Re: [p2p-hackers] Whistle-blower site platform design
Cryptome was given a preview of OpenLeaks.org yesterday. It appears to have learned from Wikileaks and many others. An impressive preparation which advances development of superior methods of combating secrecy openly, not just rushing to copy Wikileaks. It addresses many of the issues raised in this thread. Among others, it promises to invite and respond to critiques openly and will share what it learns with other intiatives. Funding will be disclosed. It is in testing now with access by invitation. It will be gradually rolled out with further testing, revision and fully opened in early 2011. The site has a link to an article in which Daniel D-B explains the initiative. Daniel generated a PK on December 13, 2010 with the address ddb@openleaks.org. He welcomes inquiries and advice, as he says, from those with more capabilities than the current "gang" which are working their asses off to get it right before rushing a faulty product to meet a PR-driven deadline, oh my, that goes against industry practice in an admirable way. Except for OpenLeaks, in prep since September, the rush of new copycat Leaks sites and thousands of Wikileaks mirrors is Buster Keaton Charlie Chaplin comical.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, John Young wrote: <SNIP>
The site has a link to an article in which Daniel D-B explains the initiative.
Daniel generated a PK on December 13, 2010 with the address ddb@openleaks.org.
He welcomes inquiries and advice, as he says, from those with <SNIP>
My biggest complaint is being re-implemented, rather than "repaired": WL fell over when they used a person, rather than an organization account with no human corrolary, to act as the acceptor/releaser/ObjPublicRelationsFlac (Julian in WL case). Much of the WL debacle has been caused by having Julian associated with WL in the first place. Anyone who comes after him has the same problem: by acting as the releaser's mouthpiece, they become the face of the organization, and in turn they become the object being sold by the MSM, as opposed to the leaks themselves. Any public interfacing should be from a role account, which acts as both an anonymizer and a composite "face" for the press. Not having a real person to attach their interests to will help force their interest to concentrate upon the leaks themselves. //Alif -- "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer, 1907 Speech
Alif wrote... Much of the WL debacle has been caused by having Julian associated with WL in the first place. Anyone who comes after him has the same problem: by acting as the releaser's mouthpiece, they become the face of the organization, and in turn they become the object being sold by the MSM, as opposed to the leaks themselves. Well, yes and no. The public seems to be far more interested in a person, as opposed to information. If the existence of a person causes a lot of info pull, then I'm all for it. Other sites can repost the info, as well as accept information directly. In other words, I'm not sure there's a huge overall downside to having an Assange. -TD
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:37:03 -0600 From: measl@mfn.org To: jya@pipeline.com CC: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Whistle-blower site platform design
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, John Young wrote:
<SNIP>
The site has a link to an article in which Daniel D-B explains the initiative.
Daniel generated a PK on December 13, 2010 with the address ddb@openleaks.org.
He welcomes inquiries and advice, as he says, from those with <SNIP>
My biggest complaint is being re-implemented, rather than "repaired": WL fell over when they used a person, rather than an organization account with no human corrolary, to act as the acceptor/releaser/ObjPublicRelationsFlac (Julian in WL case).
Much of the WL debacle has been caused by having Julian associated with WL in the first place. Anyone who comes after him has the same problem: by acting as the releaser's mouthpiece, they become the face of the organization, and in turn they become the object being sold by the MSM, as opposed to the leaks themselves.
Any public interfacing should be from a role account, which acts as both an anonymizer and a composite "face" for the press. Not having a real person to attach their interests to will help force their interest to concentrate upon the leaks themselves.
//Alif
-- "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."
Joseph Pulitzer, 1907 Speech
participants (5)
-
coderman -
Eugen Leitl -
J.A. Terranson -
John Young -
Tyler Durden