I 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].
Another 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).
I 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?
I'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.
I'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.
Assange 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.
Why 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.
People 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.
Ah? 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).
I 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."
It's probably not a question of access to the information but one of the contents identifying to the source. Wikileaks caught a lot of bad publicity over their spotty sanitization of the Afghanistan leaks.
DDB was the guy in charge of the servers, crypto, and backups for submissions as well as administering the submission system.
The first big dispute between him and Assange was over his use of WL funds in purchasing IT assets. Assange thought he was making unnecessary and/or dubious purchases...which it now seems was the case.
He was s sysadmin, not just some shlub who logged in and hit delete.
"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.
"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."
I find that politicians and PR people use the specific words they use for very specific reasons. In this case they can send a message to people who might want to leak in the future, who might be parsing this stuff really carefully, but not making it obvious enough that the general public sees what's going on. Strategic language is a crazy and complicated game.
25 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 73.6 ms ] thread[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Insurance_file
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank....
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.
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.
[1] http://wikileaks.org/About.html
The first big dispute between him and Assange was over his use of WL funds in purchasing IT assets. Assange thought he was making unnecessary and/or dubious purchases...which it now seems was the case.
He was s sysadmin, not just some shlub who logged in and hit delete.
FTFY
It would be really interesting to see bank transactions for that Domscheit-Berg guy. I hope Wikileaks can get them...
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.
You're reading too much into what's he's saying.