4 ms·
Wikileaks former spokesman ‘destroyed' secret Bank of America hard drive
- nextparadigms 15y agoI thought Assange put that BoA data into that torrent? Why isn't he retrieving that if he still needs it.
- mcphilip 15y agoI 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Insurance_file [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank....
- iwwr 15y agoAnother 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 15y agoI 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 15y agoI'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.
- hugh3 15y agoI'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.
- baltcode 15y agoIsn't this more of an argument for OpenLeaks being a shady outfit acting for someone else?
- thaumaturgy 15y agoAssange has explained several times that they concentrate so much on publicity for themselves in order to maximize the impact of the leaks themselves, as part of their duty to the people that take the risks to leak information.
- reemrevnivek 15y agoWhy 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 15y agoPeople 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.
- maayank 15y agoAh? No. The exact point of Wikileaks is to be a place where leakers can leak information to the public, in a technical sustainable manner (think protection of DDOS).
- maayank 15y agoI can't seem to edit by now, so because I'm getting downvotes, to quote from the Wikileaks about page[1]: "Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth." [1] http://wikileaks.org/About.html http://wikileaks.org/About.html
- reemrevnivek 15y agoWhy does encryption make the sources any less secure than deletion?
- berntb 15y agoI 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...
- rimantas 15y agoIIRC wikileaks weren't so keen to display their financial data either…
- thebooktocome 15y agoI'd like to see GiveWell try to evaluate them. That might be amusing to watch.
- blendergasket 15y ago"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.
- sp332 15y ago"in the interest of the security of sources", if true, is actually a pretty good reason.
- ethagnawl 15y ago> Wikileaks former spokesman ‘destroyed' secret Bank of America hard drive after being given an offer he couldn't refuse FTFY
- sek 15y agoHe was also thrown out of the CCC. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,780289,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,780289,00...