

Wikileaks former spokesman ‘destroyed' secret Bank of America hard drive - Netadmin
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3298650/wikileaks-former-spokesman-destroyed-secret-boa-data/

======
reemrevnivek
Why is the organization designed in such a way that _anyone_ \- Assange
included - can permanently delete submissions? People risk their lives and
their careers to submit this information. It's hard to believe that this act
was "in the interest of the security of sources" as Domscheit-Berg claims.
Don't delete it, encrypt it!

Any digital submissions should be backed up in multiple physical places, and
disconnected from any networks. Physical submissions should be scanned in (at
which point it becomes a digital submission) and similarly backed up.

~~~
sp332
_People risk their lives and their careers to submit this information._

This is exactly why it was deleted. Security of sources is more important than
leaking the information. If the sources wanted the data published without
regard for their own safety, they would have published it themselves.

~~~
reemrevnivek
Why does encryption make the sources any less secure than deletion?

~~~
gtank
It's probably not a question of access to the information but one of the
contents identifying to the source. Wikileaks caught a lot of bad publicity
over their spotty sanitization of the Afghanistan leaks.

------
iwwr
Another reminder on why it's bad to rely on just a central information hub.
Wikileaks is not 'freeing information' as much as drumming up publicity for
themselves (and Assange).

~~~
kyouens
I agree. This is also evidenced by the way they dribble out their leaks in the
most politically damaging (for the US government, particularly) way possible,
accompanied by press releases and interviews. If they are about freedom of
information, why don't they release all of it, immediately, and free of
editorial comment from Assange?

~~~
hugh3
I've been saying for some time that if I were, say, Jimmy Wales or the
Wikimedia Foundation I'd be criticising Wikileaks pretty hard for not, y'know,
actually being a wiki.

------
nextparadigms
I thought Assange put that BoA data into that torrent? Why isn't he retrieving
that if he still needs it.

~~~
mcphilip
I know there was an "insurance file" released on July 29 2010, but am not
aware of any later release[1]. They may not of had the BofA data at that
point. The first mention of the data that might "bring down a bank" came on
Nov. 29, 2010 [2].

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Insurance_file>

[2][http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-
bank....](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-
bank.html?pagewanted=all)

------
sp332
"in the interest of the security of sources", if true, is actually a pretty
good reason.

------
sek
He was also thrown out of the CCC.
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,780289,00...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,780289,00.html)

------
berntb
I wonder how much Bank of America paid?

It would be really interesting to see bank transactions for that Domscheit-
Berg guy. I hope Wikileaks can get them...

~~~
blendergasket
"Asked what data Wikileaks might have, a Bank of America spokesperson told
Reuters: 'We don't know what they claim to have had, and we have no comment on
what they allegedly may have destroyed.'"

It's interesting how he states he doesn't know what they had, but he can't
comment on what they destroyed. It's almost like he's insinuating that they
have some idea what was destroyed. Domscheit-Berg seems to be using the
specter of insecurity to destroy both Wikileaks reputation and now, it seems,
the leaks that were supposed to be set free to the people. How the hell could
deleting the leaks themselves solve any security issues? As far as is known no
one has gotten in trouble for leaking to Wikileaks who has not incriminated
themselves.

This guy is a tool (in the literal sense) of the highest order. From his weird
smear tactic "My time with Evil Assange" stories, to his gutting Wikileaks
system, to his opening up an alternative that doesn't actually give the
information to the public, but allows only journalists access to it, now to
this. Go after Assange's character. Sew seeds of doubt over the system's
security. Take parts of it's infrastructure. Now start deleting the leaks that
the people truly in Power can't let out... for the sake of security of course.

In one Q&A with Assange, I think it was the one with Amy Goodman and Slavoj
Zizek, he was asked about the BofA docs and he mentioned he hadn't released
them because he was being blackmailed and could not go into more detail. Maybe
this was part of whatever that was all about.

~~~
canistr
"It's interesting how he states he doesn't know what they had, but he can't
comment on what they destroyed. It's almost like he's insinuating that they
have some idea what was destroyed."

You're reading too much into what's he's saying.

~~~
blendergasket
I find that politicians and PR people use the specific words they use for very
specific reasons. In this case they can send a message to people who might
want to leak in the future, who might be parsing this stuff really carefully,
but not making it obvious enough that the general public sees what's going on.
Strategic language is a crazy and complicated game.

------
ethagnawl
> Wikileaks former spokesman ‘destroyed' secret Bank of America hard drive
> after being given an offer he couldn't refuse

FTFY

