Wikileaks - forum for whistleblowing

[Centurian1985]

A new site being advertised for international whistleblowers:

http://www.wikileaks.org/index.html

The article on this site appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist as "Anonymity Guarenteed on Whistleblower Website" but I havent been able to find an internet version of the story. 

Key line is that the site intends to be a forum for people to "post sensitive documents on the internet without fear of being identified".  Key backers are supposedly members of the expatriate Chinese community.

 

[George Wallace]

"Expatriate Chinese Community"?  Is this the new name for 'espionage' to come out of China?

 

[Centurian1985]

I'm sticking to what the article and the website describes itself as.  I'll leave the motivation of the "Expatriate supporters" to be determined.  I wouldnt trust'em, but then, Im cynical and paranoid.

My concern is that it is a possible source of embarassment and/or security issues if people use the site to release privelaged information without retribution, and noticed it hadnt been mentioned by anyone else yet...   

 

[George Wallace]

I'm sticking to what the article and the website describes itself as.  I'll leave the motivation of the "Expatriate supporters" to be determined.  I wouldnt trust'em, but then, Im cynical and paranoid.

My concern is that it is a possible source of embarassment and/or security issues if people use the site to release privelaged information without retribution, and noticed it hadnt been mentioned by anyone else yet...   

From what I have seen of the Wikipedia site's Administrators and Staff, is that they are a rather arrogant group of people, who's opinions of themselves are extremely high.  I think they have a tight little clique of "eggheads" who really have a rosy and innocent view of the world and politics.  I believe that they have the opinion, that there should be no 'secrets' and that the Net should hold all the world's information, for all to access freely.  Why else would they be striving for the distinction of being the 'World's best online encyclopedia source of facts and knowledge'?

 

[Michael OLeary]

George, I don't think Wikileaks and Wikipedia are connected.

 

[George Wallace]

I am figuring that it is an offshoot of their main site and using a 'copyrighted' name and format.  If not, it may face some controversy from the Wikipedia folks.

On looking at the Wikipedia Site, they have the following at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks :

Wikileaks is a purported untraceable website running on modified Mediawiki software which will allow whistleblowers to anonymously release government and corporate documents, allegedly without possible retribution. The site and its project were themselves secret, pre-launch, until their existence was leaked and disclosed on the Cryptome website[1]. The site in part is being developed by Chinese government dissidents. According to the Wikileaks website, their main targets for leaked disclosure are the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa, and Middle Eastern nations, but they expect it to be used for leaks of information about Western governments and corporations.[2] All current staff, developers, or employees of Wikileaks are thought to be secret and unidentified as of January 2007.[3]

According to a Wikileaks official named "Julian Assange", the site was planned to go live in March 2007 but was unprepared for the media attention its ahead-of-schedule disclosure generated. Their advisory board includes members of the expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst, and cryptographers. There are no formal links between Wikileaks and the Wikimedia Foundation. [4] The website has stated that they have over 1,000,000 classified and internal documents already that they are preparing to publish[5]. They have purportedly already done so with one document said to be written by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union.[6] They also posted an analysis which they claim proves it authenticity.[7]

According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."[8] Wikileaks developers have stated that there will be checks in place to keep the "completely anonymous" system from being flooded with false documents, porn, spam, and related things. All users will be able to comment on all documents, analyze them, and identify false material.[3]

More on their link above.

References
1    "Wikileaks Leak", Cryptome, January 11, 2007.
2    Referenced via UCLA. "CHINA: Cyber-dissidents launch WikiLeaks, a site for whistleblowers", South China Morning Post, January 11, 2007.
3    a b Paul Marks. "How to leak a secret and not get caught", New Scientist, January 13, 2007.
4    Yahoo! News "Chinese cyber-dissidents launch WikiLeaks, a site for whistleblowers", Yahoo! News, January 11, 2007.
5    "Wikileaks and Untraceable Document Disclosuree", Now Public News, January 11, 2007.
6    "Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys zipped document", Wikileak.org, December 29, 2006.
7    H.H.Harpoon "Inside the Somali Civil War and the Islamic Courts", Wikileak.org, December 29, 2006.
8    CBC News "Website wants to take whistleblowing online", Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, January 11, 2007.
9    Wikileaks.org "Wikileaks.org FAQ", retrieved January 11, 2007.
10  a b Daniel Friedman "Web site aims to post government secrets", Federal Times, January 4, 2007.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."

Unless it turns out to be a sting.

 

[dapaterson]

From what I have seen of the ... site's Administrators and Staff, is that they are a rather arrogant group of people, who's opinions of themselves are extremely high.  I think they have a tight little clique of "eggheads"...

Careful George, that description could also be applied to army.ca...

 

[George Wallace]

Careful George, that description could also be applied to army.ca...

Not with you crowd.  ;D

 

[Centurian1985]

>According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."[8] Wikileaks developers have stated that there will be checks in place to keep the "completely anonymous" system from being flooded with false documents, porn, spam, and related things. All users will be able to comment on all documents, analyze them, and identify false material.[3]<

Unless they have an exceptionally large enough staff of forensic document specialists, I sincerely doubt they have the ability to identify 'false documents' .   

Second who are the users qualified as 'experts' who would identify false material?  Merely saying 'hey thats not true' is not good enough.

 

[George Wallace]

Should we ring the bells and blow the whistles now and rename that site "RUMOURS"?

 

[chanman]

"Expatriate Chinese Community"?  Is this the new name for 'espionage' to come out of China?

Given the bent of the site, are you sure they don't mean exiled/expat political dissidents/Falun Gong/Tibetians/Oppressed-Group-Of-The-Day?

 

[Journeyman]

The Federation of Amercian Scientists has published Secrecy News for several years now (ca. Sept 2000) through their "Project on Government Secrecy." This is their take on Wikileaks, (with emphasis by me):

WIKILEAKS AND UNTRACEABLE DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE

A new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and
publication of confidential government records.

"WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis," according to the
project web site.

"Our primary targets are highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia, central eurasia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, 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."

"A system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of promoting good government -- in
health and medicine, in food supply, in human rights, in arms control and democratic institutions."

Wikileaks says that it has already acquired over one million documents that it is now preparing for publication.

The project web site is not yet fully "live." But an initial offering
-- a document purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of
Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union -- is posted in a zipped file
here: <http://www.wikileaks.org/som.zip>http://www.wikileaks.org/som.zip

An analysis of the document's authenticity and implications is posted
here:
http://www.wikileaks.org/inside_somalia_v9.html

Wikileaks invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board.  We explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate
publication of confidential records.

In the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can more easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence,
not to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste.

So we disagree on first principles?  No problem, replied Wikileaks:
"Advisory positions are just that -- advisory! If you want to advise us to censor, then by all means do so."

See Wikileaks here:

      <http://www.wikileaks.org>http://www.wikileaks.org

While Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized disclosures technologically immune to government control, an opposing school of thought proposes to expand U.S. government authority to seize control of information that is already in the public domain when its continued availability is deemed unacceptably dangerous.

"Although existing authorities do not directly address the subject, it appears that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and
dissemination of catastrophically dangerous information can be constitutionally implemented," suggests Stewart Harris of the
Appalachian School of Law.

See "Restrictions are justifiable," National Law Journal, December 11, 2006:
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1165501509178>http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1165501509178

While FAS often ruffles feathers within the US government, they appear to have a sense of understanding a requirement for some instances of security. Obviously one must take their word for it, since they cannot publish something saying, "Look at this - - we chose not to publish it because..."

 

[brihard]

This site probably is not associated with Wikipedia. The term 'wiki' refers to any sort of open-edit format like this, and ahs been used in many different contexts.

I'll be curious to see if this thing ends up going anywhere...

 

[The Bread Guy]

This site probably is not associated with Wikipedia. The term 'wiki' refers to any sort of open-edit format like this, and ahs been used in many different contexts.

According to the Wikileaks FAQ:

What is your relationship to Wikipedia?

Wikileaks has no formal relationship to Wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, Wikileaks will be to leaks.

Interesting concept, but WAY too open to retribution or leaks from the disgruntled (as opposed to those worried about the greater good of the nation/organization/whatever). 

I don't agree with those who rate it as a rumour service - I see it more like a "here's a document without context - let's see what the consensus position on the context is". 

That said, do I always agree with the MSM's reading of leaked or ATIP'ed material?  Funny how they, unlike FAS Secrecy News, DON'T post the original briefing note or whatever they've "obtained" to let the consumer judge....

 

[Edward Campbell]

After all the fuss, the Globe and Mail is reporting that: "WikiLeaks suspends publication due to financial woes" (London— The Associated Press, Published Monday, Oct. 24, 2011).

 

[The Bread Guy]

After all the fuss, the Globe and Mail is reporting that: "WikiLeaks suspends publication due to financial woes" (London— The Associated Press, Published Monday, Oct. 24, 2011).

:'(

:sarcasm:

 

[GAP]

I have to wonder just where all the donations given went.............I'm sure they'll come up with a public accounting so no one can accuse them of anything untoward......won't they?  :sarcasm:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Julia's defence fund perhaps..  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[FlyingDutchman]

The whistle blowers, where will they go now?  Those poor poor souls must be devastated. /sarcasm