Former Wikileaks collaborator defects, forms 'OpenLeaks'

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Daniel Domscheit-berg, the man in question, is claiming to be spilling the beans on Wikileaks and its frontman Julian Assange.

The news story,

Ex-WikiLeaks insider kills high value leaks - Oddware - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

Wikileaks has released numerous twitter feeds highlighting what Daniel has claimed to destroy, including 5gb of info pertaining to the Bank of America, info pertaining to 20 Neo Nazi groups, info on U.S. government intercepts of over 100 internet companies and more high value information.

Daniel is now saying he will be giving conferences, writing books and starting his own leaking site called OpenLeaks, which from his explanation of the site's purpose will be anything but Open. Instead OpenLeaks will give dressed down information to select journalists and news organizations for further pruning before being released to the public.

Daniel, who has gone by numerous names in the past and was fired by Assange after being suspected of defecting when he changed residence without having any counterintelligence measures, seems anything but trustworthy or reputable yet his face and his book is plastered all over every major news site. Frankly I am not amused.

Thoughts?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

'I Doubt Domscheit-Berg's Integrity': Top German Hacker♥Slams OpenLeaks Founder - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Further article of interest where Chaos Computer Club spokesman Muller Maguhn questions Daniel's integrity and gives his reasoning as to why Daniel was expelled from CCC membership (only 2 people have ever been expelled from CCC in over 30 years, the other being a Neo Nazi who exploited CCC's infrastructure to support pro Neo Nazi messages).

The title of Daniel's new book is "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website"

Talk about inflammatory hyperbole.

[irfan]

KV, very interesting. I skimmed Daniel's book and got a very bad feeling about it. I couldn't understand why he chose to publish when he did, just at a time when Julian was at his most vulnerable and the whole concept of a secure whistle-blowing platform was under deep attack. I sensed a personal, almost sexual jealousy on Daniel's part.

If the allegations about the deletion of the banking materials is true, Daniel is behaving in a deeply shameful fashion.

I wish it was easier to donate to Wikileaks. I can't work out how this Bitcoin system works.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Wow, imagine that - criminals backstabbing each other. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Wow, imagine that - criminals backstabbing each other. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Cynicism contributes so much value to a thread.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by irfan

KV, very interesting. I skimmed Daniel's book and got a very bad feeling about it. I couldn't understand why he chose to publish when he did, just at a time when Julian was at his most vulnerable and the whole concept of a secure whistle-blowing platform was under deep attack. I sensed a personal, almost sexual jealousy on Daniel's part.

If the allegations about the deletion of the banking materials is true, Daniel is behaving in a deeply shameful fashion.

I wish it was easier to donate to Wikileaks. I can't work out how this Bitcoin system works.

I'm currently trying to unravel the intricacies of the Bitcoin system too. I'm not about to give up due to difficulty, I imagine that since the dollar is one of the stronger symbols of power in the world today, combating its centralization would take a system of considerable complexity. I like that the system forces you to take responsibility for your coins if you do use it rather than letting some central agency take care of it for you, that's how fascism eventually happens.

Anyway this is a bit off topic, the revolution of the 21st century seems to be about the power of connectivity afforded by the internet threatening a lot of entrenched and centralized powers, not to mention bothering cynics like Snerp. Being a utilitarian anarchist in philosophy a lot of my views and the actions of some of these internet revolutionaries whose philosophies are similar to my own clash with more conservative types who would rather sacrifice personal freedoms for safety nets (that to us look more like spider webs) but ultimately the revolutions of free and decentralized information occurring on the net are a good thing for everyone and people like Daniel are really just reacting out of a fearful self preservation instinct.

[irfan]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I'm currently trying to unravel the intricacies of the Bitcoin system too. I'm not about to give up due to difficulty, I imagine that since the dollar is one of the stronger symbols of power in the world today, combating its centralization would take a system of considerable complexity. I like that the system forces you to take responsibility for your coins if you do use it rather than letting some central agency take care of it for you, that's how fascism eventually happens.

Yes, I like it principle. Of course, I'd like it to work it practice, too.

I admit that I sometimes find Julian a disturbing character. He does seem to have his share of vanities and personal weaknesses, as does everyone. Still, I don't think those weaknesses constitute his core identity, I believe that he is truly committed to the ideal of freedom of information and has many qualities that enable him to serve that cause.

I don't find SnerpGoodWord's comment worth responding to directly.

[Brutha]

If the allegations about the deletion of the banking materials is true, Daniel is behaving in a deeply shameful fashion.

The fact that Daniel was supposedly able to delete all those files shows that the stuff that Wikileaks promised about the safety that their system had two years ago was a bunch of lies.

I mean they stood there and claimed that they had a highly redundant system that where data would be published even when the two public spokespersons would be tortured and asked to delete the data.

At the same time Assange doesn't even have access to his own personal backup of the submission queue?
Are you kidding me?
Daniel can take the submission software from Wikileaks and disappear with it and Julian can't get the submission process back up in a year because he's missing the source code for the damn software?

Where's the promised redundancy of the damn system?

Julian should blame himself for having no personal backup.

In addition should be clear that Daniel couldn't have done the stuff alone. At present the four major OpenLeaks people are ex-Wikileaks people.

As far as Wikileaks goes I'm pretty disappointed with it's performance in 2011. They didn't even manage to bring the submission page back online.

I can't work out how this Bitcoin system works.

What's you problem with getting Bitcoin to run?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The fact that Daniel was supposedly able to delete all those files shows that the stuff that Wikileaks promised about the safety that their system had two years ago was a bunch of lies.

I mean they stood there and claimed that they had a highly redundant system that where data would be published even when the two public spokespersons would be tortured and asked to delete the data.

At the same time Assange doesn't even have access to his own personal backup of the submission queue?
Are you kidding me?
Daniel can take the submission software from Wikileaks and disappear with it and Julian can't get the submission process back up in a year because he's missing the source code for the damn software?

Where's the promised redundancy of the damn system?

Julian should blame himself for having no personal backup.

In addition should be clear that Daniel couldn't have done the stuff alone. At present the four major OpenLeaks people are ex-Wikileaks people.

As far as Wikileaks goes I'm pretty disappointed with it's performance in 2011. They didn't even manage to bring the submission page back online.

Yeah that's a very good point about their overall security. The blame for Daniel's shenanigans partially goes to the rest of the Wikileaks staff. I of course want to think "conspiracy" but something tells me this was just human error coupled with stupendous arrogance.

Unless perhaps the team had some honor code/rule against personal backups for whatever reason? I can see how that might make sense in the interest of keeping the whole team on the same page with what gets leaked and what doesn't, so no one is acting alone.

[Curtis2011]

Julian Assange getting a taste of his own medicine.

Irony at its finest.

[Brutha]

The blame for Daniel's shenanigans partially goes to the rest of the Wikileaks staff.

To the extent that the decision was made by multiple Wikileaks people it isn't clear anymore whether Julian really had some sort of authority to overrule them.
The Wikileaks folks seemed never to talk internally about who has the authority to do what before it was to late.

I can see how that might make sense in the interest of keeping the whole team on the same page with what gets leaked and what doesn't, so no one is acting alone.

Julian was acting alone and making contracts with newspapers about what supposed to be leaked without telling the others.
That's one of the reason why Daniel and Julian clashed and Daniel & friends left and "took the data with".

I of course want to think "conspiracy" but something tells me this was just human error coupled with stupendous arrogance.

To me it seems like stupendous arrogance on all sites.
Daniel's, Julian's and probably other people who's names I don't know as well.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Cynicism contributes so much value to a thread.

It contributes exactly the level of value wikileaks deserves.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Daniel Domscheit-berg, the man in question, is claiming to be spilling the beans on Wikileaks and its frontman Julian Assange.

The news story,

Ex-WikiLeaks insider kills high value leaks - Oddware - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

Wikileaks has released numerous twitter feeds highlighting what Daniel has claimed to destroy, including 5gb of info pertaining to the Bank of America, info pertaining to 20 Neo Nazi groups, info on U.S. government intercepts of over 100 internet companies and more high value information.

Daniel is now saying he will be giving conferences, writing books and starting his own leaking site called OpenLeaks, which from his explanation of the site's purpose will be anything but Open. Instead OpenLeaks will give dressed down information to select journalists and news organizations for further pruning before being released to the public.

Daniel, who has gone by numerous names in the past and was fired by Assange after being suspected of defecting when he changed residence without having any counterintelligence measures, seems anything but trustworthy or reputable yet his face and his book is plastered all over every major news site. Frankly I am not amused.

Thoughts?

A fake created by the government as a misinformation device?

[Brutha]

A fake created by the government as a misinformation device?

Given that the main OpenLeaks people are ex-Wikileaks the claim that OpenLeaks is a government operation doesn't make such sense unless you believe that Wikileaks is also a government operation.

[JSB]

WikiLeaks is a fantastic idea, and could perform a very valuable service, but Julian Assange is, by many accounts, an immature, self-important, egomaniacal assh**e.

[irfan]

Originally Posted by JSB

WikiLeaks is a fantastic idea, and could perform a very valuable service, but Julian Assange is, by many accounts, an immature, self-important, egomaniacal assh**e.

We all have issues to deal with. The same could be said of many, many other high-achieving people who have successfully developed brilliant ideas. In Julian's case, there are many powerful groups that have a vested interest in exposing his weaknesses as widely as possible.

More importantly, perhaps, many other people operate in an environment where they have to keep their ego in check: they are accountable to other people and have to interact with them. On that score, Julian is open to criticism: he could have worked to develop a system where his weaknesses would hot have had such a negative influence.

It will be interesting to see if Wikileaks survives, but even if it doesn't and it is replaced by similar or better systems, it has already served a valuable function by opening a discourse on the subject of freedom of information.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by JSB

WikiLeaks is a fantastic idea, and could perform a very valuable service, but Julian Assange is, by many accounts, an immature, self-important, egomaniacal assh**e.

Focusing on Julian Assange's character is useless, unless you're just looking for another celebrity to judge. In fact, I believe he himself has said he's the fall guy for Wikileaks, publicly becoming what the media focuses on so that negative attention is taken away from the institution itself. If it was not he who said it (I'm not sure about the fact), it still makes a lot of sense, given the tendencies of large US* media.

Whether or not it was intentional, it's worked to an extent, and he's still not the point. Let me say it again, Assange's assholishness or lack of such has very little relevance to Wikileaks' effect on the world; not only is he not Wikileaks, but there are many other people behind it.


*I specify because I'm not very familiar with non-US media, but my statement could still be relevant to other outlets.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Daniel Domscheit-berg, the man in question, is claiming to be spilling the beans on Wikileaks and its frontman Julian Assange.

The news story,

Ex-WikiLeaks insider kills high value leaks - Oddware - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

Wikileaks has released numerous twitter feeds highlighting what Daniel has claimed to destroy, including 5gb of info pertaining to the Bank of America, info pertaining to 20 Neo Nazi groups, info on U.S. government intercepts of over 100 internet companies and more high value information.

Daniel is now saying he will be giving conferences, writing books and starting his own leaking site called OpenLeaks, which from his explanation of the site's purpose will be anything but Open. Instead OpenLeaks will give dressed down information to select journalists and news organizations for further pruning before being released to the public.

Daniel, who has gone by numerous names in the past and was fired by Assange after being suspected of defecting when he changed residence without having any counterintelligence measures, seems anything but trustworthy or reputable yet his face and his book is plastered all over every major news site. Frankly I am not amused.

Thoughts?

Did it say if he was told to destroy them--if that's policy--or if he did it of his own initiative. If so, is there any word on why?

Is defecting ideologically? Is he even giving such an excuse or is the only visible benefit for him making a good buck?

Is the future OpenLeaks, if true to the above description, primed to do any damage or simply to be another untrustworthy news source?

Depending on the answer to the above questions and a few more--ie whether there's any reason to believe this guy--isn't getting the 'inside scoop' on Wikileaks a good thing? Freedom of information and all.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

'I Doubt Domscheit-Berg's Integrity': Top German Hacker*Slams OpenLeaks Founder - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Further article of interest where Chaos Computer Club spokesman Muller Maguhn questions Daniel's integrity and gives his reasoning as to why Daniel was expelled from CCC membership (only 2 people have ever been expelled from CCC in over 30 years, the other being a Neo Nazi who exploited CCC's infrastructure to support pro Neo Nazi messages).

The title of Daniel's new book is "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website"

Talk about inflammatory hyperbole.

So if he's that bad, why is he a threat and why was he in Wikileaks in the first place?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

It contributes exactly the level of value wikileaks deserves.

Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

[irfan]

Mariana, I agree with you that the media loves a celebrity villain or hero, which is often distracting. But the character of a person who establishes an organization does have an impact on the way the organization operates, so it's not entirely irrelevant. But no, it shouldn't be the main focus of discussion.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

So if he's that bad, why is he a threat and why was he in Wikileaks in the first place?

I think we can all agree that there seem to be some arrogant attention seekers making up the Wikileaks crowd.

I surmise that his place in Wikileaks was gained due to having a capacity to work in a context that included journalism and computer networking/hacking/security expertise and a general interest in the goals of the project. As far as I know, in the earliest stages of the project Assange, and whomever else was with him, were looking for (and perhaps desperate for) all kinds of help. Hackers are notorious for backstabbing each other too, it's more pragmatic to stab first and air your grievances with the group later when you consider the tactics used in that field. I can't say much else without being presumptuous though. I can speculate as to why Daniel did this, but him being a hacker, Wikileaks being a bunch of hackers and this all being related to infowars (not the Alex Jones site, the concept of information warring) makes it unlikely that anything I say will be true, much less provable.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Did it say if he was told to destroy them--if that's policy--or if he did it of his own initiative. If so, is there any word on why?

Is defecting ideologically? Is he even giving such an excuse or is the only visible benefit for him making a good buck?

Is the future OpenLeaks, if true to the above description, primed to do any damage or simply to be another untrustworthy news source?

Depending on the answer to the above questions and a few more--ie whether there's any reason to believe this guy--isn't getting the 'inside scoop' on Wikileaks a good thing? Freedom of information and all.

It's an ideological defection from the way he presents it (though evidence may say otherwise and he could certainly have other less noble motives, such as accepting huge payoffs from various organizations interested in those kinds of deals).

I don't believe anything Daniel will be saying will give the inside scoop on anything and I'm reluctant to so much as read the back of his book's jacket. He strikes me as a sellout. Rationale says to listen to him regardless, but just the fact that he is focusing almost solely on Assange in his 'ideological critique' makes the whole thing suspect. As you put it, Assange is just the big distraction so anything Daniel says about him seems a tad bit irrelevant at best.

[Brutha]

Julian basically said in the middle of 2010 that he's the boss of Wikileaks and everyone else in the project has to do what Julian tells them.
Julian used the authority to prevent the type of material that Wikileaks released in 2009 to be released in 2010 but instead says that Wikileaks should concentrate on the big cases of the Warlogs and helicopter videos.

Daniel doesn't like that kind of authoritian top down structure and the decision it produced in that time.
Daniel leaves Wikileaks with a few other Wikileaks folks to found OpenLeaks.

That the story that I got by talking to a friend who knows Daniel and the other OpenLeaks people personally.

Did it say if he was told to destroy them--if that's policy--or if he did it of his own initiative. If so, is there any word on why?

Nobody from the outside told Daniel to destroy the data.

As I understand the process could be the following:
Daniel and two Wikileaks people decide to leave Wikileaks with the data.
They copied the data on a harddisc and encrypted it with three cryptographic passwords.
Everyone of them gets on password to prevent abuse of the data from any of them.

Andy Müller-Maguhn now tries to mediate between Julian and Daniel to try to get Daniel to give the data back.

One of the OpenLeaks guys deleted his password. As public spokesperson Daniel goes to the public and says they deleted the data.

When asked why he deleted it Daniel says that he doesn't think that Wikileaks can handle them responsible.
Why doesn't Daniel think Wikileaks can handle them responsibly?
Wikileaks published a cryptographic archive with the unredracted version of the Embassy Cables.
The password for the archive got published in a book by a Guardian reporter.

Why is there a need to delete the data or at least pretend that Daniel deleted them?
Many groups want to get the data. Deleting the data prevents the possibility that someone steal the data from Daniel or pressures him into giving the data to that party.

As a sidenote:
Andy Müller-Maguhn is a firm believer into the theory that the NSA has access to all German internet traffic through Echelon and stores that data indefinitely.
This belief leads him to assume that OpenLeaks isn't as secure as it claims to be.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

As a sidenote:
Andy Müller-Maguhn is a firm believer into the theory that the NSA has access to all German internet traffic through Echelon and stores that data indefinitely.
This belief leads him to assume that OpenLeaks isn't as secure as it claims to be.

What's your opinion Brutha?

Even if they have access to the data, they still would have to decrypt it... I suppose that wouldn't be too difficult for the NSA though.

[Brutha]

Even if they have access to the data, they still would have to decrypt it... I suppose that wouldn't be too difficult for the NSA though.

Let's say you have 20 people with access to a document A.

You have the traffic data for all twenty people. Bob is one of those twenty. The traffic data allows you to see that Bob is the only one of those twenty people uploaded something to OpenLeaks.

This evidence might not be enough to prosecute Bob criminally but it might be enough to fire him.

If Echelon is powerful enough to get the traffic data such an attack would be possible if Bob submits the data directly through one of the OpenLeaks dropboxes.

As I understand the issue that's the kind of attack that the main worry.
I don't know about the technical details.

If I would have sensible documents that I wanted to upload to OpenLeaks I would search for an open WLan in my neighborhood and use that WLan to upload the data.
I think the probability for the "Echelon has access to all of the German internet"-story is low. Something like p=10%.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Let's say you have 20 people with access to a document A.

You have the traffic data for all twenty people. Bob is one of those twenty. The traffic data allows you to see that Bob is the only one of those twenty people uploaded something to OpenLeaks.

This evidence might not be enough to prosecute Bob criminally but it might be enough to fire him.

If Echelon is powerful enough to get the traffic data such an attack would be possible if Bob submits the data directly through one of the OpenLeaks dropboxes.

As I understand the issue that's the kind of attack that the main worry.
I don't know about the technical details.

If I would have sensible documents that I wanted to upload to OpenLeaks I would search for an open WLan in my neighborhood and use that WLan to upload the data.
I think the probability for the "Echelon has access to all of the German internet"-story is low. Something like p=10%.

Hmm, aren't you assuming Echelon doesn't have access to open WLan data though? The IP data for each computer that connects to the WLan must be stored somewhere.

The most foolproof way I could think of doing this is by using a disposable phone/laptop to send the info once connected to an open WLan, preferably one in a public location like a coffee house. Even then you still have the possibility that they trace the IP to the serial number and then find out who bought the computer and where. That all sounds a bit time consuming but for Echelon it might only take a few minutes. Best to have a phone/laptop purchased using a few fences. The extra precaution would be nice, throw in a proxy on the burner laptop and the source is less likely to be traced, at least not without some effort.

I think perhaps the best way to avoid having your identity discovered as a whistleblower in today's age of hi tech supercomputers is to use decidedly low tech methods of delivery.

[Brutha]

Hmm, aren't you assuming Echelon doesn't have access to open WLan data though? The IP data for each computer that connects to the WLan must be stored somewhere.

If you connect to an open WLan the WLan has a bunch of IP addresses.
Those addresses are independent of the computer that connect to the WLan.

During the session every client gets a local IP address. That local IP address is meaningless once the session is over and doesn't get broadcasted.

Your laptop also has a MAC address that it gives the WLan router. WLan routers however don't broadcast the MAC address to the internet.
The also don't keep a log about which computer sent which data.

In any case I don't think that a registry exists that links brought notebooks to their MAC addresses.
If such a directory would exist in Germany I think the CCC-crowd would know.

If you want the details about what Echelon could plausibly do 26C3: Understanding Telecommunication Interception: Intelligence Support Systems gives you Andy Müller-Maguhn's talk on the topic.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you connect to an open WLan the WLan has a bunch of IP addresses.
Those addresses are independent of the computer that connect to the WLan.

During the session every client gets a local IP address. That local IP address is meaningless once the session is over and doesn't get broadcasted.

Your laptop also has a MAC address that it gives the WLan router. WLan routers however don't broadcast the MAC address to the internet.
The also don't keep a log about which computer sent which data.

In any case I don't think that a registry exists that links brought notebooks to their MAC addresses.
If such a directory would exist in Germany I think the CCC-crowd would know.

If you want the details about what Echelon could plausibly do 26C3: Understanding Telecommunication Interception: Intelligence Support Systems gives you Andy Müller-Maguhn's talk on the topic.

Good info, thanks Brutha. I'm no expert on this kind of thing.