
Wikileaks website to be abandoned - zitterbewegung
http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-dump.htm
======
avar
This is getting ridiculous. Why doesn't Wikileaks just host all their content
in a Git repository and use GPG to sign their releases?

Then it would be impossible to take down the site, and anyone could easily
spin up a mirror.

Instead there's one monolithic distribution site which isn't decoupled from
their submission network. The site is frequently down during a fundraiser, and
due to how they run it other people can't easily directly contribute resources
to run mirrors of the site.

I'm beginning to think that Wikileaks is not as interested in actually getting
leaks out as it is furthering Julian Assange's personal indispensability.

~~~
adulau
I really share this feeling especially during the past 7 months while the
fund-raising was ongoing.

Now, to be more practical and maybe start an implementation of a distributed
Wikileaks. There are two processes : the submission process and the
distribution process. I think the distribution process is easy with Git or any
distributed VCS. The submission process is more tricky as this is involving a
human/social process to merge content into the distribution "branch".

The submission process could be "à la" HN where there is a way to up/down vote
a submission. When the submission is reaching a defined level, the submission
is released for distribution. In this is case, the submission network is still
centralized but the distribution part is really decentralized.

For submission process decentralization, distributed ticketing (e.g.
<http://ditz.rubyforge.org/> ) could be used to show status of a submission
within a same git repository but showing/merging only submission reaching a
level in its ticket. Just an idea...

Update : my humble comment is just on some technical aspect. The
social/legal/human aspect of Wikileaks is something much more complex...

~~~
furyg3
Submission for leaks (usually) also involves some sort of authentication,
however. And that authentication needs to be kept confidential.

The result is that there's no way around a 'trusted' provider who signs
releases, and that will inherently be a personality like Assange.

Simply relying on a reddit-style submission method would lead to a worse form
of reddit. Currently you can evaluate whether or not you 'trust' content
submitted to reddit by looking at the site hosting it (is the content from the
NYT or a random blog?). For a wikileaks-reddit, all submissions would have to
be anonymous, and you'd have no idea what is a real leak or not.

~~~
avar
There's no need for a trusted singular provider. You can just implement this
sort of thing as a circle of trust.

A leak could be made by anyone. But content would only be published on
somerandomsite.com if it has been digitally signed by someone.

Who that someone is could be configurable. wikileaks.com would be things that
are only signed by Assange, but you could spin up your own site with your own
signing policies.

------
fleitz
With the turf wikileaks is treading on, does some authentication code really
confirm that this is not a counter intelligence op?

I'm not saying that any of these things are untrue, it's just that there would
be some very valid reasons for wanting to keep the details of the operation
opaque. (eg. paying in cash, etc)

When you piss of the US National Security apparatus to that degree there is
going to be some blow back. Yes, ideally they'd want to put him behind bars in
a supermax, like other political prisoners, but he's fairly high profile and
has a large amount of public support. You'd definitely want to kill the
crusader for freedom aspect of his media image and promote an in it for
himself persona. A hit piece in mainstream media is going to give him a better
platform and have absolutely no effect on anyone with a clue. The spooks know
this so they aren't going to do something like that.

This is super effective, cryptome is legit as far as hackers and others that
would contribute to his cause. This isn't a money issue it's a technical
expertise issue. No one is going to join wikileaks for the money. Yes, money
will help buy servers, but it's more about the technical expertise required
for the people you're pissing off not to be able to build a solid case.
Wikileaks itself has nothing to fear from the axis of evil, but a lot to fear
from the G8 (except Russia). They will never honour a chinese extradition
request because Assange found a video of Chinese soldiers killing civilians.
They will however put his ass right next to the shoe bomber for posting vids
of army dudes doing what army dudes are trained to do.

Yes, Assange may be running wikileaks to embezzle himself $50 grand a year, OR
it could be that he's gone dark and doesn't have time to update the site
because he's brushing up on his waterboarding technique with Maher Arar.

~~~
sliverstorm
> Yes, Assange may be running wikileaks to embezzle himself $50 grand a year,
> OR it could be that he's gone dark and doesn't have time to update the site
> because he's brushing up on his waterboarding technique with Maher Arar.

You can't blame people for being suspicious. Humanity has proven time and time
again that when there is a reason to suspect somebody absconded with large
sums of money, they probably did. I have no opinion on the matter, but what
could make a more effective cover story for vanishing than a believable 'Big
Brother wanted to find me'?

~~~
ultra-nihilist
You make a good point. Sure Assange is self-aggrandizing. Some may even call
him flamboyant, but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? I recall similar
criticism of Jimmy Wales. Wales acts like a rock star and he, like Assange, is
a master fundraiser and aficionado of private jets. Despite mass defections of
editors, and the enduring pompousness of Mr. Wales, Wikipedia is better than
ever. Sometimes a greasy-haired, eccentric diva is the best person to
represent your cause.

~~~
ErrantX
> but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks?

Honestly, yes. Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no
political bias and no agenda. But Assange does very much have those things.

The reason Wikipedia is good is because the community decision process is very
strong (mostly through being slow and laborious); they, obviously, have a lot
of respect for Wales but he can't influence things dramatically without being
called on it (look at the fuss over the commons porn images).

Wikileaks doesn't have that sort of critical buffer of individuals (from what
I have gathered about his personality Assange doesn't strike me as someone who
would take any criticism at all). Sure there are volunteers but from my
understanding it all works through Assange.

~~~
Rod
_"Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political
bias and no agenda."_

Why? Where's the argumentation? Your opinion is not fact, mister.

~~~
ErrantX
Well, yes, this is always opinion (I refuse to constantly add "in my opinion"
to all statements :P it stifles the flow).

But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good
things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims.

On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not
least reputation).

~~~
Rod
Assange is aiming at maximum impact. He knows human nature well enough to
understand that people love polarization, and he exploits human weaknesses in
order to accomplish his goals. Who has ever heard of Cryptome or Steven
Aftergood? Very few. By contrast, everyone knows Assange these days. You may
find his approach distasteful, but you can't claim it's not effective.

In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been
editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the
right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is
still illegal. Ultimately, I don't blame the soldiers, for they were following
orders. I blame the American people for blindly trusting their government and
failing to demand accountability from the morally challenged elected
officials. A docile populace is the first step towards tyranny.

If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with
that. Anger in the face of tragedy is preferrable to utter indifference. If
Assange is self-aggrandizing and has an agenda, I am fine with that too, for
he has done a great job so far and it would be enormously unrealistic to
demand zero self-interest from a person who has amassed such immense power in
such a short period of time.

~~~
ErrantX
_In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been
editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the
right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is
still illegal_

I think this is the core of our disagreement; because while I agree with you I
_abhor_ the idea of pushing an agenda and opinion on _anyone_. The video could
have stood for itself; instead I believe Assange weakened it via it's
presentation in an effort to raise the profile of Wikileaks.

 _If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with
that._

It matters; it matters a lot. Because the editorial was gleeful and gloating.
It was saying "screw you US government" - and that is silly because the video
stands for itself.

That Wikileaks has an agenda is, in my mind, wrong - when the information you
present/possess comes from secret sources and contains highly controversial
material it should be treated objectively.

I don;t care of Wikileaks languishes in obscurity like Cryptome; enough people
know of it that anything seriously big (like the video) will make the media.

These sites are important simply by existing because they present a critical
danger to those who want to abuse government positions; I don't want someone
aggrandizing and pretentious and seemingly biased as those politicians
presenting the information.

~~~
Rod
I disagree that the video could have stood for itself. WikiLeaks sent people
to Baghdad to meet the children who were in the van that was shot by the
Apache. That's investigative journalism, and it's laudable.

If the Pentagon shows you footage of a combat operation in which insurgents
are hiding in a building that is seconds later destroyed by an Hellfire
missile and they tell you that there were no civilian casualties, you may
believe they're telling you the truth. If someone investigates the attack and
finds out there were non-combatants in that building and that the Apache
attack was a stupid abuse of force, later releases footage with captions
suggesting a version of the facts different from the Pentagon's, then such
editorializing is not bias, it's an accurate portrayal of the facts. The
problem is that when the mainstream media is so biased and people have grown
accustomed to it, then a cold-blooded depiction of the facts may look as an
attempt to manipulate people's opinions, as if telling the truth were
propaganda.

Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not
making that much money. He lives the life of an international man of mystery,
which may sound cool until one thinks of the downsides. A person who willingly
embraces such lifestyle can only have a strong desire to amass power / fame
and deliver impact. Assange is no saint, but he's useful, and that's all that
matters.

~~~
ErrantX
This probably isn't the place to argue out the difference (for the record the
points you highlight are _not_ what I refer to as editorial - I mean stuff
like calling it collateral murder etc. which is unnecessary) however...

 _Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not
making that much money._

I'm calling bull on that. Or at least argument from the unprovable. Who knows
what he makes or how he lives. I doubt he is a millionaire from all this but
he flies around the world a lot.

 _He lives the life of an international man of mystery_

Everything we know and read (mostly from the main himself) paints a picture of
a guy living in this in his head. The reality is probably quite different :)

Im not calling Assange bad or anything; but I think he has too strong beliefs
to head up such an important movement. He's a good poster boy - but I actually
feel his attitude can harm the movement - because the mainstream media have a
tough time taking him seriously.

~~~
Rod
_"...because the mainstream media have a tough time taking him seriously."_

Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of
the) mainstream media. If WikiLeaks could simply bypass the MSM, we'd all be
better off.

I don't know if Assange helps the movement more than he hinders it, but at
least he has done more for the cause of monitoring centers of power than the
MSM in the last 40 years, since Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers. If he's
using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care. Donations are
voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War.

~~~
ErrantX
_Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of
the) mainstream media._

Sadly that is how you contact most people. Besides - one of the main issues
with modern media is bias and vitriol, shouldn't Wikileaks rise above that?

 _If he's using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care.
Donations are voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War._

And that, I think, says it all. My principles are not so easily bent (I'm not
convinced he is misappropriating funds btw). I gave them a donation to fund
the support of whistleblowers - not to fund a lavish lifestyle. If he _is_
doing that then I am very pissed off :)

------
stefanp
Guys, wikileaks is basically fighting for survival against the US government,
among others. Can we really suggest they "just" use this or that, or complain
that they're not handling thing so well ? They are basically trying to exist
in a space that's almost impossible for most _countries_ to exist in.

We're not talking about your average (or even uniquely scalable) startup here.

Seriously, do you have any doubt that anyone involved in this could end up
secretly detained for years ? Assange is taking _huge_ personal risks here, so
yeah, it is about him, to a very large extent.

~~~
Ardit20
I upvoted you, but shouldn't this be a reply comment rather than a comment on
its own.

~~~
Ardit20
I meant a reply to one of the comments above. It felt so when I read it much
earlier, but never mind.

------
oscilloscope
This article's been discredited by Wikileaks on twitter:

<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17646287388>

Found on reddit by the way =P

~~~
rsingel
Actually, check the time stamps. Wikileaks disputed the first 8, but not this
one. No word from Wikileaks on this so far.

~~~
mischa_u
There it is: "WikiLeaks will NOT be abandoned. Don't listen to disinfo being
spread! We'll issue clarifications soon. Should've done earlier."
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/18289990888>

------
msy
And this comes about 2 months after it's declared a national security threat
by the Pentagon.

How strange.

------
ErrantX
IIRC Cryptome has "history" with Wikileaks (I believe they were pretty fed up
of WL's profile of _The_ Whistleblower site despite being the new kid on the
block compared to Cryptome).

Bear this in mind when reading.

With that said; I much prefer Cryptome to WL - they do consistently publish
stuff! Usually without to much editorializing.

And even if this is all just made up (a possibility) it does highlight some of
the concerns over WL. Assange is becoming a concerning character, where _is_
the money going, the website does seem to be stagnating etc.

------
swombat
I don't know what exactly is going on there, whether it's a bankruptcy or
something else, but whatever it is is not being particularly well handled.
Shambles, really.

~~~
radu_floricica
Shambles? At this point the site is up, and it seems like they're working on
building a solid base in Iceland, starting with pretty good political and
legal support.

All things considered, as long as one year from now they're still in business
I'd say it's an impressive achievement.

------
rdl
I would love to participate in an open, transparent, and fair equivalent to
wikileaks. Currently, cryptome actually does a 99% job of this.

Tools, vs. Services, and definitely in preference to individual personalities
as gatekeepers!

------
wyclif
WikiLeaks will not be abandoned:
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/18289990888>

------
blots
Cryptome seems to dislike Wikileaks for some reason, at least that's the
impression I got. Never tried to dig into it though.

~~~
philwelch
I think the word is "rivalry".

------
jasonkester
Anybody care to share some context for this article? It doesn't give any
background into what wikileaks is and why it is being abandoned. It reads like
somebody's personal email.

I'm sure there's an interesting story behind this, but the article doesn't
attempt to provide it.

~~~
michael_dorfman
What Wikileaks is? How have you managed to avoid hearing about it, and its
struggles so long?

Here's a place to start: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks>

~~~
jasonkester
Funny, I'm actually amazed that so many people keep up on this sort of thing.
I wouldn't know where to begin.

I've been on the road the last several years, so unless it concerns rock
climbing or surfing, or is something that you'd talk about with fellow
travelers, it usually doesn't make it onto my radar.

Evidently there was some sort of economic downturn recently. Missed that too
:).

HN is the only exception, since it keeps me up on the tech side of things.

~~~
michael_dorfman
If that's the case, you may want to try Googling the references you don't
catch, before asking the folks here to explain further.

~~~
jasonkester
Why would it make a difference why I hadn't heard of this company?

Googling the site didn't help, nor did visiting the site itself, so I asked
here. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

In general, I think that a story on the front page of HN should stand on its
own, without the need to go off and do any research to figure out what it's
about. This story doesn't even attempt to give any background about its
subject matter, so it fails that test.

~~~
ErrantX
Usually I would agree; however Wikileaks has been massive news and regularly
features on here (they are not a Company - it is a Whistleblower site) so it
is reasonable to assume the majority of people will know what it is about.
Anyone who reads HN regularly in the last 6 months should have read about
Wikileaks before.

(in the same way you would expect everyone here to understand what Reddit is)

I don't know why you got slated for asking though; seems reasonable.

~~~
skorgu
Googling wikileaks here anyway nets the Wikipedia page as the third link:

> Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, originally based in
> Sweden,[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive
> documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the
> anonymity of their sources.

I normally hate the passive-aggressive JFGI response but in this case I can
feel the pain. It's pure noise that a simple google search could have avoided.

------
dmn001
Wow, crazy stuff. I hope there will be a new, and possibly better website to
replace it.

