0 votes

Wikileaks unlike Cryptome

Dear Neighbor,

> 1. Is it true that you registered the wikileaks.org domain (I read mails on your site but just wanted to make sure). Did they approach you because of your work with Cryptome?
>

I was asked by email from an anonymous person for permission to use my name and address as registrant for Wikileaks.org. I agreed to that role. Somebody else executed the registration, I did not do that. I do not know who executed the registration. I have performed this service for a number of people before and after Wikileaks. And I have operated web sites for persons who wanted to hide their identity. This is consistent with the purpose of Cryptome to publish documents for those who wish to conceal their identity.

> 1. From your perspective: When and why did you leave Wikileaks?
>

I did not join Wikileaks nor was I asked to join. In those earliest days there was no Wikileaks; it was a concept which did not have a name. My email address was added to a private mail list set up to discuss the establishment of the concept and the name Wikileaks came out of those discussions. You can read this in the messages posted on Cryptome.

I participated in the mail list discussionI did not leave willingly. I was unsubscribed after I criticized a grandiose funding raising target of $5million is one year. Thus I was never inside Wikileaks but I believe there is nobody inside Wikileaks, that is a mistaken assumption about its existence. Various people participate in common activities but there is no formal organization, no officers, no employees, no legal existence. The WL "advisory board" is an informal arrangement with no legal existence, no responsibility, no legal liability. WL remains only a concept, an initiative, and as far as I know does not exist legally. However, Cryptome is also the same, only a concept without formal existence; it too is only an activity not a legal entitity, it has no resources, no employees, no responsibility; it is a philosophical fiction somewhat like Wikileaks but there are considerable differences.

1. Cryptome primary purpose is not to make money, Wikileaks wants to make a lot of money. That was the reason I was banned and remains the prinicipal basis of my concern about public deception by Wikileaks. It is a business pretending to be a public service initiative.

2. Cryptome does not practice secrecy, Wikileaks does, too much I believe, in order to glamorous its concept as do spies, governments, security peddlers, authoritatives of all stripes and criminals.

3. Cryptome does not promise confidentiality to sources, Wikileaks does far more promising than is technically possible, again like unscrupulous spies, governments, authoritatives of all stripes and criminals -- and journalists especially.

4. Cryptome invites negative criticism and public debate about what it does. Wikileaks bristles at negative criticism and promotes only praise for its activities, indeed exaggerates the praise, seeks, possibly manufactures it in cooperation with those who peddle praise -- that public relations firms and journalism.

5 . Cryptome does not seek publicity or media coverage. Wikileaks does by issuing press releases, taunting the media, orchestrating bombshell releases, glamourizing Julian Assange, behaving mysteriously, exaggerating threats by powerful forces, exaggerating the value of what it publishes, editorializes about its publications excessively -- all the methods used by those who believe excessive valuation is a good thing, you know best who does that, if not, see 3, 4 and 5.

Cryptome does not want to be associated with Wikileaks and there has been no association until recently when Cryptome has been repeatedly asked to comment on Wikileaks on the assumption that the two are alike. Excuse my repetition: they are not alike but it has been futile to state that. By the way, as far as I know Wikileaks has never claimed it is like Cryptome.

> 1. When and why did you become interested in the financial situation of WL?
>

When there were reports Wikileaks had raised $1million dollars with its bombshell releases.

> 1. Have you ever been in touch with Julian Assange in recent times? Was there a personal fallout with him?
>

I spoke to Julian once by telepone earlier this year. It was a friendly chat. We have never met. There was no personal relationship. I do not know who unsubscribed me from the private mail list.

> 1. What is your main criticism on Wikileaks right now? The lack of transparency? The hierarchical, yet assumingly “professional” organsation (oposed to the amateur approach that you described in your CNET interview?)
>

I would like the initiative to be more open about its operation, finances, participants and goals, in accord with democratic principles rather than authoritative principles. Secrecy rightly breeds suspicion and distrust, there is absolutely no justification for it by any public intiative. It corrupts those who practice it.

> 1. Just speculation – is the organisation going to collapse (as recent departures of key figures such as spokesman Daniel Schmitt suggest?)
>

The initiative will evolve into a more open process or it will die from secrecy, paranoia, suspicion, deception, anger and frustration.

Read full response, here:

http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cryptome

Darned right, Troy.

From what I have observed, John Young and associates left Assange's site when the 'fundraising' thing began.
I have NEVER gone to the 'wikileaks' site, due to certain 'intuition' that all is not as it seems.
The history of the founder is somewhat suspect, as I recall (wasn't he busted for hacking into an Australian government site as a teenager?).
It's getting harder to get real info out there, in order to see the truth in matters.
I first stumbled on Cryptome's site through a link at Media Monarchy, about 3 years ago. I have mentioned the site in passing before, on my private mails, but I was hoping that the 'secret' wouldn't get out.

i just don't see

i just don't see why people don't think wikileaks deserves the same scrutiny as any other entity that they allegedly expose.

Great interview

It's strange that no one else felt the same way enough to bother to comment on it.

strange, but expected?

the happy fairy-tale of a renegade leaker running amok in global politics is one that is difficult to confront with any serious scrutiny.

the way it is told is cozy and comforting. we all want a daniel-ellsberg-like repeat of history to end the wars and bring the corportocracy to its' knees.

but like 9/11, people don't like it if you shake the boat or scratch beneath the surface. so the official story is accepted without critical analysis. many visitors on this board are not immune to that tendency, either. so wikileaks is often taken at face value. but, take the example, julian's recent public request to punish sara palin for the az shooter is both pathalogical and pathetic on the global scale of things that he imagines he represents.

this would be akin to the ceo of apple, steve jobs, to do a press release about vitamin difficiencies in british children.

the out-of-place comment showing the parallel between wikileaks in-sync with american punditry is just another example of how WL is too close to the fire not to be letting off any heat.

i am not really surprised by the sound of crickets around here when somebody takes issue with their hero -- julian assange.

this was yesterday's news, doncha know?

as of late, the democracy of the messages have been hijacked by 3 posters who control the dialogue around here, anyway. busy, highly-opinionated, bees that seem to make up over half of all the comments around here.

i miss reading level-headed comments from mature posters. but i digress...