9 ms·

WikiLeaks: Out of time and money

137 points by cawel 15y ago

maqr 15y ago
Between the donation lock-out from every major bank, the heavily biased media coverage, and the clearly false charges against Assange, this has become too painful to watch. All of this for a guy trying to create a press outlet that tells the real truth, using anonymous and protected (but verified) sources, for free, to the whole world.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I'm curious how you were able to come to the conclusion that the charges are "clearly false." The charges sound serious to me, and while I have not concluded on their truth, I cannot dismiss them. They sound like they have enough merit for a trial. For example, "Given that one of the women said she awoke to find Mr. Assange having unprotected sex with her, she could not possibly have given her consent, Ms. Montgomery argued." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.htm...)
  - oconnore 15y ago
    Since when has the burden of proof been with the accused? Do either of these women have evidence other than their own testimony?
    - teaspoon 15y ago
      The burden of proof is on the accusers, but "not proven" is a long way off from "clearly false".
    - cperciva 15y ago
      Men accused of sexual offences have been presumed guilty until proven innocent for the past two decades. Didn't you get the memo?
      - william42 15y ago
        And that's why so many of them have gone to jail recently...oh wait.
        tsotha 15y ago
        Not sure what you're trying to say there. Men go to jail on all the time purely on the strength of the victim's testimony. Seems like every week I'm reading a story in the newspaper about a guy who got released from jail after being cleared by a DNA test.
  - nandemo 15y ago
    I agree that the accusations aren't clearly false, but note that he hasn't been formally charged with a crime. He will be extradited to Sweden to be questioned (!). AFAIK nobody said he's not going to court yet.
    - toyg 15y ago
      That's another scandal. Swedish prosecutors never issue international arrest warrants to question random Joe Sixpacks, certainly not for very dubious accusations like these. It's a shame that such a civilized country is being dragged through the mud by politically-motivated scumbags.
      - nobody3141592 15y ago
        And the same British government refused to extradite General Pinochet to Spain for war crimes because there wasn't enough evidence! The courts are going to be very busy if months after every club 18-30 holiday you can regret a drunken 'romance' and have the other party extradited.
        tedunangst 15y ago
        Uh, no, that's not why he was released.
      - jeltz 15y ago
        Agreed, I do not believe the rape accusations were politically motivated but the international warrant obviously was. It is probably the first time ever sexual misconduct with weak evidence has resulted in an international arrest warrant.
    - nandemo 15y ago
      s/he's not going/he's going/
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    The evidence suggests it is highly unlikely they are true. Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist. http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_broken_co.html http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_br... It's also a rather implausible coincidence that after these events, the rape charge only surfaced after a) Assange failed to call either Anna Ardin or Miss W. back and b) Ardin and W each discovered he was sleeping with the other one. I think the story itself justifies a very low probability of being true - in my estimation, probably considerably less than 1%.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist. Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape. Stockholm syndrome?
      - zobzu 15y ago
        i can't figure out if that's sarcasm or a dumb sheeped down comment :p
        iamdave 15y ago
        Why? I too think the charges are trumped up, but Stockholm is a possibility until one or both of these women come out with the truth of what actually happened.
        araneae 15y ago
        It's not a possibility, because he did not hold them captive. Stockholm Syndrome only refers to situations where people who are held against their will have positive feelings towards their captors.
  - mc32 15y ago
    Isn't it the case when you sympathise with someone one gives them the benefit of doubt --but when one dislikes someone one envisions the worst? 1. Imagine a good friend accused of something (ex. aggr. assault). 2. Imagine a good friend accuses someone of the same thing. If instead of Assange, the accused were a live Qaddafi, or, say the Dalai Lama, would we not see things a bit differently, in each case, due to bias? We just don't know. It's all conjecture at this point with he said, she said.
- epenn 15y ago
  clearly false charges I was not there to witness what did or did not happen with Assange and the girls in question. As a result I cannot comment on his guilt or innocence. Through what evidence have you concluded that they are clearly false charges?
  - mahmud 15y ago
    They're not "girls", they're women, as both females are well past their teenage years.
- tompagenet2 15y ago
  I'm surprised you see the issue in such black and white terms. Certainly some of Mr Assange's comments might lead some to suspect he sees conspiracy where there is none [1] and that his judgement is not impeccable. Wikileaks and Assange have also turned on their partners, notably the Guardian, when circumstances have suited them [2] and their concerns for the safety of those mentioned in their releases have not always appeared sincere [3]. I'm not saying that these pieces of evidence point towards Mr Assange being guilty, evil or anything else, but they do suggest he's human and fallible, and perhaps not 100% pure in his intentions. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but it does make me question any entirely polarised assertion about the man. I've not been able to spot anything untoward in the way the UK courts have treated Assange, and I can't help but feel that if the charges are 'clearly false' they can be demonstrated as such in Sweden - a country that Mr Assange himself has in the past admired [4], but now seeks to label as the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' [5]. Clearly going through such a procedure must be harrowing for all involved, and I'm not dismissing the stress lightly, but accusations of criminality being investigated is a key principle of society and in the Swedish legal system formal charges occur after extradition and questioning. This seems reasonable. If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-j... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cable-release-is-guardians-fault.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-un... [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 [4]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-hero-zero-swedes-pitiable http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-... [5]: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julian-assange-calling-sweden-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism/17721/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julia...
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy. True... but can you really doubt that US officials (and maybe others) are quietly twisting Sweden's arm to make as much of the investigation as they can? It would be very much out of character for them to pass up the opportunity.
- FrankenTan 15y ago
  Wikileaks sadly lost a lot of respect from me and many people I know when some of their comments and many of their followers weren't about Assange's innocence, but instead in defense of rape, both directly and through criticism of conditional consent. Even if only some zealous defenders had done so rather than wikileaks (most likely) accidentally doing so, it would still taste quite bitter. While I wholeheartedly agree it's not been handled well at all by the Swedish prosecutors and government, and that there are irregularities and that Wikileaks and Assange should* criticize and question this, seeing people defend rape to defend them is bizarre. Although I am well aware this happens whenever rape is discussed. Conditional consent IS a legal concept in Sweden, and one I personally agree with. This saddens me, as I'm a rather big fan of Wikileaks and since I am also a fan of Assange I hope he's innocent. *Conditional Consent: While you might argue that there may be a need for different words for varying degrees and types of sexual crimes. Rape, at least for now, is defined solely by the presence of consent, as far as I understand. If my consent hinges on a condition, and this was explained, my consent is nullified if the person willfully lies about this condition to be able to have sexual contact with me. Ex: A woman lies about being on birth-control or a man lies about condom or being sterile.
bh42222 15y ago
Let's momentarily put aside the question of Asange's legal troubles, and concentrate only on WikiLeaks. It is greatly disturbing that an informal impromptu collusion of financial companies and governments is successfully shutting down a while blower outlet. Like seriously f-ing disturbing!
- mvanga 15y ago
  What bothers me more is that people have been powerless in helping Wikileaks with their struggle. There are people who want to donate to Wikileaks but are unable to do so in an easy manner because of the blockade. It's a really good demonstration of where power lies.
  - LiveTheDream 15y ago
    You can mail a check. Very old-school, but it works. Banks like ING can mail the physical check for you, making the process as easy as using paypal.
  - xtracto 15y ago
    They also accept bitcoins, which you know nowadays are cheap :P
    - fragsworth 15y ago
      I am sure they had quite a few, and their recent crash in value probably did not help much.
owenmarshall 15y ago
Possibly unpopular question: why is WikiLeaks so expensive? I'm well aware that hosting costs money -- especially if you're trying to find a service that is resistant to pressure from companies and governments around the world -- but WL seems to have run out of funds every time I try to access the site. I mean, if the goal is to freely distribute information, distributing leaks by torrent only would be a simple, insanely cheap option that would save WL money. But as far as I can tell, WikiLeaks hasn't exactly been forthcoming with details of where their money goes. I could be wrong, but I think every query Cryptome made to Wau Holland has been ignored, and some promised funds from WL to Bradley Manning have come up consistently short...
- jgrahamc 15y ago
  It's quite clear that WikiLeaks doesn't want to distribute via BitTorrent because they want control. Just look at how they handled the cables: they worked with media partners to analyze and release some of them. Later they totally screwed up and released everything unfiltered. Since they want to maintain control they need people and bandwidth/hosting. Even if the the latter were free, people tend to cost money.
  - vladd 15y ago
    You can distribute encrypted files via torrents to solve both control and bandwidth (you just divulge the password at a future point in time).
    - danenania 15y ago
      That doesn't solve control on its own... you still need (smart, trustworthy, courageous) people to go through documents, verify credibility, determine and redact dangerous info, deal with media/pr, not to mention legal issues. Tech people seem to consistently underestimate the non-tech needs even of organizations that are primarily software driven. I'd venture to guess that despite technology clearly being a core component of what WL does, it represents a relatively small percentage of their expenses.
tibbon 15y ago
If they stop, does this mean they are going to release the password on that "insurance" file they distributed a while ago?
- khafra 15y ago
  IIRC that got blown by one of the journalists they had been working with.
  - brador 15y ago
    So the passwords out?
    - eis 15y ago
      No, as far as I understand the situation, the password that got leaked was for the whole cables archive and not for the insurance file. The insurance file was not released because Wikileaks is saying they are being blackmailed by a big bank (don't remember which one, BoA?). Edit: I think I confused this stuff. It's not about releasing the insurance file, it's about releasing information on the banks that they can't do because of the claimed blackmailing. The insurance file will only be released as a last resort.
      - tibbon 15y ago
        What in the world could BofA do?
        roc 15y ago
        Aside from what they've done in getting every payment processor to blacklist them? I think the question is: what more could BoFA do? One possibility, is getting all the individuals associated with Wikileaks --possibly including family members and friends-- added to the blacklist. That said, if I were Wikileaks, this would be the point I release my Insurance File. Along with whatever communications they've had from BofA, which doubtlessly outline what they want and what they'll do if they don't get it. (You can't be blackmailed without accusations and threats)
deanproxy 15y ago
This may be a really, really dumb question... I don't know the laws possibly preventing this and how shady it could actually be, but is there a possible way to set up an intermediary payment system? Whereas one could accept easy payments and then do the work of transforming those into checks or whatnot and sending them to Wikileaks?
- zobzu 15y ago
  you need a bank to store the money, if its not physical money no bank wants of wikileaks or to handle their transactions and yes, banks control the world, they don't like something, they kill it. simple and easy apparently.
  - deanproxy 15y ago
    Definitely... but I'm wondering about doing it anonymously. So basically find some way that people could donate to a specific person or business, then have that entity make money orders and send them off directly to wikileaks? I'm guessing there are laws in place to prevent such a thing... It seems too much like money laundering. :)
    - hohead 15y ago
      FYI, they accept Bitcoin donations (which are fairly anonymous) at this address: 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v You can learn more here: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
    - mahyarm 15y ago
      Most banks and financial systems around the world are so closely integrated with governments that they might as well be pseudo-governmental institutions.
- must_learn_more 15y ago
  This may be a really, really dumb question...but can't we all put our tech heads together to hack a way out of this problem for WikiLeaks? Just for fun could anybody dream up a good hack? If you were super passionate about this, what would you do?
nomdeplume 15y ago
WikiLeaks has been dead for a long time. Ever since the release involving the video of helicopter firing on the people below, someone out there got serious and decided to take Assange down by discrediting him and by diverting the focus away from information and toward the rape charges. Assange was probably given some "offer" he could not refuse and the rest is all for show.
- kevinh 15y ago
  I'll agree that WikiLeaks died (for me) when they released the helicopter video, but not because of some sort of grand conspiracy. It was because they editorialized the story into the ground. They weren't releasing unadulterated pure data and allowing people to analyze the data; they were attempting to force people into a certain manner of thinking. That's when I realized WikiLeaks was just the same as any major media outlet.
  - jeltz 15y ago
    I am pretty sure they did release the entire video too. And personally I would say the editorialization was mostly harmful to their cause in my case since the real video gave an even stronger picture. Without the cutting it felt much more real and horrible.
  - noblethrasher 15y ago
    Assange advocates something he calls "scientific journalism" whereby journalists publish the raw data and source material along with every story. So they differ from major media outlets in that Wikileaks releases both the editorialized "story" and the unedited source footage and documents. Now, I'm still not sure how I feel about the "Collateral Murder" video but Assange claims that the original modus operandi of Wikileaks was to simply supply partner news organizations with the raw (possibly redacted) source material and let them publish it. He further claims that the major news organizations were not interested in doing anything with the information until Wikileaks forced them to by creating a story with legs.
antoinehersen 15y ago
I think Assange took to much of a central role, creating a huge weakness that is being successfully exploited. I personally want to support wikileaks, but I have mixed feelings about Assange.
willvarfar 15y ago
So can we all start singing the praises of http://cryptome.org/ http://cryptome.org/ so that future whistle blowers know where to go? Oh, and someone make them an attractive homepage please!
Bungholio 15y ago
A sneering, cynical summary, typical of a press which attacks alternative sources for purely selfish reasons. You'd have thought that "the press" would stick together to protect press freedom, freedom of speech and whistle-blowing, but no - they seem more interested in sniping at Wikileaks. Even the U.K. Guardian has joined in, I only hope these institutions aren't one day hoisted on their own petard.

137 points by cawel 15y ago

maqr 15y ago

Between the donation lock-out from every major bank, the heavily biased media coverage, and the clearly false charges against Assange, this has become too painful to watch. All of this for a guy trying to create a press outlet that tells the real truth, using anonymous and protected (but verified) sources, for free, to the whole world.

scott_s 15y ago
I'm curious how you were able to come to the conclusion that the charges are "clearly false." The charges sound serious to me, and while I have not concluded on their truth, I cannot dismiss them. They sound like they have enough merit for a trial. For example, "Given that one of the women said she awoke to find Mr. Assange having unprotected sex with her, she could not possibly have given her consent, Ms. Montgomery argued." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.htm...)
- oconnore 15y ago
  Since when has the burden of proof been with the accused? Do either of these women have evidence other than their own testimony?
  - teaspoon 15y ago
    The burden of proof is on the accusers, but "not proven" is a long way off from "clearly false".
  - cperciva 15y ago
    Men accused of sexual offences have been presumed guilty until proven innocent for the past two decades. Didn't you get the memo?
    - william42 15y ago
      And that's why so many of them have gone to jail recently...oh wait.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        Not sure what you're trying to say there. Men go to jail on all the time purely on the strength of the victim's testimony. Seems like every week I'm reading a story in the newspaper about a guy who got released from jail after being cleared by a DNA test.
- nandemo 15y ago
  I agree that the accusations aren't clearly false, but note that he hasn't been formally charged with a crime. He will be extradited to Sweden to be questioned (!). AFAIK nobody said he's not going to court yet.
  - toyg 15y ago
    That's another scandal. Swedish prosecutors never issue international arrest warrants to question random Joe Sixpacks, certainly not for very dubious accusations like these. It's a shame that such a civilized country is being dragged through the mud by politically-motivated scumbags.
    - nobody3141592 15y ago
      And the same British government refused to extradite General Pinochet to Spain for war crimes because there wasn't enough evidence! The courts are going to be very busy if months after every club 18-30 holiday you can regret a drunken 'romance' and have the other party extradited.
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        Uh, no, that's not why he was released.
    - jeltz 15y ago
      Agreed, I do not believe the rape accusations were politically motivated but the international warrant obviously was. It is probably the first time ever sexual misconduct with weak evidence has resulted in an international arrest warrant.
  - nandemo 15y ago
    s/he's not going/he's going/
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  The evidence suggests it is highly unlikely they are true. Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist. http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_broken_co.html http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_br... It's also a rather implausible coincidence that after these events, the rape charge only surfaced after a) Assange failed to call either Anna Ardin or Miss W. back and b) Ardin and W each discovered he was sleeping with the other one. I think the story itself justifies a very low probability of being true - in my estimation, probably considerably less than 1%.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist. Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape. Stockholm syndrome?
    - zobzu 15y ago
      i can't figure out if that's sarcasm or a dumb sheeped down comment :p
      - iamdave 15y ago
        Why? I too think the charges are trumped up, but Stockholm is a possibility until one or both of these women come out with the truth of what actually happened.
        araneae 15y ago
        It's not a possibility, because he did not hold them captive. Stockholm Syndrome only refers to situations where people who are held against their will have positive feelings towards their captors.
- mc32 15y ago
  Isn't it the case when you sympathise with someone one gives them the benefit of doubt --but when one dislikes someone one envisions the worst? 1. Imagine a good friend accused of something (ex. aggr. assault). 2. Imagine a good friend accuses someone of the same thing. If instead of Assange, the accused were a live Qaddafi, or, say the Dalai Lama, would we not see things a bit differently, in each case, due to bias? We just don't know. It's all conjecture at this point with he said, she said.
epenn 15y ago
clearly false charges I was not there to witness what did or did not happen with Assange and the girls in question. As a result I cannot comment on his guilt or innocence. Through what evidence have you concluded that they are clearly false charges?
- mahmud 15y ago
  They're not "girls", they're women, as both females are well past their teenage years.
tompagenet2 15y ago
I'm surprised you see the issue in such black and white terms. Certainly some of Mr Assange's comments might lead some to suspect he sees conspiracy where there is none [1] and that his judgement is not impeccable. Wikileaks and Assange have also turned on their partners, notably the Guardian, when circumstances have suited them [2] and their concerns for the safety of those mentioned in their releases have not always appeared sincere [3]. I'm not saying that these pieces of evidence point towards Mr Assange being guilty, evil or anything else, but they do suggest he's human and fallible, and perhaps not 100% pure in his intentions. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but it does make me question any entirely polarised assertion about the man. I've not been able to spot anything untoward in the way the UK courts have treated Assange, and I can't help but feel that if the charges are 'clearly false' they can be demonstrated as such in Sweden - a country that Mr Assange himself has in the past admired [4], but now seeks to label as the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' [5]. Clearly going through such a procedure must be harrowing for all involved, and I'm not dismissing the stress lightly, but accusations of criminality being investigated is a key principle of society and in the Swedish legal system formal charges occur after extradition and questioning. This seems reasonable. If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-j... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cable-release-is-guardians-fault.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-un... [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 [4]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-hero-zero-swedes-pitiable http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-... [5]: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julian-assange-calling-sweden-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism/17721/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julia...
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy. True... but can you really doubt that US officials (and maybe others) are quietly twisting Sweden's arm to make as much of the investigation as they can? It would be very much out of character for them to pass up the opportunity.
FrankenTan 15y ago
Wikileaks sadly lost a lot of respect from me and many people I know when some of their comments and many of their followers weren't about Assange's innocence, but instead in defense of rape, both directly and through criticism of conditional consent. Even if only some zealous defenders had done so rather than wikileaks (most likely) accidentally doing so, it would still taste quite bitter. While I wholeheartedly agree it's not been handled well at all by the Swedish prosecutors and government, and that there are irregularities and that Wikileaks and Assange should* criticize and question this, seeing people defend rape to defend them is bizarre. Although I am well aware this happens whenever rape is discussed. Conditional consent IS a legal concept in Sweden, and one I personally agree with. This saddens me, as I'm a rather big fan of Wikileaks and since I am also a fan of Assange I hope he's innocent. *Conditional Consent: While you might argue that there may be a need for different words for varying degrees and types of sexual crimes. Rape, at least for now, is defined solely by the presence of consent, as far as I understand. If my consent hinges on a condition, and this was explained, my consent is nullified if the person willfully lies about this condition to be able to have sexual contact with me. Ex: A woman lies about being on birth-control or a man lies about condom or being sterile.

bh42222 15y ago

Let's momentarily put aside the question of Asange's legal troubles, and concentrate only on WikiLeaks. It is greatly disturbing that an informal impromptu collusion of financial companies and governments is successfully shutting down a while blower outlet. Like seriously f-ing disturbing!

mvanga 15y ago
What bothers me more is that people have been powerless in helping Wikileaks with their struggle. There are people who want to donate to Wikileaks but are unable to do so in an easy manner because of the blockade. It's a really good demonstration of where power lies.
- LiveTheDream 15y ago
  You can mail a check. Very old-school, but it works. Banks like ING can mail the physical check for you, making the process as easy as using paypal.
- xtracto 15y ago
  They also accept bitcoins, which you know nowadays are cheap :P
  - fragsworth 15y ago
    I am sure they had quite a few, and their recent crash in value probably did not help much.

owenmarshall 15y ago

Possibly unpopular question: why is WikiLeaks so expensive? I'm well aware that hosting costs money -- especially if you're trying to find a service that is resistant to pressure from companies and governments around the world -- but WL seems to have run out of funds every time I try to access the site. I mean, if the goal is to freely distribute information, distributing leaks by torrent only would be a simple, insanely cheap option that would save WL money. But as far as I can tell, WikiLeaks hasn't exactly been forthcoming with details of where their money goes. I could be wrong, but I think every query Cryptome made to Wau Holland has been ignored, and some promised funds from WL to Bradley Manning have come up consistently short...

jgrahamc 15y ago
It's quite clear that WikiLeaks doesn't want to distribute via BitTorrent because they want control. Just look at how they handled the cables: they worked with media partners to analyze and release some of them. Later they totally screwed up and released everything unfiltered. Since they want to maintain control they need people and bandwidth/hosting. Even if the the latter were free, people tend to cost money.
- vladd 15y ago
  You can distribute encrypted files via torrents to solve both control and bandwidth (you just divulge the password at a future point in time).
  - danenania 15y ago
    That doesn't solve control on its own... you still need (smart, trustworthy, courageous) people to go through documents, verify credibility, determine and redact dangerous info, deal with media/pr, not to mention legal issues. Tech people seem to consistently underestimate the non-tech needs even of organizations that are primarily software driven. I'd venture to guess that despite technology clearly being a core component of what WL does, it represents a relatively small percentage of their expenses.

tibbon 15y ago

If they stop, does this mean they are going to release the password on that "insurance" file they distributed a while ago?

khafra 15y ago
IIRC that got blown by one of the journalists they had been working with.
- brador 15y ago
  So the passwords out?
  - eis 15y ago
    No, as far as I understand the situation, the password that got leaked was for the whole cables archive and not for the insurance file. The insurance file was not released because Wikileaks is saying they are being blackmailed by a big bank (don't remember which one, BoA?). Edit: I think I confused this stuff. It's not about releasing the insurance file, it's about releasing information on the banks that they can't do because of the claimed blackmailing. The insurance file will only be released as a last resort.
    - tibbon 15y ago
      What in the world could BofA do?
      - roc 15y ago
        Aside from what they've done in getting every payment processor to blacklist them? I think the question is: what more could BoFA do? One possibility, is getting all the individuals associated with Wikileaks --possibly including family members and friends-- added to the blacklist. That said, if I were Wikileaks, this would be the point I release my Insurance File. Along with whatever communications they've had from BofA, which doubtlessly outline what they want and what they'll do if they don't get it. (You can't be blackmailed without accusations and threats)

deanproxy 15y ago

This may be a really, really dumb question... I don't know the laws possibly preventing this and how shady it could actually be, but is there a possible way to set up an intermediary payment system? Whereas one could accept easy payments and then do the work of transforming those into checks or whatnot and sending them to Wikileaks?

zobzu 15y ago
you need a bank to store the money, if its not physical money no bank wants of wikileaks or to handle their transactions and yes, banks control the world, they don't like something, they kill it. simple and easy apparently.
- deanproxy 15y ago
  Definitely... but I'm wondering about doing it anonymously. So basically find some way that people could donate to a specific person or business, then have that entity make money orders and send them off directly to wikileaks? I'm guessing there are laws in place to prevent such a thing... It seems too much like money laundering. :)
  - hohead 15y ago
    FYI, they accept Bitcoin donations (which are fairly anonymous) at this address: 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v You can learn more here: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
  - mahyarm 15y ago
    Most banks and financial systems around the world are so closely integrated with governments that they might as well be pseudo-governmental institutions.
must_learn_more 15y ago
This may be a really, really dumb question...but can't we all put our tech heads together to hack a way out of this problem for WikiLeaks? Just for fun could anybody dream up a good hack? If you were super passionate about this, what would you do?

nomdeplume 15y ago

WikiLeaks has been dead for a long time. Ever since the release involving the video of helicopter firing on the people below, someone out there got serious and decided to take Assange down by discrediting him and by diverting the focus away from information and toward the rape charges. Assange was probably given some "offer" he could not refuse and the rest is all for show.

kevinh 15y ago
I'll agree that WikiLeaks died (for me) when they released the helicopter video, but not because of some sort of grand conspiracy. It was because they editorialized the story into the ground. They weren't releasing unadulterated pure data and allowing people to analyze the data; they were attempting to force people into a certain manner of thinking. That's when I realized WikiLeaks was just the same as any major media outlet.
- jeltz 15y ago
  I am pretty sure they did release the entire video too. And personally I would say the editorialization was mostly harmful to their cause in my case since the real video gave an even stronger picture. Without the cutting it felt much more real and horrible.
- noblethrasher 15y ago
  Assange advocates something he calls "scientific journalism" whereby journalists publish the raw data and source material along with every story. So they differ from major media outlets in that Wikileaks releases both the editorialized "story" and the unedited source footage and documents. Now, I'm still not sure how I feel about the "Collateral Murder" video but Assange claims that the original modus operandi of Wikileaks was to simply supply partner news organizations with the raw (possibly redacted) source material and let them publish it. He further claims that the major news organizations were not interested in doing anything with the information until Wikileaks forced them to by creating a story with legs.

antoinehersen 15y ago

I think Assange took to much of a central role, creating a huge weakness that is being successfully exploited. I personally want to support wikileaks, but I have mixed feelings about Assange.

willvarfar 15y ago

So can we all start singing the praises of http://cryptome.org/ http://cryptome.org/ so that future whistle blowers know where to go? Oh, and someone make them an attractive homepage please!

Bungholio 15y ago

A sneering, cynical summary, typical of a press which attacks alternative sources for purely selfish reasons. You'd have thought that "the press" would stick together to protect press freedom, freedom of speech and whistle-blowing, but no - they seem more interested in sniping at Wikileaks. Even the U.K. Guardian has joined in, I only hope these institutions aren't one day hoisted on their own petard.