Openleaks failed relationship

SAGE Reference - OpenLeaks

Items 1 - 35 of 35 The launch failed again. In April , during the Share 2 Conference in Belgrade, Daniel Domscheit-Berg announced that OpenLeaks had set. Openleaks, Brusselsleaks and a new one launched overnight in Australia " technical infrastructure, neutrality and a strong relationship with journalists. Commission is failing to act on something in particular, for instance. OpenLeaks, created by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's former right-hand or slave trader", failing to consult his team on important decisions. Fair, which details the now fractured relationship between The Guardian.

As we say on the website, we are not necessarily expecting outrageous revelations but there is a lot of important information out there — information which might help an NGO explain why the European Commission is failing to act on something in particular, for instance. This isn't necessarily all about media; it's about getting documents out there to help society. That's what is important to us.

In a press release, the company said that the site would "do to trade and commerce what WikiLeaks has done to politics. The problem is there is no way for the average consumer to stay informed about this secrecy. TradeLeaks is here to change that. Customers can now learn the truth about any retailer out there and make more educated decisions with their hard earned money. Rather, we rely on users to assess the merits of all information posted through posting reply comments and queries, and by rating the quality of the information posted.

Of course, this means that someone could post something about their experiences with Kogan as well. We know that TradeLeaks will be judged by how transparently it is administered, so we are committed to the highest level of independence and objectivity. No posts will be removed, unless they are defamatory without fact.

Given that Kogan has been ordered to modify its advertising by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission after accusations of potentially misleading conduct, and has challenged rival retailers to on-air debates, it may be that Tradeleaks will have rather less impact than its siblings.

It is also unclear whether Tradeleaks will be able to withstand the determined efforts of spammers who will seek visibility if posts are unmoderated - and how, if it does, it will cope with Australia's libel laws, which resemble those of the UK and would make Kogan liable if the site can be shown to act as a publisher by editing what appears rather than acting as a simple conduit. I have put lots of patience and discussion into this.

Still, flimsy excuses have led to unbelievabe delays in the handover of the archive. I can no longer believe in his willingness to hand over the unpublished material either. Perhaps he can't surrender the material because he doesn't have it.

Last week he told the weekly magazine Der Freitag: That is exactly the reason for me to suspend my mediation efforts. He told me last Thursday evening that he had to look at each document before handing them over.

It doesn't match up. I have never personally seen the documents. But Assange told me that there are about 3, submissions, some of them with several hundred documents. Domscheit-Berg argues that the confidential material isn't safe with WikiLeaks. I've visited Assange a number of times in England over the last 11 months. There I also saw more than 10 hard-working WikiLeaks employees from around the world. And Assange's mobility is limited by the electronic ankle monitor in any case.

Will Assange file a lawsuit against Domscheit-Berg?

Openleaks? Brusselsleaks? Tradeleaks? The market's getting crowded

For that to happen the material would have to be described in more detail. I don't believe he would do that, out of responsibility to the sources. Unfortunately I don't currently see a platform that can really simultaneously reconcile the responsibility to protect sources with transparency regarding its own structures. For me right now, OpenLeaks is nothing more than a cloud with promises of security.

There's a lot of fluidity in those circles, even though most people don't like to admit it. It's part of the reason why Assange was highly secretive and took such extreme steps for security in the first place. If you were one of those who had trust and access to those documents -- the power to share or even destroy them -- then you could potentially profit from them too, to the limit and degree you are willing to either destroy data or rat your "friends" out.

It wouldn't be that hard to contact the right people If he deleted them either out of fear or for profit, the weight of one of those values exceeded his belief that The Information Wants To Be Free.

New Competition For Wikileaks Shows Up -- Say Hello To OpenLeaks | Techdirt

Assange on the other hand has a vision for a society in which The Information Is Free Which explains his activites and attitude. And makes him a potential candidate for politics. If that dude did delete that data, we again are illustrated with two truisms. Self-interest is a hard master to best.

And you are only as strong as the loyalty of your people. Is there any more detailed information about the Chaos Computer Club's debate that resulted in reinstating Daniel Domscheit-Berg's membership? Did you actually read the article in the main link? For example, a matter of weeks ago he was voted back into the Chaos Computer Club, and Andy Mueller-Maguhn was booted off their board.

These developments indicate that the steady vindication of Domscheit-Berg, in the hacker world at least, is more or less complete. Assange always seemed to have the fervent missionary zeal that showed a true belief in his cause of open transparency. I assumed, like Stallman and other's with that same unbending belief, that he was impossible to work with and most likely an asshole too. But he was always strangely trustworthy when it came to Wikileaks. It isn't a real Metafilter thread until Assange is simultaneously eating babies and kicking puppies.

Couldn't a hypothetical whistleblower just open an anonymous email account and send stuff to journalists? Or perhaps do something more sophisticated involving Dropbox and emailed passwords? Well, this is kind of how Wikileaks started. It started off being "Mainstream media represents the man, they aren't going to publish the leaks that attack their paymasters, so send it to us over at Wikileaks! Remember, way way back in the day, Wikileaks was an actual wiki, where pretty much everything they received went up there, and the public could interpret and comment on it?

Then Assange decided, after some fascinating leaks sat on the site for months with no-one giving a shit about them, that, in fact, leaks needed promotion - hence the "Collateral Murder" video with it's big release, and editorial interpretation. This got Wikileaks in trouble for not being real, unbiased journalists. This is about the point where Wikileaks pulled down their wiki, and instead focused on doing partnerships with "real, respected" media organisations - receiving and collating the documents, then giving, say, The Guardian exclusive first publishing rights.

And now we have Openleaks, which aims to be nothing more but an anonymous conduit to mainstream media organisations.

So it's come full circle. Considering that people risked their careers and, possibly, their lives to get these documents out this alone should make this guy toxic to any whistleblower. He also spread the encrypted diplomatic cable file knowing that the key had leaked, thereby knowingly risking the outing of sources. I wouldn't trust this guy with my grocery list. Domscheit doesn't even have to be a CIA informant or anything that exotic, just be a, well, dumb shit, a useful idiot who has been put forward as the acceptable face of leaking.

Openleaks is set up to be completely useless other than as a conduit for information that the US government wants to be leaked. They merely said that it shouldn't matter at all, and lowered the organization's standards to be more inclusive of dishonest, dishonorable behavior.

His reputation hasn't been mended. There is no honor amongst thieves; the CCC has merely become dishonor-inclusive. We should create an open source server architecture that facilitates leak distribution through Tor hidden services, maybe roughly as follows. Delivery nodes contact the outside world by either sending emails, offering web downloads, or seeding torrents.

9 Signs You're In A BAD Relationship - Is Your Relationship Going To Fail?

Repeater nodes anonymously pass data through the network until delivery with leaker programmed delays, like an asynchronous Tor.

Repeater nodes are capable of subdividing messages using a secret sharing algorithm. Leaks are injected by creating a temporary repeater node.

WikiLeaks rival goes live as editors turn on Assange

All nodes communicate using Tor hidden services because repeater nodes need some anonymity to hold data. A small leak would simply be an email subdivided into multiple parts using secret sharing. A large leaks would consist of any encrypted download or torrent and an email directing the recipient to the download or torrent and providing the decryption key. A proof-of-work type system could prevent the system from being used for spam. From a legal standpoint, I would not pick a Western Hemisphere nation.

I would have picked Russia. Uh, didn't Assange accept stolen data in the first place? Didn't Domscheit write the Wikileaks code and Assange take it and all the credit? Did you even read the article linked here? I'm happy that markkraft clarified that Domscheit-Berg's reputation has not mended after all, that's extremely clarifying. There is no question that the world need massively more transparency, whether through legislation or leaks, as well as what Assange calls "scientific journalism".

We've learned an awful lot from wikileaks about making that happen, certainly enough that an attentive leaker can maximize their damage without going through any organization. That's why I posed it as a question, because I read elsewhere that Domscheit had written the code.