Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media The Internet

OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks' 538

Posted by timothy
from the one-way-valve dept.
Flixie writes "Swedish newspaper dagens Nyheter reports: '...[S]everal key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks'

Comments Filter:
  • by thehostiles (1659283) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:00PM (#34507948)

    And ten more shall take his place

    • by PhxBlue (562201) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:04PM (#34508002) Homepage Journal
      The new site doesn't appear to have anything to do with Assange's arrest. It's more about a disagreement regarding how to handle leaked information. OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists, whereas WikiLeaks is there to disseminate the information to everyone.
      • by Suki I (1546431)
        Wasn't there some aspect of Assange not playing well with others too? No doubt some of the reports were inaccurate, but there were more than a few.
        • by icebike (68054) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:16PM (#34508156)

          Wasn't there some aspect of Assange not playing well with others too?

          That's what SHE said.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by PhxBlue (562201)

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

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

          • by spynode (1377809) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:48PM (#34508536)
            It's as if you know him personally. Do you have more first hand experience with controversial personalities?
      • by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:18PM (#34508182)

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

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

        • by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:50PM (#34508554)
          Exactly. In an ideal situation, middlemen aren't needed. In practice, those who leak don't have the resources or know-how to give the information directly to the public.

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

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

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

          • by c0lo (1497653)

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

            How is? If somebody tells me anything else but "I'll do my best to stay objective" I'll start doubting that person immediately.

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

            As the ideal is far from possible and you'll always need at least one middle-man to act between you (who want to know) and those who want to withold the information (unless you really choose to take the risk of obtaining the information by yourself), there always be the questions of:
            1. How much you trust the middleman?
            2. are you lucid enough to pick what you can trust and what is

          • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @08:20PM (#34509612)

            The only difference between what you see from Wikileaks and the raw data is that the Wikileaks version has gone through "harm prevention".

            Here's a hypothetical example. The U.S. federal government gets a tip about a crime ring from someone. The government tramples all over the rights of the crime ring - therein is the leak-worthy material. Do you include the name of the person who tipped off the feds? I think there is a point where leaking certain information is irresponsible, especially when it interferes with an individual's (but not a government's) privacy and/or safety.

            WL is, IMO, doing their job in the most responsible way possible - they make efforts to protect the privacy and safety of individuals and prevent any collateral damage.

          • by raddan (519638) * on Thursday December 09, 2010 @08:39PM (#34509806)
            It's not just the leakers who don't have the know-how, it's the consumers. In an ideal situation, people would 1) have the time to read volumes of leaked information, 2) connect the dots, and 3) understand what that means. Since almost no one except journalists meet those criteria, I think, yeah, journalists still have a place in this world.

            There's more information now-- if anything, we need them more. Google has hardly killed librarians. Why should Wikileaks kill journalism?

            There's a HUGE difference between information and understanding.
            • by horza (87255) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:44PM (#34510360) Homepage

              In one film, I don't remember which, the chief editor of the newspaper says to his staff "Our job isn't to break the story first. We're never going to beat the television. Our job is to give the story behind the story."

              A good journalist will always have his place. He's prepared to do the legwork that the armchair pundit isn't, checking facts and talking to people to find their motivations. Here on Slashdot people are quite happy to paste from Wikipedia as 'evidence'. A good journalist will spot an anomaly, and if necessary jump in the car and trawl through paper archives to see if the digital one is actually correct or has been altered.

              Of course there will be bad journalists, like Gizmondo who can't tell the difference between and EveryDNS and EasyDNS, but the good ones are worth their weight in gold. It's the reason people will happily subscribe to the FT and the Economist, yet The Times has died an online death.

              Raw data has become more readily available to the public, but hopefully it will inspire more people to write quality articles as well as add to the armory of those already in the business.

              Phillip.

              • by raddan (519638) *
                It's interesting that you should mention that. We recently had a speaker [iit.edu] from Twitter do a technical talk at our CS department, and he essentially said the same thing. Even online journals are finding it hard to do "breaking news" now. Journalists, he said, should focus on what they are supposed to be good at: analysis. He used the Mumbai attack as an example-- Twitter's "trends" engine picked up the event well before the media had any idea anything had happened, essentially because the platform itself
        • by pz (113803) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:03PM (#34508706) Journal

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

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

          Two simple factors (I'm actually quite surprised that a thinking person wouldn't already realise this): first, not everyone can write, so not all of the material you would want disseminated would be easy to read. Second, journalists do more than just copy, they gather potentially disparate facts, distill them, drop irrelevant cruft, and give the readers the good parts.

          Seriously, have you read all of the thousands of recently leaked cables? Do you have any desire to whatsoever? Personally, I'd rather pay a professional reporter to do that for me, and filter out what is important and what is not. I'll especially pay him if he can write well.

          • by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @08:44PM (#34509870)
            When the raw data is available to everyone, nobody can stop you from paying a professional of your choice to sift through the raw data and summarize it to your liking.

            When the raw data is only accessible to certain professionals who summarize it for the public, then you can't pay a professional of your choice to sift through the data and summarize it for you, because they'll only have the summaries to work with.

          • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Friday December 10, 2010 @01:37AM (#34511538) Homepage Journal

            Wikileaks did just as you asked, released the information to professional reporters.

            Right now those professional reporters are spending 99% of their time on the subject discussing NOT what was in the leaks, but rather calling Assange a terrorist, irresponsible, appearing on TV "news" shows talking about how terrible he is, how he's a criminal, a traitor, calling for his arrest, for wikileaks to be stopped, and in some cases even calling for his death.

            Yeah, those professional reporters - a trustworthy lot.

            • Not in the UK. BBC is approx 1:1 Assange / Leaked material coverage. As Assange has a photograph, you see him more on the news, but actual reporting is about equal for both.
        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Why are journalists a special protected class in your opinion?

          Because it they are given such protection by the Constitution as a check against the government pulling the wool over the eyes of its citizens. This prevents a government-controlled media, and allows for information to spread.

          Would they release information without filtering it?

          Yes, even though they don't have to. That is what responsible journalism is all about.

          What if they were pressured to not release it by a government?

          It has been tried many times, the government is virtually never successful. Only when a real, imminent threat to US citizens lives can be demonstrated can the government take action, and it must go

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by h4rr4r (612664)

            They can and do face legal action for intentionally lying about the facts they are representing.

            This is not true, the courts have ruled they have no such obligation. There was a rather recent case in Florida about FOXnews doing just that.

            • by raddan (519638) *
              Strictly speaking, this is not what the court said. You're referring to the dispute [wikipedia.org] over improper firing of two journalists, Wilson and Akre, that occurred in 2000. You can read the court opinion here [foxbghsuit.com]. The irony here is that the widespread claim that "the courts have ruled that FOX News can lie" is itself disingenuous.

              What the court is saying is: the FCC policy is not a law. The whistleblower statute only defends against breaches of law. Therefore, Akre is not entitled to compensation under the stat
          • Press (Score:5, Informative)

            by Compaqt (1758360) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:36PM (#34509088) Homepage

            The Constitution doesn't mention "journalists". It references freedom of the press:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

            A press is a device for duplicating written matter. So the Constitution is recognizing the right to publish using presses (as opposed to speaking with your voice). Time passes. Huge presses are reduced to small laser printers.

            More time passes. A worldwide network for electronic publishing emerges. Anybody who cares about limits of government would say the Congress does not have the power to limit the ability to use presses (electronic or otherwise).

            And the right of the press isn't limited to any one specially-favored group that calls itself "the" press.

            • Re:Press (Score:4, Funny)

              by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:59PM (#34510828)

              I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet.

              Sometimes this statement is rather more self-evident than other times.

      • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:20PM (#34508206)

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

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

        • by Magic5Ball (188725) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:09PM (#34508774)

          When was the last time that WikiLeaks had a Wiki to which the public could contribute context or analysis?

        • by lennier (44736)

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

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

          So OpenLeaks is to WikiLeaks as Citizendium is to Wikipedia, then? "We want to be democratic... but not TOO democratic. Successful... but not TOO successful. Information the public eagerly wants to know... but not TOO eagerly, because whether it's Pokemon slashfic, maths theorems or state secrets, there are some bits of knowledge mankind needs to be protected from for your own good."

          Hey Larry, how's that project working out for you, anyway?

        • Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kyusaku Natsume (1098) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:35PM (#34510272)

          If this site is staffed by ex-Wikileaks members then Wikileaks is better without them since they didn't understand the point that Wikileaks is not about "leaks" but about accountability. A democracy without accountability is no better than a tyranny and the key to a lack of accountability in a sick democracy is the control of the mass media.

      • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:24PM (#34508252) Homepage Journal
        so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?

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

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

        by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:09PM (#34508770)

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

          And because you release it to everyone, you release it to opposing factions who use the intelligence contained. Well done. That'll help everyone. And it'll do a real wonder for whistleblowers to come.

          Fun thing about Cablegate - it came about because of an increased inter-agency sharing of intel. That's more eyes seeing more information. While the obvious intent is to make intel agencies more effective (something Assange aspires to prevent), but it put information in front of more sets of eyes. After Manning's mismanagement of that opportunity, we now have the knee-jerk reaction of clamping down on that information. Less eyes. Less whistleblowers.

          And of course, plenty of material for politicians to rabble-rouse with.

          • by dbIII (701233) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:02PM (#34510034)
            When people leak stuff it's not about the cool new technology that ends up in some high tech weapon. They leak about people lying, cheating and generally breaking the rules. It's not about releasing information about soldiers killing enemy forces in battle. It's about unaccountable spooks breaking dozens of laws and the charter of their organisations by torturing people to death.
            Now we've had a lot of bullshit where manipulative bastards say that anyone that says anything bad about their own side, true or not, is "giving comfort to the enemy." That's just an excuse to be able to let the dead wood say at their posts without being embarrassed by enormous fuckups. The comfort angle in this case is utter bullshit because it really does not matter if somebody does the equivalent of point at one of these things and say "haha".
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Can we DDOS this Openleaxe as a protest?

      • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:31PM (#34508334) Journal

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

    • by Motard (1553251)

      And ten more shall take his place

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

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

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

    Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.

    • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@nOSpaM.gmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:05PM (#34508024) Homepage
      Wikileaks has credibility; Assange does not. I mean, he told a reporter that he was too busy to talk to them because he "too busy ending two wars." That kind of narcissism is profoundly stupid.
      • by igreaterthanu (1942456) * on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:07PM (#34508058)
        He gets himself on the news and he stays there. What good is a leak site if after the first leak it disappears from the public eye and any remaining data will miraculously disappear along with all the people that work for it who have "accidents"?
        • by icebike (68054)

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

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

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

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

      • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @08:37PM (#34509792)

        That's the attitude that got George W. Bush elected. "This Gore guy really sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and this Bush guy looks confused, but Gore keeps sighing and being an asshole and berating poor Bush. I'm not voting for Gore, I'd never sit down and drink a beer with him!"

        Why is it more important to be likable than credible?

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:11PM (#34508098) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

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

      Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.

      Who will the US Go after I wonder?

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

      • by Suki I (1546431)
        They will go after the one with the ring. Everybody thinks it is magic, but it is just a tracking device.
      • by bky1701 (979071)
        With no public leaders, it is all the easier to paint the organization as some kind of fanatical anarchist sect seeking to overthrow world order. Take a look at media coverage of Anonymous. When it isn't intentionally funny, it is funny in the sad way.
    • by Trufagus (1803250)

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

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

  • Horrible Timing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Haedrian (1676506) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:04PM (#34508014)
    Just as the US government, and a bunch of private companies (perhaps guided by the US government) are attempting to destroy wikileaks?

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

    When its one site, its an anomaly - what's next, a law to prevent similar sites? If they keep popping up like mushrooms, there's going to be less "Please stop letting them get funds" and more "We classify protecting the identity of leakers to be a terrorist act.. bla bla bla"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Well, the strategy of multiplicity works pretty darn well. And laws are already bouncing off the Wikileaks people pretty hard—they're going to be far harder to apply to hundreds of similar leak sites than just one! It's standard guerilla warfare.
      • by hedwards (940851)
        Indeed, this is likely what asymmetric warfare is going to look like in the information age. The US government right now is at best tilting at windmills and at worst encouraging and supporting this sort of thing.

        Probably the best play for the US government would be to shut up and focus on finding and plugging the leaks. Wikileaks is well set up enough that it's going to be more or less impossible to stop them from releasing the information. What's worse for the government is that by attacking Assange the
    • by freedumb2000 (966222) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:19PM (#34508192)
      I disagree, I think it is the perfect time for another institution like Wikileaks. The best defense is attack. Already the U.S. and other governments are starting to show their true face concerning free speech. This is starting to look like a real litmus test. Whatever is in the leaked documents is secondary at this point. Much more important is to see how far governments are willing to surpress anyone that they see as a potential danger to their power structures. And this war is fought pretty much in the open, for everyone to see. Maybe this is going to play out without much drama, maybe not. Interesting times nevertheless.
      • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @08:01PM (#34509400)

        http://comixed.memebase.com/2010/12/08/4-koma-comic-strip-an-issue-of-debate/ [memebase.com]

        When an I Can Has Cheezeburger site explains the entire Obama administration, government view of free speech vs. censorship, and current political climate in 3 panels something is wrong.

        Yeah some details didn't need to be leaked. But most did. The military calls this "collateral damage" and minimizes it compared to the success of hitting a target. Civilians are apparently held to a different standard because we haven't been trained how to properly attack and cover up.

  • coming soon iLeaks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:08PM (#34508062)
    and VisualLeaks, DynamicLeaks, and TeenLeaks (oh wait that one already exists) Seriously, anyone else bothered by the predictability of made up internet words.
  • CIA trick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:11PM (#34508096)

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

  • Protection (Score:4, Insightful)

    by symes (835608) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:13PM (#34508116) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

  • Take Heed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bky1701 (979071) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:14PM (#34508130) Homepage
    People fragmenting away from an organization that has shown it upholds moral law, especially at a time like this, are probably not people you want to be sharing your information with; they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
  • How is this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:16PM (#34508160)

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

  • Double cross? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Albinoman (584294) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:17PM (#34508176)
    The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
  • Sounds good to me (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Spy Handler (822350)
    the *idea* behind wikileaks was good, but Assange is an Ass-hat with an overinflated ego, who needs to go.

    Another site that does what wikileaks does, without Assange, sounds like a good thing.
    • Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by santax (1541065) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:24PM (#34508256)
      Well, his inflated ego is what got wikileaks on the map. I sort of believe we need someone as bold as him.
    • by petsounds (593538) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:41PM (#34509160)

      Assange was originally a programmer; overinflated ego comes with the territory.

      It's easy to armchair quarterback Wikileaks from your computer, isn't it? Assange is taking a very real stand with very real consequences against some very nasty people working in very compromised governments. You need to be a bit insane, a bit self-important, and more than a bit strong on your convictions and courage to have a mindset that enables to think this is a logical idea. You may not like the way Assange operates, but did you see anyone else do it? No? Exactly.

  • Wrong name! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rilister (316428) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:19PM (#34508200)

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

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:26PM (#34508286) Homepage

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

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

  • Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:26PM (#34508288)
    What kind of a misleading summary is that? From TFA:

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

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

  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:32PM (#34508342)

    the more websites will slip through your fingers.

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

    But I guess the issue here is credit. Like the fools at TMZ who want to put their stamp on their "exclusive" video of some starlet picking h
  • by w0mprat (1317953) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:54PM (#34508624)
    I propose a counter-wikileaks website to leak sensitive personal information to Governments and corporates. The idea is you enter all you personal information, brag about your potentially criminal behaviour, as well as spend time on the site interacting socially so the site can establish a pattern of behaviour including what you "like" etc.

    Damn.. someone beat me too it...
  • by rAiNsT0rm (877553) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @07:19PM (#34508894) Homepage

    Here and on Reddit, every single time a story about Wikileaks comes up I always state that as cool as Wikileaks seems it is terribly flawed overall and far too important to leave as it is... every single time I get downvoted/modded troll/whatever and everyone busts out the hate... after this last debacle people have finally opened their damn eyes and I couldn't be happier. The media is broken which is why Wikileaks is even relevant, and we all need to stand up and win the most important war of our lifetime: The War on Information. The other great thing that will come of this is that the media will see all of the potential and thirst for actual news and information and hopefully shift back to what thy should have been doing all along.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...