« Inside Wikileaks » Book (Daniel Domscheit-Berg)

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Human RAGE, Feb 11, 2011.

  1. Human RAGE Member

    Has anyone ordered it? Who will read the book? Is it interesting?
  2. Anonymous Member

    Sweeney/Panorama have an interesting docu going out on Monday - Domscheit-Berg is interviewed. The bat cave looks interesting!
  3. Ann O'Nymous Member

    The timing seems questionnable.
  4. Anonymous Member

  5. Herro Member

    Publishing a book about an organization at the height of public interest in the organization? Hardly questionable.
  6. Anonymous Member
  7. Anonymous Member

    It's cheap. The fact that he writes a book which contains lots of things that are only interesting to gossip interested public ridicules Assange and Domscheid-Berg. And their work.
  8. Anonymous Member

    i think he is piss off cauz he was a moralfag (ccc)
    and dotn get the chicks
  9. Anonymous Member

    doomshit berg iz retard . long live the Julian. I want to suck Julian cock 4ever.
  10. Anonymous Member

  11. Anonymous Member

  12. Anonymous Member

    Dumbshit Berg iz jewish traitor bitch who works for NWO illuminati Mossad CIA.
    FREE ASSANGE! Rape is not a crime!
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Herro Member

    Assange is a traitor and part of the rebel alliance. Take him away.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Daniel dogshit-bird
  15. Herro Member

    U mad bro?
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

  17. Anonymous Member

    Chapter 3 of the book is "The Scientology Handbooks".
  18. Anonymous Member

  19. Daniel Dormammu-Berg vs. Julian Assange. Asshole vs. asshole, ego vs. ego. Dormammu ragequits WikiLeaks because he's tired of Assange. So what? Does it make what WikiLeaks has done any less important or vital? I'm trying to gather up the energy to give a shit about this book, but I have other things on my schedule, such as collecting my navel lint and knitting a sweater with it.
  20. dwest Member

    Wish there was was a way to get that in English without having to give Daniel a penny. Unless sales take off I don't see this type of niche book being available in eletronic format.

    His "OpenLeaks" idea makes me angry I won't give him a cent. For many of the reasons I like WikiLeaks I despise his project. Ever think they will hand a few documents on Scientology over to the media? Think the media would care?

    Its not like OL will ever release a single document to the masses. Sorry, but really don't trust major media to cover the documents in the depth needed to interest me. To have the impression that they can be trusted but we can't be is flawed to begin with.
  21. Ann O'Nymous Member

    We ? Who is that ?
  22. Anonymous Member

  23. Herro Member

    To simply write off and despise OpenLeaks is really no better than those who despise and write off WikiLeaks.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Google chrome translates it just fine
  25. dwest Member

    Uh, no. I do not like the way OpenLeaks does not release the documents to the media ONLY. I disagree with their mission statement.

    Thanks, I'll be reading it.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Where in their mission statement does it say that they release the documents to the media only?
    OpenLeaks doesn't release any documents itself. It merely acts as secure, anonymous delivery system between source and any organisation that wants to use OpenLeaks.
    The source decides where to send its documents, not OpenLeaks.
    If the source wants to a send its documents to an uncensorable, webpublishing platform similar to Wikileaks it can do so.
  27. dwest Member

    My mistake on using the word ONLY. That was based on early interviews with Daniel.

    As for the mission statement, let me tell you why I disagree with it. This is why I'm against it. The the documents don't go public. Every group that one wishes to send a document to must be in OpenLeaks database. So say, I work at Wal-Mart or Tesco and want to leak a document to my union. If my union isn't in their database (and likely won't be) my union never has a chance of seeing it. If I release it to a NGO and they write a piece on it, then my union is accepted by OL,I can't give it to them. Toward the end of of the little OL video they mention only one is allowed to publish (unless I missed something in their stick drawings).

    If I release it to the old WikiLeaks or a similar group, it goes out for everyone to see, and my union will have access to it.

    If I leak it to the media, either through OpenLeaks or not, the same possibility exists that they will do a write up on the leaked document. Either way, the actual document never gets in the hands of my union.

    Don't see WikiLeaks meeting either of those criteria. And who decides what is reputable? OpenLeaks?

    Finally, do you think the US State Department cable released through WL on Tunisia would have had half the impact if it had been in a report by Human Rights Watch? I don't think so.

    • Like Like x 1
  28. Tl;dr: Dormammu-Berg and Birgitta Jonsdottir got tired of dealing with Ass-ange, and they decided to do something like WikiLeaks instead, but they want OL to have more fail and AIDS than the original.
  29. Anonymous Member

    It's not the case that only one organisation is allowed to publish whereas all other organisations and the public are denied access to leak for all time, but only for a certain time frame, where this organisation (chosen by the source) has "exclusive rights" to the leak. This is because experience with wikileaks has shown that media organisations need time to digest the material, to go through it and analyse it and they won't make themselves this work and take such a risk for wasted money and work unless they can be sure that they can be the first who break the story. In the past wikileaks has simply put documents online and tried to get media attention, where no one was willing to write an article about it, because for-profit media organisations couldn't be sure to be the first ones to write about it. Many otherwise important leaks did thereby not get the attention they deserved. You have to consider that most people rely on the mainstream media organisations for the news and if it's not in the news then they will never hear about it. This is why wikileaks later changed its publication model by making exclusive contracts with media partners in order to focus media attention and impact.

    After this time frame however the documents will also be send to all other organisations in the OL database, which are then free to publish what they want. This introduces an element of competition and decentralisation, where the organisations can control each other and highlight aspects of the leak that others might have missed, so that the possibility of one sided spin in the media gets reduced.
    Furthermore in principal also organisations that just put the documents online on an uncensorable platform , as wikileaks used to do in its beginning, can also apply, so that the public can also read the documents itself in case the media organisations won't do it.

    As i understand it 50 % will be selected by OpenLeaks and 50 % will be voted for by the public. Not sure about that so.

    The source can chose which organisation gets exclusive rights for its leak first. Bradley Manning probably wouldn't have chosen human rights watch as the recipient for the leak. So this question misses the point.
    But anyway, there is no reason why OL should be considered as a substitute for Wikileaks. It is only an additional tool that helps whistleblower to securely get their information out to a place where they believe it can make the best impact.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Google translate:

    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Anonymous Member

    I guess this Daniel D-B book thread is as good a place as any for this. Looks like he maybe baleeted a bunch of unreleased leaks.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins