Wikileaks — Anonymous Whistle-Blowing

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."

uncensorable, etc WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:uncensorable, etc WTF?

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:

[shutdown -p now]

> 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. The world won't, the existing legal system will. Not like it's not broken as it is, anyway, so who cares?

Trade secrets

[StarKruzr]

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.

Re:

[jbdigriz]

Well, you're right, talk is cheap, and they are promsing an awful lot. It's certainly technically concievable what they propose. but whether they have an actual working system yet that is ready for prime time, I dunno, I haven't seen it. They are going to have to produce something demostrable RSN as a result of the premature publicity, but it's not a scam. They've been soliciting server operators for at least 3-4 years now, and at that time openly under some of their own names, though the exact nature of th

Re:Suck it, fascist AC

[drinkypoo]

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.

abuse of moderation

[drinkypoo]

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 peopl

Re:abuse of moderation

[Columcille]

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

[drinkypoo]

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:

[jacksonj04]

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 coward

Re:

[NoTheory]

This just isn't true. History may be written by the victors, but that has no bearing on truth. The Soviet Union spent decades rewriting history but once it collapsed people started uncovering the truth again. You can bury the truth, but you can't make it up. Same thing's happening to Bush and the neo-con spin machine. They're coming apart at the seams, and there's too much truth for the spin machines to bury.

2 truths

[drDugan]

remember - there are 2 different kinds of truth: everyday truth and absolute truth

everyday truth is local to the facts at hand, and basically means "consistency". With the information that you have now (and believe), each fact is (everyday) true if it is consistent with the other facts you have. Unfortunately, this creates a catch-22, because you are never really sure of the other facts either and they are true. The only remedy for the catch-22 is to avoid isolation.

absolute truth is just that - validit

Re:

[l0cust]

As noble that sentiment is, it is not correct unless you assume that there is some Truth "out there" irrespective of whether we know it or not. Truth is what you think is true. Period. If people(/state/media/"whatever forces & circumstances you fancy") can make you believe something then it becomes the truth. Who is to say that those new "facts" uncovered after the collapse of Soviet Union are The Truth? Do YOU actually know what happened in WW2? Do YOU know what goes on in your country? Do YOU know wha

Re:abuse of moderation

[mwlewis]

You're blaming the messenger.

No, you're misinterpreting the messenger. Remember, those allegations were false, yet there were riots about them, and people were killed. He was basically saying that you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theater. And how many of those people who said things that resulted in those people being killed are in Gitmo? Please remove the tinfoil and join us in the real world.

It may not have been a troll, but it was pretty dumb.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

No, you're misinterpreting the messenger. Remember, those allegations were false, yet there were riots about them, and people were killed.

Uh, who said the allegations were false? Allegations of abuse at gitmo are nothing new. You really want to take their word that there was no such abuse, when they have admitted to carrying out various other forms of abuse? When the whole point of gitmo is that it's a prison that they keep people in when they want to deny them their rights?

Step AWAY from the governm

Re:

[mwlewis]

Which rights are those that they've been denied? It seems to me that we've given them rights that they didn't necessarily have. You act like we're throwing people in Gitmo for writing letters to the editor at the NYT:

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.

Please let us into your world by at least explaining this statement (with some kind of back up besides cries of sheeple). I can think of a few others around the world whe

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Please let us into your world by at least explaining this statement (with some kind of back up besides cries of sheeple). I can think of a few others around the world where this isn't true, but it sure doesn't fit the USA.

Well, it ain't exactly gitmo. [bbc.co.uk] But while once may be a conincidence, twice - Kabul and Baghdad plus certain comments [bbc.co.uk] and it really doesn't look very good.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

No, these were the (false) allegations about US soldiers desecrating the Koran.

The allegations have repeatedly been confirmed by sources more reliable than the US government, which frankly is just about everyone.

The fact that the US government claims that such allegations are incorrect doesn't make them so.

The fact that you blindly believe what the government tells you proves that you are either a shill or a sheep. Either way, I refuse to be a sheep to be shorn.

Re:

[Columcille]

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.

I'm saying journalists need to make sure the abuses are real. As I recall alegations were made about the Quran being flushed down the toilet at Gitmo. Riots broke out over those reports. As I recall the reports were later proved to be false. Erroneous reporting led to riots. Those journalists should have been a bit more careful rather than rushing off to what t

Re:

[drinkypoo]

As I recall the reports were later proved to be false.

Okay, you and all the other people saying this are idiots. Plain and simple.

Explain to me how you prove that no Korans were flushed down the toilets at Gitmo.

What do you propose, that they inspected the sewage effluent from gitmo to see if there were any tiny particles that could have come from a Koran? Perhaps you are suggesting that the US Government, which is currently holding people in violation of their rights, which has in the past litera

Re:

[Columcille]

Explain to me how you prove that no Korans were flushed down the toilets at Gitmo.

First, because I trust the word of my government much more than the word of terrorists and their lawyers. I don't recall the specific evidence given to show that the accusations were false, but I remember finding it convincing enough.

I don't even know what to say except that you'll be one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

I wouldn't be the first to give my life for my country.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

First, because I trust the word of my government much more than the word of terrorists and their lawyers.

Uh no. That's alleged terrorists. They hold people at gitmo so they don't have to give them a trial. You don't even know that these people ARE terrorists. There was recently an article in the BBC about four British nationals kidnapped by the US government and taken to gitmo, released many years later, and now denied passports in the UK even though there was never any evidence that they were terrorist

Re:Suck it, fascist AC

[Columcille]

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:

[iminplaya]

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:

[Malenfrant]

Although I understand where you're coming from with this, and I strongly disagree with you being modded flamebait for it, the very fact that we can have this discussion shows that, although it's been curtailed somewhat and our freedoms are being steadily eroded, we do still posess the right to free speech, and those parts of the media that aren't owned by the financiers of our governments are still free, and I regularly read of abuses by the UK and US governments in the UK press.
The fact th

Better Information

[Roofus]

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]

Let me get this straight

[Kadin2048]

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

Re:Where is the wiki?

[Roofus]

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?

[kharchenko]

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:

[kasperd]

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 ha

alternate names....

[User 956]

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!

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

One word was missing - verifiable

[drGreg]

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

Re:One word was missing - verifiable

[eln]

provide a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories

That's exactly what they want you to think.

Re:

[CommunistHamster]

Let us hope that this never happens to the internet.

And slander

[coyote-san]

Don't forget slander. Uncovering real abuse is important, but at what cost? Some of it is laughable, but a lot of it will be taken at face value by people with little net savvy but real power to hire and fire, etc. With "untraceable, uncensorable" content you can never remove the lies no matter how throughly they've been proven to be false and malicious. "Fight bad speech with good speech" is a good argument against prior censorship, but nobody would say it's a good idea once said speech has been found

Re:One word was missing - verifiable

[s20451]

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:

[nautical9]

"Nobody believes the official spokesman... but everybody trusts an unidentified source."
- Ron Nessen [wikipedia.org] (circa 1980's)

OT III

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

This is going to get ugly pretty fast.

[Noryungi]

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.

Important!!! This isn't Wikipedia

[Teancum]

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:

[smoker2]

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:

[Kesh]

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

Um, did you even read the clip from the website posted at the top of this page?

"Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable version of Wikipedia..."

Emphasis mine.

Re:

[Teancum]

Thanks for pointing this out. I was not implying that the term "wiki" was somehow a protected trademark (Ward Cunningham anybody?), even though the Wikimedia Foundation seems to feel that they own that particular trademark from time to time.

I've seen literally hundreds of these proposals posted on Foundation-l, including two this month alone, and a whole page of them on the Meta wiki. Every once in a blue moon one comes along that is a really outstanding idea, but that is a rare idea. This is one of thos

Re:

[Teancum]

It is right out of their FAQ that they intend to use Wikipedia for the delivery of this content. Or that they intend to "mirror" Wikipedia.

Frankly, I don't even see where the word "wiki" comes in for this project, as they aren't even going to be using HTML servers at all, but rather intend to use Freenet or something similar. Good luck! They are going to need it if they choose Freenet as the underlying technology. That is good for about 1000 pages total, if they are very, very lucky. There is no way yo

Re:

[FooBarWidget]

Wikipedia already has a credibility problem, but this?

It's funny how Slashdotters always say that you can't trust Wikipedia, yet more and more people actually use Wikipedia regardless of all the complaints.

Are you willing to host ZyprexaKills.tar.gz?

[dan dan the dna man]

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

Re:

[Psionicist]

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

Re:

[dan dan the dna man]

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

Baloney

[earnest murderer]

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

[ms1234]

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

Re:

[earnest murderer]

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

Re:Baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I really, really hope that you're joking.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

OK...

[KZigurs]

Show me the money. links.
something that would convince me.

Re:

[Kadin2048]

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 sha

Re:

[CmdrGravy]

Exactly, I'm certainly going to spend the next couple of months writing "leaked" documents about all the activity going on in Area 51 the goverment doesn't want you to know about, how Tony Blair orders the whipping of African children which he has recorded and sent to him to watch at dinner parties and how Diana was in fact a thick overprivelidged whinger who only achieved fame by marrying a Prince.

Re:

[Vitriol+Angst]

Hey, as long as you are trying to discredit the 9/11 Conspiracy, please add "bigfoot".

We all know that the moon lander was 10x over budget because it was made by a shell corporation owned by the Kennedy's. They also told the FBI not to investigate any moon lander financing. Then America spent $500 Billion to invade Mars, as they were definitely the culprits for the Attempt on Apollo 13. This is all very reasonable activity, and is usually in these sorts of situations -- however unique they are. The extra mo

Oops!

[RobertB-DC]

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...

[TheSHAD0W]

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

Anonymity Networks

[delirium of disorder]

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:

[Enoxice]

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:

[Jerf]

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

[OfficialReverendStev]

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

Re:

[Bueller_007]

May I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "irony", there's nothing "ironic" about it at all.

Ironic: happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this

What's unexpected about the existence of a site that publicizes leaks getting leaked? Nothing. Obviously, the people who are interested in such a site are interested in leaking information, and its' existence won't remain secret for long.

It's about as ironic as a news agency like CNN getting ment

Re:

[Bueller_007]

Did you actually read the Wiktionary link you posted? If not, let me paste it here for you.

1. A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally
2. Colloq. The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.
3. Colloq. An unfortunate and coincidental turn of events that could have been avoided had all parties involve

Fun!

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

Spamy

[The Z Master]

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

[ILuvRamen]

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:

[balsy2001]

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:

[balsy2001]

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

Re:2 big problems = 2 sides

[symbolic]

Don't forget - Even if a document exposes something that wasn't meant for public consumption, those who *want* to sue will have to think this option through very carefully - once a suit is initiated, everything becomes public record.

Note

[chazzf]

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 t

One Word

[Penguinshit]

HONEYPOT

Re:

[jonnythan]

LOL

That's actually quite an interesting theory.

Why only US 'unfriendlyish' governments?

[iwein]

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)

Leaks

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

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

So it was leaked? Right :->

In Russia...

[mwpierce]

Wikileak is sent documents about you!

Could be fun

[RichPowers]

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:

[doomy]

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

How Anonymous is Anonymous

[gurps_npc]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[dave420]

If you read the page, you'd see they are suggesting using Tor. Also, the wiki is not for editing of the documents, but discussing them. Again, if you'd read the article, all of this is made painfully obvious.

Sarbanes-Oxley vs. European Privacy Laws

[G4from128k]

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.

ADL to the rescue

[iendedi]

The EU says thou shalt NOT permit anonymous tipsters because that's how the Nazi's found so many Jews.

Because everyone knows that whistle-blowing, especially anonymous whistle-blowing, is antisemitic

Re:

[G4from128k]

Sorry for the late reply. I heard this at a legal conference on data protection/IP issues.

You can find out more at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1 1 52176726157 [law.com]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anonymous+whi stleblower+EU&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Unethical

[E++99]

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:

[davesag]

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 wh

Re:

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

The Pope?

I mean, there are valid reasons to hate the Roman Catholic Church (I don't subscribe to them -- I attend Catholic services -- but I can certainly understand them and I certainly think the Catholic Church is still doing quite a few things wrong). But the Pope personally? Do you really think he has that much power? There's a culture of powerful subordinates that are going to respect him as their spiritual father but not as their boss, and I'd blame them for the misdoings of the Vatican, not Mr. Ratzi

Re:

[theLOUDroom]

But the Pope personally? Do you really think he has that much power? There's a culture of powerful subordinates that are going to respect him as their spiritual father but not as their boss, and I'd blame them for the misdoings of the Vatican, not Mr. Ratzinger as a person.

Why are you being such an apologist?
He's the head of the organization and he's "infallible".
What he says goes, or he can boot you from the church. Either way, this means that all these bad people are operating with his implicit appr

Re:

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

He's the head of the organization and he's "infallible".

Only when he speaks with official authority (ex cathedra, etc.) regarding points of doctrine. If you see him on the street and he says "It's going to be a nice day today," that doesn't mean he had a revelation from God to that effect.

What he says goes, or he can boot you from the church.

Yeah right. Then why were there up to three "popes" at once in the early 1300s? Simple, because the Pope decided to boot people from the church, but the people said no

Re:

[theLOUDroom]

You just don't get it. A leader can't stop everyone from doing wrong, but it is his duty to take action when we DOES find out about it.
Your newspaper analogy would be:
The editor-in-chief of the New York Times may not be directly responsible for Jayson Blair's misreporting, but by taking no action when he does find out about it, he would be giving it implicit approval.

Your comment about handling crime within their own ranks for thousands of years suggests a very ill-informed opinion. Whether it's the C

Re:

[Farmer Tim]

So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons.

Seems to me the people who don't want corruption and illegal behaviour exposed are the morons...but hey, if you thought Nixon was an OK guy with a deep regard for proper democratic process, you're entitled to your opinion.

I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons.

You do know Popular Mechanics publis

Liability?

[musicon]

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.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:

[Kazoo the Clown]

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

Re:

[deanoaz]

>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.

Since the Bush Administration isn't following through on investigations or prosecutions of high-level leaks in the dead-tree media, what makes you think there is any chance of them launchi

Re:

[Farmer Tim]

I bet the some non-western covert organization would be the first to pollute it with false information.

If you seriously believe the better funded western covert organisations won't get in first, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:

[Farmer Tim]

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons...

You've sprung a leak?