WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@Builder,

Oh by the way all this sound complex however all a user would need to do is go to the torproject.org website and download a package of software including a bowser and once installed all you need to do is click on a button in the browser to run your traffic over the tor network or not.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anonymous turns on 'one man Julian Assange show' Wikileaks
(By Brid-Aine Parnell, The Register, 12th October 2012)

Members of hacker collective Anonymous have stopped supporting Wikileaks after the site put up a paywall, saying that Wikileaks is more bothered about Julian Assange than getting information to the public.

In a statement on Pastebin, linked through from Anonymous Twitter account AnonymousIRC, the group said Wikileaks had turned into the "one man Julian Assange show".

"The idea behind Wikileaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise being kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know," the statement said.

"But this has been pushed more and more into the background, instead we only hear about Julian Assange, like he had dinner last night with Lady Gaga. That's great for him but not much of our interest. We are more interested in transparent governments and bringing out documents and information they want to hide from the public."

As well as getting ticked off with the site's focus on its founder, Anonymous also disagrees with the new way it's soliciting donations. Visitors to the site are now getting a pop-up donation page before they can read any documents. The only way to get around the donation page is to give Wikileaks some money or disable Javascript to get through to leaked documents.

"The casual user (which is the majority) usually has Javascript enabled and thus will be blocked by the donation banner and denied the content. Additionally, the casual user does not know that he needs to disable javascript to get to the content without paying - sorry, donating," Anonymous complained.

The anarchic online hacker collective and the leaked document website used to be good friends, with Anonymous supplying content to Wikileaks and supporting Assange's attempts to avoid extradition with attacks on websites.

But Anonymous has tweeted that its outrage at Wikileaks trying to drum up donations and said it won't "pay for Assange's lawyers".

The group said it still doesn't think Assange should be extradited but it "cannot support anymore what Wikileaks has become".

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

I just was on wikileaks site yesterday and did not see a paywall but as I was going there by way of a tor tunnel that I do not off hand think would allow Javascript through.

Need to check on that to be sure.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Nearly everyone who has worked with him has said the same, that they think the cause is noble but that dons it as a mantle to deflect from charges and criticism against him, and hijacks the cause to self-aggrandize his role in it.

In reality he just happened to be a place where Bradley Manning and a few others chose to leak information of great social value and he is basking in the glory of their sacrifices and bravery and using it to deflect from personal criminal charges that he does not want to face.

4 Replies

@BillRM,

I just visited wikileaks website for the first time.

I see no paywall of popup of any kind, and java is active.

There is a donate button along with the other usual buttons.

I am a tad dubious about anonymous, and have been for a while.

Intentionally sinister public persona, and creepy voice mutations.

Leaves me cold on the whole scenaria.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

"Nearly everyone who has worked with him have said the same" ???

Any links or evidence of that? I've heard or read nothing of the sort. There's an active political petition to get the Australian government to do the job that they are supposed to be doing for every Australian abroad.

As for the trumped charges against Julian, his lawyer has repeatedly asked Swedish authorities to come to London, which is allowed under their laws, to question Assange about their allegations. They have refused.

http://rt.com/news/us-assange-sweden-lawyer-640/

Quote:

A US criminal inquiry against WikiLeaks frontman has reached an “unprecedented” size and scale, Julian Assange’s lawyer told RT. Sweden, on the other hand, seems to have turned a deaf ear to all offers to interview Assange anywhere in the UK.

Sweden has turned down Ecuador's invitation to question Assange at its London embassy, WikiLeaks' Twitter reports. The news is yet to be confirmed by officials from either country.

What should be concerning every citizen of the US, is the ignoring of the war crimes evidence, while focussing upon shooting the messenger.

Precendents are being established here. Freedom of speech is no more a reality in the US, than it was in Soviet Russia.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

using it to deflect from personal criminal charges that he does not want to face.

So you are of the opinion those charges had nothing to do with his role with Wikileaks?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Several co-founders of Wikileaks left the organization because Assange was taking it in an "unhealthy direction" and they were tired of Assange's ego-driven decisions. Daniel Schmitt called Assange a diva. Schmitt took important software with him when he left Wikileaks because he felt that it "should not be left in the hands of a child."

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Schmitt might just be an NPD sufferer. He took "his" software to set up a similar org, called "openleaks". It would seem that he felt that he should have centre-stage, himself.

You mention others, but I need to know their names. Links would be better.

Here's "Schmitt" cashing in with an "expose" book.

Former WikiLeaks Insider and Spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg Authors an Exposé of the “World’s Most Dangerous Website”

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-WikiLeaks-Assange-Dangerous-Website/dp/030795191X

1 Reply

@Builder,

Cofounder John Young, the first to resign said, "...it was over this: someone said that the initial goal was $5 million. That caught my attention. One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there's great treachery and lying going on. And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that's the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That's pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff."

Another cofounder, Herbert Snorrason said, "We broke from WikiLeaks because a few ex-WikiLeaks members have been very unhappy with the way Assange was conducting things."

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I think focusing on Julian Assange's personality is completely irrelevant.
... and has been used as a ploy constantly by the mainstream media (in particular, those which cooperated with Wikileaks when it suited, & made them look like heroic "truth tellers" - for a change -) to divert attention from the far more important issue of government & corporate secrecy.

I support Wikileaks & Julian Assange & Bradley Manning because of the work they did ...
I didn't & still don't support any of them because of their personalities, or because I believed they were great guys. (How could I speak with any confidence about their personalities, anyway? Never having met them.) I remain grateful to Assange, Wikileaks & Manning for making us much more informed about what our governments have actually been doing. Quite a bit of it not exactly what we would endorse, as the citizens who elected those governments ....

As for the opinions of "nearly everyone who has worked with him" (Assange) ... are these opinions of "nearly everyone" (?) all that different from the the mainstream media outlets who have been focusing on Julian Assange's personality, rather than the far more important issue of transparency & access to information we should be entitled to?

And speaking of "those who used to work with him", whatever happened to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who destroyed all those files _ supplied to Wilileaks , not him - by whistle-blowers) on leaving the organisation & receiving so much glowing publicity from the establishment media for his drubbing of Assange at the same time? He was going to start a new squeaky clean version of Wiklileaks , Openleaks. That was in January 2011. No sign of it yet that I can see!

Daniel Domscheit-Berg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Domscheit-Berg

Quote:

In reality he just happened to be a place where Bradley Manning and a few others chose to leak information of great social value and he is basking in the glory of their sacrifices and bravery and using it to deflect from personal criminal charges that he does not want to face.

What other organisations at the time were "a place" where the information could be leaked to?
And as for Assange "using it" (the information supplied to him) to deflect from personal criminal charges that "he does not want to face". That is your opinion. It is definitely not mine, & I have followed information about the Swedish "charges" very closely. If you want to discuss this further I am more than happy to.
.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Then he should stop using Wikileaks the cause, and Wikileaks calls for donations to fight it.

When the accusations came out, the rest of the people in Wikileaks asked Assange to step down, and were very off-put by his casting of the accusations against him as a conspiracy. They all pretty much left him at this time and Assange went on to keep donning the mantle of Wikileaks as his defense against the charges against him.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

John Young already had a wikileaks-style website of his own, called Cryptome, and from what he said in this interview, he never intended to "bring a government down" or make it all about money. Assange, on the other hand, knew that without money, they were defenceless against the beaurocratic machine.

Quote:

What you're doing sounds a lot like what Wikileaks is doing, no?
Young: Only superficially, Declan, because, and we can talk more about this, I initially thought that was what they were going to be doing when I first agreed to participate. But it became clear right away that they were going to set up an operation with multiple people involved. So the first difference is that I don't run an operation. I don't have any people working on this. This is strictly--and I like the term myself, but other people hate it--it's strictly an amateur version.

It's not like Wikileaks and their grand goals. I've never had any desire to overturn governments or do any of these noble things that they want to do. Or jack up journalism. This was just a way to get certain kinds of documents out to the public.

Herbert Snorrason is the co-founder of Openleaks, with Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and I'm thinking that these young men were quite terrified of the enormity of what they saw as Julian's vision, and not their own rather limited scope of what could be achieved.

That's those three sorted. Egos large enough to start movements, but no balls to go through with it to the logical end.

Next?

Oh, and WandelJW, bear in mind the massive established propaganda machine that Assange is up against here. It pays to look deeper than the front page, or fox nooz.

They are shooting the messenger to hide the message.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Then he should stop using Wikileaks the cause, and Wikileaks calls for donations to fight it.

When the accusations came out, the rest of the people in Wikileaks asked Assange to step down, and were very off-put by his casting of the accusations against him as a conspiracy. They all pretty much left him at this time and Assange went on to keep donning the mantle of Wikileaks as his defense against the charges against him.

Could you supply some links to support this, Robert?

Personally, I think the "Swedish sex charges" have been used (with great effect in the mainstream media!) to undermine both Assange AND Wikileaks.
I find it difficult to separate the two.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Just curious. And asking again ...
Has anyone heard a peep from Open Leaks since Daniel Domscheit-Berg's defection from Wikileaks?
I've been looking & can't find anything after all the fanfare, so long ago ...

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Any links or evidence of that?

Sure. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

- Two women who were fans of his have accused him of sexual crimes. He portrays them as part of a US conspiracy but this is absolute bullshit, the guy was a cretin to them and they were just starstruck fans.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

- Several of the original people who worked with him in Wikileaks had a falling out with him over his ego (and hijacking the cause to defend against the rape charge) and opened a different project (called OpenLeaks) instead, as they could no longer work with him. Daniel Domscheit-Berg (the Daniel Schmidt referenced in other posts) was one of the early WikiLeaks volunteers and when he suggested Assange step aside and handle the sexual allegations separately Assange instead suspended Daniel's access. He has written extensively about Assange and why people can't work with him. Here is one such example of his criticism that Assange runs Wikileaks as his personal fiefdom:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-defector-daniel-domscheit-berg-reveals-julian-assanges-siege-mentality/story-e6frg6so-1225930625424

- Daniel also accused Assange of abusing his cat. One of many things people who have offered him a place to stay have complained about (just google "Assange notorious house guest" if you want more):

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/10/assange-abused-cat-insider/

- Assange selected The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times to work with to publish the cables. They reportedly were offput by his callous indifference to the lives that might have been lost without redactions. They each had falling outs with him to differing degrees. See some of the history here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all

- Assange also had a falling out with others that the NYTimes documented and that was part of a further deterioration in their relationship. They detailed some things that were unflattering about him such as the internal turmoil:

Quote:

When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. “I don’t like your tone,” he said, according to a transcript. “If it continues, you’re out.”

Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. “I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,” he said. “If you have a problem with me,” he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html

- He also has a reputation of being a rude and obnoxious house guest, refusing to flush toilets, respect house rules or even leave when asked. Here is a funny video some ex-friends of his made about that:

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le3jrp6LzjI

- He just screwed over his bail guarantors by asking for asylum in Equador. Some of them are just poor pensioners who believed his promises but he decided to keep evading the charges against him:

See: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/uk-assange-sureties-idUKBRE8970P520121008

Quote:

I've heard or read nothing of the sort.

Well it certainly isn't for lack of evidence of his douchebaggery out there. I support the cause he hijacks for self-aggrandizement, but like virtually all who get involved with him I find his penchant to make it all about himself, and his evasion of rape charges by donning the mantle of his cause to be untoward.

Great cause, had some great breaks (nothing to do with him, just real whistleblowers who happened to choose Wikileaks) and since then he's been using the cause as his personal company, as a way to forward his personal agenda.

This is why so many who work with him, who offered to help him and who came in close contact with him, can't stand him, accuse him of rape and make videos online to explain to the world just how much of a jackass he is to them.

2 Replies

A question to you, Robert:
Given your criticisms of Julian Assange, & your arguments about how he's undermined the work of Wikileaks ....

What other organization do you suggest whistle blowers address their concerns to now?

I recall you were very supportive of the publication of the Wilileaks Iraq cables at the time. I agreed with you, wholeheartedly. I still do.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

- Two women who were fans of his have accused him of sexual crimes. He portrays them as part of a US conspiracy but this is absolute bullshit, the guy was a cretin to them and they were just starstruck fans.

I'd suggest you watch this ABC (Oz national broadcaster, not the lunatic fringe) program (Four Corners) for more accurate information, Robert.:

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I see nothing but a clash of egos in most of what you posted.

From your first link in the Australian.

Quote:

''I have been with WikiLeaks for three years, invested a great deal of time and money in it and have seen it grow hugely, quickly, too quickly," Mr Domscheit-Berg said. When the Swedish authorities opened a rape investigation against Mr Assange earlier this year, Mr Domscheit-Berg thought that the boss should curtail his activities.

"He saw this as an attack and suspended me," Mr Domscheit-Berg said. "If Julian can just snap his fingers and suspend me - he accused me of insubordination and disloyalty - what does this say about WikiLeaks? If he can do something like that it means that WikiLeaks is his baby and only his."

Mr Domscheit-Berg, who was allegedly once close to the German hacking community represented by the Chaos Computer Club, decided to jump ship. He said that he would stay true to the ideals of opening up the world of classified documents. "I don't want to talk about my plans openly at this stage but it is clear that we should be decentralising this whole venture."

One member of the Chaos hacking group said: "This is a big moment, a signal to those who think WikiLeaks is spinning out of control. There are other ways of doing this and Daniel's move is bound to create competitors to Assange." Could it be that a maverick whistleblower eventually breaks up Mr Assange's whistleblowing monopoly?

If that doesn't smell like hacker-jealousy, and wanting the limelight, then it's simply ego.

On your second link, about the cat, if that's the worst of his "offences" while being a house guest, then why would you bother posting it at all. Plenty of people hate cats, and the cat in question probably hated him right back.

We've discussed the Swedish authorities reluctance to visit Julian in London, and msolga will fill you in on why we all know those claims are bogus.

As for the rest of the dribble, it's MSM joining in on the "let's bash Julian" party. He's a bad house guest? He feels targetted?

For the love of yahweh, he's been declared an enemy of the US, and now has a price on his head.

What part of that are you not coping with, Robert?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

I see nothing but a clash of egos in most of what you posted.

We can always agree to disagree. I see a douchebag of Biblical proportions.

Quote:

If that doesn't smell like hacker-jealousy, and wanting the limelight, then it's simply ego.

Yeah, and the crimes he is charged with is just a US conspiracy and blah blah blah. And all the hackers who disavowed him today wanting the limelight (anonymously). And all the others who came forward about him acting like a jerk are all just spiteful.

Quote:

On your second link, about the cat, if that's the worst of his "offences" while being a house guest, then why would you bother posting it at all. Plenty of people hate cats, and the cat in question probably hated him right back.

He is accused of physically abusing the cat, not just hating it. Daniel said he would strike out at it and grab it by the throat.

Quote:

We've discussed the Swedish authorities reluctance to visit Julian in London, and msolga will fill you in on why we all know those claims are bogus.

Msolga is the only person I've ever ignored on the internet, I don't see her posts. But I've heard all the apologist excuses about his rape charge anyway and am sure she hasn't brought my anything I haven't already perused at length. I find the notion that it's a conspiracy and anything other than two women who are angry about his sexual treatment of them to be very unconvincing (and often it just seems like more Aussie blind nationalism, my cretin right or wrong).

Quote:

For the love of yahweh, he's been declared an enemy of the US, and now has a price on his head.

Oh that's just silly.

Quote:

What part of that are you not coping with, Robert?

I disagree with you, that has ****-all to do with "coping" with something.

0 Replies

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know