OpenLeaks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>George Swan (more details) |
imported>George Swan (more details) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''OpenLeaks''' is project forked from [[WikiLeaks]] by some discontented staff members. <ref>{{citation | '''OpenLeaks''' is project forked from [[WikiLeaks]] by some discontented staff members, lead by [[Daniel Domscheit-Berg]].<ref>{{citation | ||
| url = http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/a-new-wikileaks-revolts-against-assange-1.1224764 | | url = http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/a-new-wikileaks-revolts-against-assange-1.1224764 | ||
| title = ”A new WikiLeaks” revolts against Assange | | title = ”A new WikiLeaks” revolts against Assange | ||
| date = Dec 9, 2010 | | date = Dec 9, 2010 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Domscheit-Berg defended keeping the source code to OpenLeaks secret.<ref name=Nytimes2012-10-12/> | |||
As of December 10, 2010, the [http://www.openleaks.org/ web site] | As of December 10, 2010, the [http://www.openleaks.org/ web site] was up, but the only content was a logo and a "Coming Soon" message. | ||
''[[Wired magazine]]'' published a long excerpt from [[Andy Greenberg]]'s history of WikiLeaks, focussed around OpenLeaks August 2011 opening.<ref name=Wired2012-09/> | |||
:{| class="wikitable" | |||
| | |||
:''"The long-gestating system is designed to allow the same anonymous whistleblowing as WikiLeaks, but unlike the parent project where Domscheit- Berg spent three years of his life, OpenLeaks isn’t designed to actually make anything public. Instead, it aims to securely pass on leaked content to partnered media organizations and nonprofits, avoiding the dicey role of publisher that got WikiLeaks into so much trouble. It will focus, Domscheit- Berg says, on the most technically tricky and crucial link in the leaking chain: untraceable anonymous uploads."''<ref name=Wired2012-09/> | |||
|} | |||
In 2013, when the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'' commented on the [[SecureDrop]] project, initiated by ''[[Forbes magazine]]'', it commented that OpenLeaks was ''"a project which did not ultimately materialize."''<ref name=Cjr2013-10-31/> | In 2013, when the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'' commented on the [[SecureDrop]] project, initiated by ''[[Forbes magazine]]'', it commented that OpenLeaks was ''"a project which did not ultimately materialize."''<ref name=Cjr2013-10-31/> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 18: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{reflist|refs= | {{reflist|refs= | ||
< | <ref name=Nytimes2012-10-12> | ||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| url = | | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/books/review/this-machine-kills-secrets-by-andy-greenberg.html | ||
| title = | | title = And the Firewalls Came Tumbling Down: ‘This Machine Kills Secrets,’ by Andy Greenberg | ||
| work = | | work = [[New York Times]] | ||
| author = | | author = Evgeny Morozovoct | ||
| date = | | date = 2012-10-12 | ||
| page = | | page = BR14 | ||
| archiveurl = | | archiveurl = | ||
| archivedate = | | archivedate = | ||
| accessdate = 2019-08-23 | | accessdate = 2019-08-23 | ||
| deadurl = No | | deadurl = No | ||
| quote = | | quote = {{'}}You can’t run this like a zoo where everyone can go and watch,{{'}} is how Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Julian Assange’s former lieutenant, defends his decision not to release the source code of OpenLeaks, his own challenger to WikiLeaks. | ||
}} | }} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
<ref name=Wired2012-09> | |||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| url = | | url = https://www.wired.com/2012/09/this-machine-kills-secrets/ | ||
| title = | | title = The WikiLeaks Spinoff That Wasn’t: An Exclusive Excerpt From This Machine Kills Secrets | ||
| work = | | work = [[Wired magazine]] | ||
| author = | | author = [[Andy Greenberg]] | ||
| date = | | date = September 2012 | ||
| archiveurl = | | archiveurl = | ||
| archivedate = | | archivedate = | ||
Revision as of 07:51, 24 August 2019
OpenLeaks is project forked from WikiLeaks by some discontented staff members, lead by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.[1] Domscheit-Berg defended keeping the source code to OpenLeaks secret.[2]
As of December 10, 2010, the web site was up, but the only content was a logo and a "Coming Soon" message.
Wired magazine published a long excerpt from Andy Greenberg's history of WikiLeaks, focussed around OpenLeaks August 2011 opening.[3]
- "The long-gestating system is designed to allow the same anonymous whistleblowing as WikiLeaks, but unlike the parent project where Domscheit- Berg spent three years of his life, OpenLeaks isn’t designed to actually make anything public. Instead, it aims to securely pass on leaked content to partnered media organizations and nonprofits, avoiding the dicey role of publisher that got WikiLeaks into so much trouble. It will focus, Domscheit- Berg says, on the most technically tricky and crucial link in the leaking chain: untraceable anonymous uploads."[3]
In 2013, when the Columbia Journalism Review commented on the SecureDrop project, initiated by Forbes magazine, it commented that OpenLeaks was "a project which did not ultimately materialize."[4]
References
- ↑ ”A new WikiLeaks” revolts against Assange, Dec 9, 2010
- ↑ Evgeny Morozovoct. And the Firewalls Came Tumbling Down: ‘This Machine Kills Secrets,’ by Andy Greenberg, New York Times, 2012-10-12, p. BR14. Retrieved on 2019-08-23. “'You can’t run this like a zoo where everyone can go and watch,' is how Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Julian Assange’s former lieutenant, defends his decision not to release the source code of OpenLeaks, his own challenger to WikiLeaks.”
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Andy Greenberg. The WikiLeaks Spinoff That Wasn’t: An Exclusive Excerpt From This Machine Kills Secrets, Wired magazine, September 2012. Retrieved on 2019-08-23.
- ↑ Lauren Kirchner. When sources remain anonymous, Columbia Journalism Review, 2013-10-31. Retrieved on 2019-08-23. “Incidentally, it’s a concept similar to WikiLeaks spinoff OpenLeaks, a project which did not ultimately materialize, and to The Wall Street Journal’s SafeHouse, a 2011 attempt which was immediately lambasted by security experts for its, well, lack of security.”