Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications The Media News

WikiLeaks Insiders Resign 210

Posted by Soulskill
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
Americano writes "Wired reports that at least six WikiLeaks insiders, including Daniel Domscheit-Berg, WikiLeaks' spokesman in Germany, have resigned in the past few weeks. Those who have spoken with Wired cite differences and disputes with Julian Assange, and his autocratic leadership style, as the motivation for their departure. From the article: 'Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers — far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of US collaborators and informants in Iraq.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Insiders Resign

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @07:26AM (#33721186)

    ...Wired, known for its constant barrage against wikileaks.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @09:38AM (#33722078) Homepage

      So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.

      Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.

      Right?

      I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by DJLuc1d (1010987)
        Why is this marked troll ? He is spot on. These people left because of an egomaniac in charge - which by all accounts, Assange is just that. Just because wikileaks provides a overall needed service, doesn't mean that the people in charge are above reproach.
    • In other (completely unrelated) news, Wired also reports that an "unspecified anonymous whistle blower" has revealed to the press, that a vast corpus of proofs and other material has been given by anonymous sources to the Swedish justice, proving irrevocably and beyond any doubt that in fact, Julian Assange is an evil Pedo-Terrorist Pirate.
      The anonymous whistle blower insists that the source of the material has absolutely nothing to do with three-lettered US agencies. And it's completely coincidental if the

  • Oh really (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RMH101 (636144) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @07:35AM (#33721204)
    My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @07:48AM (#33721234)
      Yes, the CIA has infiltrated WikiLeaks. Their agent is destroying the organization from the inside by posing as an attention-hungry egomaniac with an autocratic leadership style.
    • Re:Oh really (Score:5, Insightful)

      by epiphani (254981) <epiphani.dal@net> on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @07:53AM (#33721244)

      I doubt it. At this point it would appear the governments of the world don't need to do anything to deal with wikileaks - they simply need to wait.

      Something like this is _very_ delicate. If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

      • Re:Oh really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by inKubus (199753) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @10:56AM (#33723378) Homepage Journal

        Actually, this is probably wikileaks decentralizing. These guys aren't idiots, there's quite a few PhDs and other savants on the team.

        It rose from pretty much nothing, just a domain name. It can rise again as governmentleaks.com, etc. That's the internet. The site is too high profile now to be below the radar of politics. Instead they will release via bittorrent.

        It's sad that the media still isn't doing their job and instead acting as shills to tarnish wikileaks. They are being used by the spin doctors. The media response is predictable. They could either go "why didn't we do that" or they can go "we would never do that, we're too professional". Which is the problem--this idea that educated journalism just rehashes what everyone else and the government is saying.

        But when you look back in history you see the truely groundbreaking stories that really changed things (like tobacco, watergate, etc) were almost snuffed out by national security and governmental interference, put the reporters at risk of jail, and possibly even assassination attempts.

        Yet they prevailed because the printing press enables them to copy their report and send to everyone and there's no way people can call it back. Now, obviously this great power requires responsibility, but in a case where the information is really telling about a war that they are asking us to vote for each year--telling in that it shows the government has lied to us to keep us voting for the war--I think that should come out. If soldiers should die because of the information release, remember who sent them over there to begin with. If they were safely at home it wouldn't be a problem now would it? Furthermore, if the information release leads to the war ending sooner, what about all the lives that will be saved?

        Thus it's a bullshit ad-homium argument. "What about the troops?!" I can't believe we're so ignorant in this country that we believe we can have a war where no one dies except the enemy. And I have lots of friends in the military in various capacities, and none of them want to die, and most of them don't want to be there but they also know that it's their job. But the majority of them would give their life to end the war right now and bring all the rest home. I guarantee that.

        So, wikileaks needs to decide if this is information that will help end the war, and cause political support for it to buckle in the US or not.

        Now my little rant against: I, for one, want to know if I've been lied to. They are spending OUR MONEY (and our kids) on the war and they are asking for me to vote on it again. I want my vote to be based on the most true facts possible.

      • >>>If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

        I found the following interview with the Wikileaks founder interesting. In it the host (Judge Andrew Napolitano) says during the Veitnam era the government tried to sue the newspaper for publishing classified info, but the Supreme Court found them to be protected by the "free press" clause of the Constitution. Probably the same is true for Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Google, and other publishers. (shrug) You can make you

        • Interesting piece. Napolitano is the only host on Fox that I think has the balls to call out the Republicans when they are wring.

          Probably the same is true for Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Google, and other publishers. (shrug) You can make your own judgment.

          Well, no we can't. I mean, we can make our own judgment, but it will have *zero* impact on what happens in this situation. It's the judgment of the CIA, the Pentagon, etc, that will determine how this plays out. In the long run, the best we can hope for is t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by c6gunner (950153)

      My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on".

      That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fictionpuss (1136565)

        This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities, and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function.

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities ...

          We have? Example, please?

          and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function

          Oh, I see. More paranoia. NM then.

          • This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities ...

            We have? Example, please?

            Sure [telegraph.co.uk]

            and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function

            Oh, I see. More paranoia. NM then.

            There is evidence for that, too [v3.co.uk].

            But judging from your condescending tone, I don't expect fact to sway your opinion, so please continue.

            • by c6gunner (950153)

              Sure [telegraph.co.uk]

              Misleading headline is misleading. Next time, RTFA. However, even if we stick with just the title, it's a big strech to go from "evidence suggests" to "OMFG DEY CUVERED UP STUFF!!!!".

              So ... once again ... example?

              There is evidence for that, too [v3.co.uk].

              Again, I think your inability to get past the title/subtitle is a serious problem. Nothing in that article suggests that the US government is looking to discredit wikilieaks, let alone that they have actually done so; it only speaks about taking legal action against those who leak classified inf

              • Misleading headline is misleading. Next time, RTFA. However, even if we stick with just the title, it's a big strech to go from "evidence suggests" to "OMFG DEY CUVERED UP STUFF!!!!".

                So ... once again ... example?

                I'm sure that you're not as ignorant of this event as your sarcasm suggests - they refused a FOIA request to release the video on grounds of political expediency.

                That's a cover up.

                Is it Watergate? No. It's worse. Innocent people were murdered.

                Again, I think your inability to get past the title/subtitle is a serious problem. Nothing in that article suggests that the US government is looking to discredit wikilieaks, let alone that they have actually done so; it only speaks about taking legal action against those who leak classified information. And if the only complaint you can come up with is that they're charging people who violate the terms of their contract and break the law ... well, don't expect to be taken seriously.

                Paranoia and poor comprehension abilities are a horrible mix. You'd fit right in with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

                The military report described in that article identifies Wikileaks as an operational threat, and describes several methods which could be used to "damage or destroy" the trust and reputation of Wikileaks.

                That report is two years old and the military have been using

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dkleinsc (563838)

        When an organization has been publicly demonized by a government, it's hard to avoid thinking that if it falls apart, it's due to the actions of that government.

        One piece of why this explanation may be BS: If these volunteers wanted to continue working for the cause Wikileaks represents, but without Assange, they could fairly easily set up their own servers, see if Assange is interested in releasing the Wikileaks data to them, and even if not set up a forked project. If they're worried that it's become too

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Americano (920576)

          Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here [spiegel.de].

          SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

          Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

      • Short memory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @09:02AM (#33721494)

        That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy.

        It was only about two months ago that people in government were demanding his head. Reacting to this event may well be unfounded paranoia but that does not change that powerful people do want to get him. Now what should happen is that it should stop at the noise of unprofessional weasels demanding his head, but it may go furthur and somebody may be sent on the pointless useless and deplorable task of stirring up trouble from him to "teach him a lesson". It would be as unprofessional as outing a CIA agent because her husband pointed out a blatant and stupid lie, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

      • by Duradin (1261418)

        'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by RobotRunAmok (595286)

          'round these here parts if you ain't paranoid, you're sheeple. You don't want to be sheeple, do ya?

          uh, no. Especially not 'round those there parts. I know what happens to sheeple 'round those there parts...

      • That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.

        Are you kidding?!? The psychiatric organization is the worst of them all! They're the ones at the forefront of trying to take away my tinfoil hat to establish a new world order!

        Seriously though. There -are- conspiracies to shut down wikileaks. Not really that shadowy though: like many conspiracies that are real and not just paranoia, they're much less secretive than the imagined conspiracies. The actors aren't concealing their dislike of wikileaks.

        No one is accusing anyone of plotting literal assassina

      • Reminds me of this guy I knew who was perpetually brain-torched on marijuana. He had these wild delusions of how the illuminati, free masons and skull and bones were planning to take over America. I think the pot use was a side effect of his mental condition.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CasperIV (1013029)
      That would make for a great conspiricy theory, but the my guess is that Julian Assange is probably just an ego maniac douche bag, who sucks to work with. Reality is usually far less interesting than fiction, and I can almost guarantee most people working at wikileaks were doing so because of moral reasons, which conflict with Assange's money making goals.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044)

      Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic is so abhorrent to you that you first reaction is that the US government got to them.

      This is the worst kind of hero worship. If you keep this up there can only be two results.
      1. I life of mindless devotion to Assange.
      2. Deep depression when you finally find out the Assange isn't perfect.
      I suggest you read the story first. Even if you think Assange is right then it comes down to a simple battle of egos which Assange as a leader didn't handle correctly IMHO. And that

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by digitig (1056110)

        Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic

        No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him. Now, it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head, but it's a slightly more complex idea than yours.

        • by LWATCDR (28044)

          Not really. As the publicity and mindless fandom increases so will narcissism. Also people can and do get feed up with dealing with a jerk after a while. I suggest you read the story.
          Slightly more complex? Not really. A lot more paranoid? Yes.

    • by bmacs27 (1314285)
      You've sure got an imagination!
    • Do you also hold the Kennedys responsible for your favorite band never having a hit song?

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @07:47AM (#33721230) Homepage

    If there's one thing Freedom Fighters can't stand more than the Romans^W Military Industrial Complex, it's each others' company.

    Note: this is +1 Sadly Insightful, not Funny.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So I ask what is MS doing supporting wikileaks? An organization that released MS's own disclosure policies for xboxlive and other services.

    If MS supports wikileaks how is that not a security violation and a conflict of interest?

    Furthermore, Daniel's wife is in a POLITICAL ROLE for microsoft, does anyone question what this could have to do about the the leaks of the EU's OSS initiative which Microsoft et al. probably ran off of the rails?

    There are legitimate questions about Daniel's role in Microsoft's EU pr

    • A picture and article on the Anke and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at end of this interview [cryptome.org]
      • More on Domscheit-Bergs role in leaking details of the EU's OSS initiative [techrights.org] to wikileaks (to the detriment of OSS and Microsofts gain. Probably to the Domscheit-Bergs financial gain as well, I would imagine...
    • by lxs (131946)

      She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!

      Or perhaps people aren't always blind slaves to the corporations they or their family members work for and personal motivation can be both varied and complex.

  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:02AM (#33721260) Journal

    As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin), I find this type of thing fascinating.

    This type of situation happens a lot in small business. Most successful smal businesses face failure when they make the hurdle to medium-sized businesses. They either end up folding,or going back to a smaller company.

    To get a company up and running requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling. To successfully grow you need a staff around you that shares in the power and is trusted to make decisions. The original personality type fails in this regard. Either the person in charge must change his leadership style or the person in charge must change (i.e. get rid of him).

    So from the 50.000 foot view, it seems like we have this situation at wikileaks. This is a shame as I think this type of organization can truly be a benefit to freedom and democracy.

    • As I reread my post, the "requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling" is not stricly true. However, the vast majority of small businesses that do not fail and actually grow tent to br run by these personality types. There are cases, of course, of other types. I only wanted to point out that WikiLeaks appears to fall into this majority case.

    • As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin),

      What, did you find your "handjobs in the YMCA parking lot" enterprise left you with too much self-respect?

      Sorry, sorry... but you DID invite it. ;)

      • :)

        Actually, a decade as a developer. Some projects made the whole YMCA parking lot seem like a step up :) It is fun to actually be in management and get to have an impact on the culture rather than be the victim of it.

    • by lxs (131946)

      So you're saying that their little rock band has had their first number one, and the lead singer and the bassist struggle with artistic differences? Sounds plausible to me. Besides, Julian gets all the groupies.

  • Flameware (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:09AM (#33721268)
    Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below), it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap [newsweek.com]. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question. You'd be hard pressed not to fire an employee like that, in any organization. I guess the bags of money [nytimes.com] from the WWR [thedailybeast.com] is finally beginning to pay off dividends [arabcrunch.com].

    Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him." Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me? Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from? Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you? Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already. Domscheit-Berg: what messages? Domscheit-Berg: and what three people? Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says Assange: Was this you? Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other Assange: who, exactly? Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what? Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue? Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there Assange: those are the only persons? Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007 Assange: how many people at the club? Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents Assange: How many people at the club? Assange: In what venue? Domscheit-Berg: in private chats Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answe

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      For the love of God, <p> tags!!!(10+1)
      • Re:Flameware (Score:5, Informative)

        by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @09:17AM (#33721698) Journal

        Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are

        Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

        Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."

        Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

        Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

        Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

        Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

        Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

        Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

        Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

        Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.

        Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

        Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

        Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

        Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

        Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

        Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

        Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

        Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

        Assange: Was this you?

        Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

        Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

        Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

        Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

        Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

        Assange: who, exactly?

        Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

        Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

        Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

        Assange: those are the only persons?

        Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

        Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

        Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

        Assange: how many people at the club?

        Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

        Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

        Assange: How many people at the club?

        Assange: In what venue?

        Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

        Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

        Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

        Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

        Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

        Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

        Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

        Domscheit-Berg: go figure

        Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

        Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

        Domscheit-Ber

        • by molnarcs (675885)
          That's very interesting - it seems to me that Assange is the right person for the kind of job he does. He's like a vulcan in that chatlog, refuses to get into any emotional exchange. In fact that's not really a flamewar, because Assange avoids completely a who said what/did what kind of back and forth bickering. Instead, his only concern is the leak itself: how many people and who exactly heard the information. Domscheit-Berg comes off as a typical forum prick, likening Assange to a slave trader, king, empe
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Instead, his only concern is the leak itself

            Which is deliciously ironic... apparently the seekers of transparency, themselves, need not be transparent. Nice.

            Meanwhile, Assange's paranoid need to root out this defector is clearly preventing wikileaks from actually doing the job they exist to do, as evidenced by that very transcript.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by jollyreaper (513215)

              Which is deliciously ironic... apparently the seekers of transparency, themselves, need not be transparent. Nice.

              Meanwhile, Assange's paranoid need to root out this defector is clearly preventing wikileaks from actually doing the job they exist to do, as evidenced by that very transcript.

              If you're putting together an army to fight for freedom and liberty, you can't run it like a democracy. There's a reason why decisive leadership is important in times of crisis. Interesting bit of history, many pirate crews operated under a form of limited democracy. They'd elect captains. Once in battle, the man's orders were obeyed as if from God. After the battle, they could decide if they had faith in him.

              An operation like Wikileaks has to present a cohesive, united front. They can have all the internal

              • by boxwood (1742976)

                yeah you can have an honest internal discussion and King Julian suspends you on the spot if you give any criticism.

                And apparently everyone is jumping ship.... so yeah Julian's management style sucks.

              • by Abcd1234 (188840)

                An operation like Wikileaks has to present a cohesive, united front. They can have all the internal debates they want but they can't appear to be bickering and disunited in public.

                Why? Because you say so?

                Please.

                WikiLeaks is an interesting organization, but they aren't an army. Frankly, I'm baffled you even made that comparison...

              • Re:Flameware (Score:4, Informative)

                by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @12:57PM (#33725436)

                If you're putting together an army to fight for freedom and liberty, you can't run it like a democracy. There's a reason why decisive leadership is important in times of crisis.

                I'm sorry, are you arguing in favor of Assange or President Bush serving a third term to continue the fight terrorists in Afghanistan? The rhetoric has suddenly become indistinguishable.

              • by idontgno (624372)

                Excellent trollage. Wow. That has the absolute ring of sincerely-held and honestly-stated opinion, while simultaneously being so completely out there that it has to attract massive energetic flamage.

                Simply brilliant.

                WTF, you're serious?

                My bad.

          • Re:Flameware (Score:5, Insightful)

            by boxwood (1742976) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @11:37AM (#33724036)

            were you reading the same chatlog?

            All Assange was saying was basically "who dares speak against ME??" And the other guy was just trying to get some work done. Assange refused to give the guy the answers he needed to get his work done.

            He was acting like a douche and the other guy got pissed off and told him he was a douche. And then Assange proves it by unilaterally suspending the guy.

            Face it Assange is a douchebag, and he's going to bring down wikileaks.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Indeed; I can't be bothered reading a mess like that. Hell, he doesn't even need a <p> tag, all he has to do is select "Plain Old Text" and hit "enter" after every line.

        If he can't be bothered to make his comment readable, I can't be bothered to read it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840)

      Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below

      Dude, that's not all they're basing it on. There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization. If this were an isolated incident with a single individual, I might believe you, but it's clear there's far more to it than this.

    • Re:Flameware (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Americano (920576) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @09:51AM (#33722314)

      it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap

      Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."

      For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.

      You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.

    • Huh what?

      it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question.

      From the interview:

      Assange: Was this you?
      Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

      Very invasive, indeed. What a weasel.

  • assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him

    he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man

    this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind

  • by smitty777 (1612557) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:48AM (#33721366) Journal

    FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rhizome (115711)

      FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

      Which is when Domscheit-Berg tries to change the subject, gets all pissy and starts whining about how nobody likes Assange.

      You know, FTA...

  • Sounds like (Score:3, Funny)

    by KnownIssues (1612961) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:52AM (#33721404)
    Sounds like WikiLeaks is leaking.
  • by Millennium (2451) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:57AM (#33721446) Homepage

    The idea behind Wikileaks is a good one, but Assange has an agenda (as the Collateral Murder site clearly showed). I hope these people are heading off to form their own organization, with perhaps something closer to neutrality.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Good luck staying neutral when it takes more than one year to dig around one facet of truth. Someone digging info about how USA wage a war, will find facts that accuse USA of wrongdoings. Someone who digs around Hezbollah will find Hezbollah's wrongdoings, someone who digs around Tsahal, will find Tsahal's wrongdoings. Neutrality comes from the variety of news source. But you can't ask to a journalist that finds a scoop about one fact, to release it only accompagnied by a scoop about a blancing fact that gi
      • by cdrguru (88047)

        Everyone knows that Hizbollah is pure, true and good and it is only Israel that is evil.

        If it where any other way we would hear about it on CNN.

        See, it is clear that there is no point to trying to expose any wrongdoings of Hizbollah. Just as it is clear that there is plenty of wrongdoing to find in anything the US does. What possible good could a country do that has created McDonald's?

  • by Lehk228 (705449) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @08:58AM (#33721458) Journal
    tell me again how leaking to wiki leaks is safer than just firing up a proxy chain / tor and posting to 4chan?
  • Not surprised. (Score:2, Informative)

    by MaWeiTao (908546)

    Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.

    One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.

    I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to

  • by Theovon (109752) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @09:42AM (#33722168)

    The US government has too many secrets. Certainly, they need SOME, otherwise they can't have a tactical advantage over enemies. But there's stuff decades old that just should not be closed up in some government filing cabinet. I think the excessive government secrecy, cover-ups for mistakes, and all sorts of other crud need to be blown wide open by those who care more for the American people than for their government (which should be for the people, by the people, of the people, etc.).

    The problem currently is that those people doing the blowing-open appear to be kindof shallow on ethics themselves. Assange comes across to me as a serious ass-hat who get's a kick out of doing this stuff more because it's "naughty" than because he really cares about freedom of information. Of course, this impression, along with the sexual misconduct charges, could all be the result of Pentagon brainwashing. But if you're going to take the "moral high ground" against government secrecy, you have to be above reproach, and you have to use tactics much less douchy than the ones we've been seeing, what with the "I'm going to release this stuff in two weeks, so I can get lots of personal attention, up the suspense, etc. Maybe I'll be arrested for not having yet released anything, which will be a high profile embarrassment for the government. Strisand Effect."

    Wikileaks seems to be more about media whoring than truly doing good things.

    • Unfortunately if it wasn't like that I doubt we'd get any leaks and secrets would just stay secrets.
      That "agenda", whoring, whatever you wanna call it is the nerve that push them hard enough to actually do something about it.

      Fully moral, ethical people cannot convey such tasks because they'll be blocked by their own ethics pretty quickly, and have only low scale events no one will get informed about.

      Ideally, it takes a smart - bad - guy to convey the task in the best way possible. The bad guy has his agenda

    • by jd (1658)

      I'm unclear about the need for secrets. If they assume that said information is secret and it has actually been obtained by an enemy, then they're vulnerable. (See: Germany and Japan, after codebreakers successfully broke their secure lines of communication.) On the other hand, if they don't assume that said information is secret, then it doesn't matter whether it is actually secret or published. The third option, of them assuming it is secret and it being secret is something that a government can never pro

  • Fork already! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordFolken (731855) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @10:11AM (#33722694)
    Just fork the whole thing. Build a new org and run it from there. 1. The world needs more whistle blower sites. Redundancy is key. 2. The service is too valuable to fail because of any number of persons. just my 2 cents.
  • redacted? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Snodgrass (446409) on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @10:56AM (#33723372) Homepage

    Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

    And here I thought that no secrets were worth keeping.

  • on the head of a pin. In two years or so, Wikileaks will either not exist, or no one will be able to access it - especially US citizens. The Internet was a grand, glorious accident, but unfettered information threatens the Three Pillars: Government, Corporation, and Religion. Oh, there will be something like the Internet that will be made available, but the P in ISP will stand for Panopticon - and that right soon.

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions

Working...