implement? Probably a lot. Is this particular implementation real or varpor ware? I don't know.

I had a similar idea myself, but it never became more than an idea. To make this uncensorable, it would have to not be hosted on one centralised server, but rather have the data replicated in a P2P network. This is pretty much the idea in FreeNet. You'd have to download a piece of software to actually access the system. This program would have to talk some special protocol with the other peers. To make it accessible to the average user, it would then provide a webserver, that you could use through a portnumber on localhost. I think FreeNet already has something like that. But rather than transfering html documents over the P2P network, you could use the P2P network to create some kind of database, and simply run wikipedia on top of that.

I say Wikipedia here, because that is what I thought this particular project had in mind. The idea I had in mind would have been using a different layer on top, something similar to worldforum.dk where you can put a small piece of javascript in your bookmarks and using that start a discussion thread about an arbitrary web page. (Worldforum sucks because it never reached a critical mass, and in spite of that performance sucks as well, and these days there are more spam than content, but that's besides the point, all three are issues that might be solvable).

Now to help on credibility of such a system where anybody can post anonymously, it should be possible for you to prove that two messages written by you were in fact written by the same person. Of course that proof also has to be something that you can give anonymously. It should work in such a way, that initially when you write something, you are completely anonymous. But at a later point if you choose to do so, you can prove that two messages have the same author. With clever cryptography it could probably even be done in such a way, that you can either give a proof that anybody can verify, or you can decide to do a proof that only one particular person can verify. (That last part can be done by designing the proof in such a way using that person's private key, it would be possible to forge the proof. Since this person know he generated the private key himself and didn't give it to anybody, he knows that the proof cannot be a forgery.)

That way if somebody doubt your credibility, you can show which information you provided earlier. This needs to encorporate a time stamping mechanism as well. Such that it can be verified that you did in fact provide the information before it became public knowledge. And if somebody copy other peoples information claiming to be the original source, it can be verified who posted the information first.

Let me get this straight (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564374)

Well, that was interesting. I wouldn't say informative, precisely, because I'm not sure what exactly I just read, but interesting.

Let me just get this straight. So someone decided to do this Wikileaks project. They recruit some other, ideologically-motivated ("solidarity!") folks to help. They claim to have a prototype that works, and distribute a leaked document from Somalia of unknown provenance. They create several mailing lists. Lots of cloak-and-dagger stuff, people playing with PGP, etc., ensues. The guy from Cryptome is asked to be the holder of the wikileaks.org domain.

Eventually they decide to try and raise $5M USD from somewhere. Cryptome guy says they're crazy, that everyone will think it's a scam, or that they're a front for the CIA. Wikileaks guys basically say "noted," and move on. Cryptome guy decides it's definitely a scam, pulls out, and publishes the emails, only redacted to remove emails and other identifying information.

Is that basically it?

Re:Better Information (1)

Jotii (932365) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564486)

In Soviet Wiki, leaks wiki YOU!
In Soviet Cryptome, Wikileaks leak YOU!

Ah the possibilities!

alternate names.... (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562130)

Wikileaks aims to be an anonymous and uncensorable repository of leaked documents, posted for commentary by interested parties.

They were going to name it LawyerMagnet.com, but that was already taken by a file-sharing service.

Fab! (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562144)

I can't think of a single possible way this could be misused in any manner whatsoever by anyone for any reason in any whatsoever.

Re:Fab! (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564166)

Got an ex-spouse that wants to exact revenge or simply aire their visceral hatred for you? Here's another online enabler for them to post all those wonderful pictures. :-D

One word was missing - verifiable (5, Insightful)

drGreg (153424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562150)

This looks like an ideal place to spread FUD and provide a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

Re:One word was missing - verifiable (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562288)

provide a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories

That's exactly what they want you to think.

Re:One word was missing - verifiable (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562322)

I do wonder how they'll sort the facts from the fud. Kudos if they can pull it off, it seems like a great way to use the ease of information spread that the internet provides. Bring on the truthiness!

Re:One word was missing - verifiable (5, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563210)

I do wonder how they'll sort the facts from the fud.

What part of "wiki" do you not understand? How else would today's children know that the elephant population is skyrocketing and President Taft was eaten by wolves?

If there's anything that Web 2.0 has taught us, it's that you can't believe what you read in newspapers, but everything posted anonymously to the internet is true.

Re:One word was missing - verifiable (2, Funny)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562804)

Let us hope that this never happens to the internet.

Re:One word was missing - verifiable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17565032)

Sort of like the propaganda offices in Washington (minus about 10 billion dollars per year).

I, for one, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562152)

welcome our leaky overlords.

Re:I, for one, (0)

sherpajohn (113531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562368)

Be sure to stock up on liquid gather supplies like mops and paper towels.

OT III (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562162)

Can we expect to see the full story of Xenu? :P I mean, Soviet secret police are one thing, but you don't want to mess with Scientologists...

Re:OT III (1)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563254)

My friend, you can see the full story right here [xenutv.com] . Well, you can see it if your vision isn't too obscured by body thetans [wikipedia.org] .

Irony (n) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562164)

Having a website that is (soon to be) full of leaked information being leaked early to the public.

This is going to get ugly pretty fast. (2, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562170)


Wikipedia already has a credibility problem, but this?

Anonymous leaking of materials that may be totally unverified? I can already the giant wooshing sound of lawyers descending on this poor thing for defamation.

Besides, what's the point of such a site if countries like China and Iran can censor it by building a "Great Firewall" around their little corner of the Internet?

Oh, and by the way, thanks for posting all of your plans on the Internet before the site even goes live. Dumb script kiddies everywhere are going to blast your poor site as soon as it shows up.

Re:This is going to get ugly pretty fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562308)

Whoa... the internet has corners??

Important!!! This isn't Wikipedia (5, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562482)

This group, whomever they are, is improperly using the trademark "Wikipedia" as a buzz word to try and gin up support for this very dubious sort of project.

Say what you might about Wikipedia, but this does not involve either the Wikimedia Foundation, its employees, or frankly much of anybody even involved with the day to day running of Wikipedia either.

And slashdot is hardly the best place to announce something like this if you wanted to involve the Wikipedia user base. While this is a sort of "geek news" that might get some notice, it is disingenuious to suggest any association with Wikipedia.

Besides, on those Wikimedia projects where I have admin privileges, I would delete most of this content on the spot as unverifiable rumors and gossip, and expect the same on the other Wikimedia projects.

While this might be something rather interesting in terms of a web server to host this material, and invite some anonymous method of gathering these documents, I don't even see that they are going to be using a Wiki to gather this information.

In short, move along.... there is nothing here to see.

Re:Important!!! This isn't Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562780)

Wiki doesn't come from wikipedia, dumbass. If you'd just go to wikipedia and look up wiki, you'd find it comes from wikiwikiweb, and that wikimedia holds no power over the name.

Re:Important!!! This isn't Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17563054)

But they're using the word wikipedia (they're an "uncensorable version of Wikipedia for [...]"), not merely the word "wiki".

Re:Important!!! This isn't Wikipedia (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564290)

Is the word wiki trademarked then ? I don't think they claimed to be part of the wikipedia organisation.

Otherwise, way to go - you mentioned the word wikimedia 3 times and wikipedia 6 times in a searchable thread about wikileaks. Lets keep the net relevant !

Re:This is going to get ugly pretty fast. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562874)

Wikipedia doesn't need all that much credibility to be fairly useful. As long as you treat it as a jumping off point/introduction and not as an authoritative reference, it is already really good. I guess if you want it to be authoritative it would look pretty bad.

Re:This is going to get ugly pretty fast. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564950)

I can already the giant wooshing sound of lawyers descending on this poor thing for defamation.
Perhaps they're hosting with HavenCo in Sealand, where defamation is legal ;)

Are you willing to host ZyprexaKills.tar.gz? (1)

dan dan the dna man (461768) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562184)

I wonder [theregister.co.uk] ...

Re:Are you willing to host ZyprexaKills.tar.gz? (2, Informative)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562638)

The Pirate Bay apperantly is: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3589817/ZyprexaKills.t ar.gz [thepiratebay.org]

Re:Are you willing to host ZyprexaKills.tar.gz? (1)

dan dan the dna man (461768) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562666)

Yeah I know, I'm currently seeding it :P

Baloney (4, Interesting)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562190)

I'm curious how this repository of uncensorable documents intends to keep their credibility when the 9/11 conspiracy, and moon landing was a hoax crowd move in.

Re:Baloney (4, Interesting)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562648)

Not to mention those who are falsely accused. How do they check the stories?

Re:Baloney (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563298)

Oh heavens, they aren't in the "truth" business. They're in the secrets business.

Re:Baloney (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562892)

Dude, you couldn't have picked two worse examples. There is a huge amount of documentable and verifiable evidence on both the 9/11 conspiracy and moon landing hoax theories. In fact, the amount of contrary evidence exceeds "real" evidence for both.

Re:Baloney (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563922)

I really, really hope that you're joking.

Re:Baloney (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17564180)

There is a huge amount of documentable and verifiable evidence on both the 9/11 conspiracy and moon landing hoax theories. In fact, the amount of contrary evidence exceeds "real" evidence for both.
Provided you define "evidence" as "anything presented as evidence by its proponents", then yes, that is true. But that's what you'd expect - for every simple truth, there is an infinity of lies.

Re: MOD PARENT UP (1)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564322)

Dammit, I just spend my last mod point.

Re:Baloney (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563884)

Well, I would think that the idea is that this place is a repository for leaked primary-source information, and not one for conjecture. If they're smart, they won't allow text-editing like Wikipedia, but will be more like Wikimedia Commons, allowing people to upload files and comment on them, rather than write articles.

If you could produce some secret NASA documents on the fake moon landing, and scan them in, then this would be the place you'd want to share them. Of course, it would also be the place to share the fake moon-landing documents you just produced in Microsoft Word, printed out, and scanned in, but the reliability of documents is really for the viewer to decide.

What we really need is not another "wiki" for people to re-edit history as they see fit, but a un-censorable file repository and CMS, where people can post files and then other people can download them, without restrictions on the content.

I should've guessed (1)

QueePWNzor (1044224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562192)

I've been noticing all the magazines talking about Wikipedia as the future of intelligence (CIA type). Either these guys read TIME or vice versa. That is the great thing about the internet: decentralized unstoppability. I bet this'll last a long time, and there's nothing Bush can do about it! I bet they'll find many secret documents very, very soon. They're all over the internet, so they can copy them down to preserve the knowledge when Bush attacks.

Re:I should've guessed (2, Interesting)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563606)

My first thought about this was the possibility that the Bush administration, pissed about leaks, may have pressured the intelligence community to do something about it, and such a honeypot setup one of their solutions because it could increase their ability to locate the sources of such leaks. The idea being, that if it becomes well known as a place to host leaks, potential leakers would make sure they get their info in and in the process expose themselves.

Then I thought about it a little more-- if that were the case, it would be a BIG mistake. They would end up having to host gobs uninteresting to them and not-illegal but uncomfortable, controversial or litigious information and/or deal with lawsuits galore-- it would end up far more trouble than it's worth in that regard. In any event it is no doubt going to be a lawyer magnet. If the site actually survives, the spooks would do better to just tap their systems and let someone else stick their necks out.

Also, the temptation to post some made up inflammatory crap will be irresistable for many yahoos, and you'll start seeing all manner of liable and paranoid theories appear-- the Protocols of the Elders of ...

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562234)

Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences?
Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes.

So they must be safe.

Oops! (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562258)

From the news page [wikileaks.org] :
05/01/07: WikiLeaks gets leaked

Due to a single blog posting of just a few words, Wikileaks has been thrust into the spot light far earlier then expected.

(Note that the date is 5 January, not May 1, as may be misread by my fellow Americans.)

I would expect another "news" article soon, dated 11/01/07 (11 Jan): "WikiLeaks flooded: Slashdotted!"

Wikileaks... (2, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562262)

On hearing the name of the service, the one thing that came to mind was - "Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss..."

re (1)

alais4 (997201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562264)

Wikileaks.com seems to be unaffiliated. Just a random comment as some other articles were citing that website.
"Due to a single blog posting of just a few words, Wikileaks has been thrust into the spot light far earlier then expected."

With no content either!: "Wikileaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment." I wonder how they got the 1.1mil leaked documents, if not by traditional means, if the website isn't up yet.

In general, the language and infrastructure barrier really strike me as difficult in this scheme. Eg: "Journalists covering atrocities in darkest Africa and seeking the quotes so prized by editors back home might not have to ask, 'Anyone here been raped and speak English?' " (Economist). This mostly seems like something to incite people in places with easy internet access, not the people under the referred oppressive govts.

Re:re (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562752)

English is usually a fairly common point kind of language, even if not everyone knows how to speak it, the fact is that that people of other languages can often communicate together in some fashion through English since its taught pretty much everywhere.

Anywho, I think the main point of this project is to enlighten those who give a damn.

Re:re (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563266)

This mostly seems like something to incite people in places with easy internet access, not the people under the referred oppressive govts.

that's okay. This is a capitalist world and the people with the internet access actually have money, which means someone cares what they have to say... collectively anyway.

Anonymity Networks (4, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562266)

According to the FAQ
For the technically minded, Wikileaks integrates technologies including modified versions of FreeNet, Tor, PGP and software of our own design.
If they don't release the source for their custom/modified anonymity network, how do we really know it works?

Re:Anonymity Networks (1)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562598)

Modified Freenet, Tor, AND PGP? That's going to be the slowest website EVER. And add the slashdotting to the equation and no one will ever be able to get to it...

Re:Anonymity Networks (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564068)

Eh, it'll get leaked sooner or later.

(On a slightly less "+1, Funny" note, that'd put their ethics to a real test...)

Irony (4, Funny)

OfficialReverendStev (988479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562300)

I love the irony... the existence of a site about leaks was... yes... leaked. Fantastic.

Fun! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562312)

I am *SO* going to hoax the hell out of them. :)

Spamy (3, Interesting)

The Z Master (234139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562314)

Sounds great and all, but I still remember the 8 emails I got from them, all to the same mailing list (which has no business being exposed beyond its members). A company that's willing to spam to promote its cause is not one that I'd be willing to support.

2 big problems (4, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562320)

1. they're gonna get their asses sued nonstop because DUH most will be illegaly leaked
2. Anyone can make up anything but unlike wikipedia, you can't just go and check and see if it's true somewhere because it's supposed to be classified and leaked so nobody knows about it. Everyone can deny everything and everyone can say everything is true and nobody really, really knows. I bet politicians will "leak" things about their opponents and opposing parties and all sorts of made up BSing situations like that

Re:2 big problems (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562536)

I guess some people will sue (like movie stars and such), but most entities won't have to do much because of the reason you stated, they'll just claim it isn't true.

Re:2 big problems (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562574)

If you sue the public will think it implies truth in most cases that are not defemation related.

Re:2 big problems (0)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562592)

and doesn't 'use the same interface as wikipedia' actually mean 'can't be bothered to write our own interface'.

This is so d00med, just a bunch of liberals trying to set the world right again 'ok everyone, lets hold hands and wish the world better'.

It's going to be hoaxed to bits. Anyone who gets fired, or has a grudge, or wants to discredit someone will love it. The fact that nothing can be proved on the site means it'll be just another place for tin hats to congregate.

Re:2 big problems (1)

Sargeant Slaughter (678631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562596)

They will just have to use a moderation system that gauges "truthiness."

Re:2 big problems (1)

arniebuteft (1032530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563264)

I'm guessing it'll turn into a wikified version of Ripoffreport.com, where anyone can show up and anonymously bash any product, service, or company of their choosing. It'll be impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. Dunno about them getting sued, seems like the safe harbor provisions of the CDA would apply.

Re:2 big problems (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563554)

lol, let's all submit fake documents that say CowboyNeal got arrested for conspiracy to commit public nudity and slashdot will be shut down cuz of it then submit it as a story lmao!

Who will host this site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562360)

Where is this going to be hosted? I can't see this site lasting long. Sure the US will be happy enough if they are pulling the rug from underneath Iran et al. - but what happens when someone posts leaked CIA documents - the type that the white house gets injunctions out on NYT to stop them publishing them. Either this site will pull these type of documents, in which case they will be just as guilty of censoring as any other organisation, or they will refuse, and find their website blocked in the US on national security grounds (and possibly far worse than blocked if the severity is high enough).

Re:Who will host this site? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17565026)

It's obvious. The site will be hosted in SEALAND!

Note (1)

chazzf (188092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562428)

In case it wasn't obvious from the write-up, Wikipedia isn't associated with this project in any way. Calling it an "uncensorable version of Wikipedia" is very misleading; it doesn't sound like they'll be mirroring content or anything like that. Moreover, their "content" isn't theirs and certainly couldn't be released under the GFDL. Commentary by users, perhaps, but certainly not the source text.

I predict a legal minefield here, depending on location. Unless they're negotiating with Prince Roy, I doubt they'll last the year.

This is scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562450)

These people setting this site up are bad people and need to be brought to justice for this. Only the government is to have privacy. The regular people need to be monitored at all times and their lives need to be heavily regulated because it's a socialist country (USA). These people need to be rounded up and murdered by our brave federal police officers! Working class people in the US are typically terrorists who wont pay taxes (which are sickeningly low, they need to be at least 80%), obey gun ban laws (ban them all), be politically correct, be hostile to undocumented workers and the new world order, and wont get building permits, etc if they think they can get away with it. Just be a good socialist, support the state, and do as you are told and you wont have problems!

One Word (5, Insightful)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562470)

HONEYPOT

Re:One Word (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563062)

LOL

That's actually quite an interesting theory.

Why only US 'unfriendlyish' governments? (4, Funny)

iwein (561027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562672)

Is this another attempt of the Saudi-Bush alliance to keep us under control? But wait, I have here a msn history of GeorgeW with OsamaB. Freshly leaked!

GeorgeW: I like what I see, wanna get busy ;'#P#?
OsamaB: No thanks, I'm watching a movie...
GeorgeW: Not that boring Fahrenheit again PHULEASE :p
OsamaB: :o LOL
GeorgeW: (K)
OsamaB: (L)

Re:Why only US 'unfriendlyish' governments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17564132)

What, OBL has a satellite uplink to chat from his laptop while hiding in caves?

Leaks (1)

Sir Runcible Spoon (143210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562872)

...word got out on before they were ready...


So it was leaked? Right :->

In Russia... (2, Funny)

mwpierce (1031662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562890)

Wikileak is sent documents about you!

The truth is out there... (1)

Arthur Dent '99 (226844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562894)

Maybe one of the first posts will be from the dissident Canadian community who has been bugging Canadian coins [slashdot.org] ! We'll at last know whether American defense contractors prefer Snickers or Twix! :-)

I hope that the posted documents aren't user-editable like on Wikipedia, otherwise they'll quickly be spammed out of credibility.

Could be fun (3, Funny)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562912)

Someone with a pirated copy of Photoshop and a few graphics design courses can produce documents that will fool plenty of people. Until the site gets sued to oblivion, we should all enjoy the damaging "documents" that spill onto the Internet.

I look forward to that CIA memo reminding Area 51 employees to keep the cryo freezers nice and cool so Marvin and friends don't decompose. We might also get some behind-the-scenes photos of Soundstange 56 where Stanley Kubrick filmed the moon landings (rumor has it that Neil showed up to the first shooting totally wasted). We might also see a few invoices addressed to the Bahamas for one "Elvis P."

Re:Could be fun (1)

doomy (7461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564260)

Here is the footage [youtube.com] . Quick mirror it before they remove it.

How Anonymous is Anonymous (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17562944)

There are many different levels, from "we don't demand you log in", to "we keep zero internal records of the times and history of when people view, let alone submit to our web site, and unless you ask us to immediately post it, we wait 1-20 days to post anything you put up making it more dificult to even guess who might have done what when"

Cryptome documents (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17562984)

After reading the documents decrypted on Cryptome to do with wikileak. I've come to the conclusion that this is just a front for CIA to destabilize governments that do not follow the unique US democracy.

I just see no point in anyone ever having to contribute to this.

The other point is, a wiki (central location) is not a good idea to distribute this type of static data.

Tor or similar type of network with non-destabilizing search front ends would be a better way.

And most of this data would be static, thus why the need for Wiki? ... people these days would jump high at anything that smells like web 2.0.

This is going to fail (2, Insightful)

louzer (1006689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563486)

There is every indication that this project will fail. If the wiki is un-censor-able, and it gets really popular, I bet the some non-western covert organization would be the first to pollute it with false information.

Sarbanes-Oxley vs. European Privacy Laws (5, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563502)

This type of anonymous whistle-blower system is mandated by U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act, but is illegal under European privacy laws. SarBox says thou shalt support anonymous informants as a means of preventing fraud, corruption, etc. The EU says thou shalt NOT permit anonymous tipsters because that's how the Nazi's found so many Jews.

It's a real conundrum for multinational companies.

Ep0? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17563764)

up m7 toys. I'm this exploitation,

One document leaked from Wikileak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17563804)

This document has to do with an individual called Hussain Al-Bakkru or Hus as he normally goes by, it's in journal format and has been translated from Arabic-standard to English.


Hus's grand diary.

June 04 2003:

dear diary i feel very lonely i know you like me but i dont know anyone else who like me i have met a wonderful woman of my dream her name is aisa she is very pretty i will talk to you more about her after this interlude ...

i am back and more sleepy now maybe another day i write more?

June 05 2003:

dear diary i feel lonely again i am still thinking about aisa.. one moment please ...

i am back but now i have no energy

June 11 2003:

hello diary have you been lonely how are you today do you want to cam to cam with me i have photos and im 23 cm long and aisa ...

i fell asleep i am sorry diary ill be back

June 17 2003:

today is both good and bad day dairy the bad is because i was taken to police station on friday the 13th and just got back home by the grace of the allah and his prophet i have been blessed and i am now repenting i was forever thinking of aisa when they did this thing to me with a broom i feel much pain when i defecate i will never have a peaceful defecation from now on for the love of allah i wish to have a peaceful backside.

June 20 2003:

today is friday and the pain is gone but the suffering remains i think najeeb the inspector is in love with men and has a special place for me but alas i love aisa and i will be back in a min ...

i sorry i got to sleep


Here ends Hussain Al-Bakkru's diary. He was not been seen since this last entry, his wereabouts are to this day unknown. Inspector Najeeb of Al-Agshi station had no comments regarding journal enteries about him.

Unethical (1)

E++99 (880734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17563812)

I suppose this is founded on the idea that no corporation or government has any right to keep secrets. So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons. And since it's supposedly uncensorable, I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons. I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.

Re:Unethical (1, Insightful)

davesag (140186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564452)

I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.
I, for one, want to know what it is you have against Al Gore that you'd take such such action against him, over the hundreds of millions of others you could have targetted. I mean really, is Al Gore a worse person than George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Anne Coulter or Michael Moore? Or Henry Kissinger? Or the Pope? I figure if you want to start sending crank calls to people there are lots more deserving than big Al who seems like a pretty decent guy to me. I mean he actually did open the way for the internet to blossom [archive.org] , he genuinely cares about the fate of the world [bbc.co.uk] , and he's on the board of Apple [com.com] . How bad can he be? He's [nara.gov] not Donald Rumsfeld [defenselink.mil] after all, he actually comes across as a human being [imdb.com] .

moID down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17563890)

Liability? (1)

musicon (724240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564108)

Even assuming this ever gets off the ground, just how do they plan to survive the nearly infinite number of lawsuits and subpoenas that are sure to follow?

I mean, sure, maybe a few governments will ignore or pretend it doesn't exist, but can you really see one of the DOW 30 companies not try and find out who leaked the document? If anything, it will encourage more companies to adopt the trusted documents / readers / DRM fiasco.

Post AC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17564274)

This site is totally useless. /. has been leaking anonymously for years.

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons...

Can Anyone Trust The Site? (1)

littlewink (996298) | more than 7 years ago | (#17564438)

In government and industry, ethics committees and appointed investigators are usually flunkies of whomever is in power - they are a mechanism to catch leakers and conscientous employees who seek an "acceptable" way to report ethical or criminal violations within an organization. Anyone who turns in evidence to these entities usually has his/her identity revealed soon thereafter and is drummed out of the organization.

How can we know that the site isn't a honey-trap to capture unwitting leakers et al before they go to the press? (Ans. We can't.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?