After that, the leaked material would be shared with all partners in the OpenLeaks project. Domscheit-Berg says this system is designed both to provide leaks exposure to a wider circle of potential expertise and publicity and also to encourage partners to share more information among themselves.
If a leaker wanted the material never to be shared beyond a single initial recipient, he said, that could be arranged. Domscheit-Berg said that at some point he hoped to establish a foundation to help raise funds for not just OpenLeaks operations but also research legal and political issues related to transparency and disclosure.
He said none of the partners joining the OpenLeaks network would be asked to make any direct financial contribution, and that OpenLeaks would not generate revenue by brokering information. Instead, he said, OpenLeaks will suggest that potential partners with large servers contribute computer time or space to help build the network.
Of more immediate interest to oil, mining and other natural resources industries might be the launch of two websites which say they intend to become conduits for corporate insiders wanting to blow the whistle on environmental abuses.
The rival groups were not pleased to discover they had become involved in a competition. Representatives of both groups say they are willing to discuss their visions with each other. But each side is also assessing possible legal moves. People Vale Ian Clive Howard, — People Meet the owners of the Great Australian Bight house.
Non-combustible aluminium facade system — Stryum Fairview. Tell us where we should send the Latest news Join our architecture and design community for the latest news and reviews.
Be first to know. Thank you! You may also like other Architecture Media network newsletters: Houses Australian homes to inspire — the very best residential architecture and design projects. The degree to which they are capable of coordinating huge teams of disparate disciplinary archaeologies that are brought into some kind of a moment of intersection is rarely acknowledged.
John: As far as we know, no global architect is doing anything like this. Foreign policy people are, think-tanks are, but architects have been beaten down into a narrow and insignificant role of creating glossy projects for publication in their own profession's magazines.
The problem with the architecture world is that most of its members will not talk about the issues at stake here, and won't admit to being associated with it. I have brought along some of our work in this package: 65, files made of videos, drawings, maps, some of them stolen, most of them contributed.
It is a set of construction documents that thousands of people have helped us assemble. We don't claim it as our own, and we make it available through DVDs and our website. It is all online and it is there for people to use as they like. Cryptome publishes five or six new files a day—sometimes a dozen—but we have no architectural readers on our site.
In the back of their minds there is the fear that this kind of discourse might undermine their relationship with their clientele. You ran a successful design office that for many years was involved in more conventional forms of practice. What drives you to do this? Deborah: I would turn the question round to you: what are your thoughts about anonymity? What do you think about Facebook being a beautiful surveillance device?
What do you think about the asymmetry of emergent social tools? They are evidently onerous, but few people are stopping to notice this—they're too busy exulting in the sociability of it all. In the meantime, Amazon, with all its cloud services, now possesses more information than any other single organisation, with the possible exception of Google.
What a sweet spot for people who want to steal personal information. How do you distribute your DVDs? John: Regular mail, which is probably the safest means of communication there is. Nothing online can be used for communication if you want privacy, nothing digital for that matter.
We caution people: these are digital products, so beware of what is on them. We don't really know what might be in a document sent to us on DVD. This is a macroscopic fallacy in any regulation intended to protect your privacy: it won't work. Every privacy policy is deceptive, and is meant to mislead you.
Regulations are meant to mislead you. Governments are meant to mislead you. We continually ask ourselves: how do you explain this, how do you get it across to the public when there is a huge industry out there peddling the other version, the narrative of "trustworthiness"? They say: we will pass a law, we will take care of this for you so leave it to us. What they should be saying is that you have to take care of yourself—that's our view.
We state this clearly on Cryptome: do not trust the Internet. Do not trust professionals. Do not trust us, or anybody else. The Architect separated the platforms and set up a number of servers in various countries. In a statement Wednesday, WikiLeaks essentially confirmed Domscheit-Berg's version of why the site's submission system is missing.
The organization said the system remains down months after Domscheit-Berg left because his "acts of sabotage" forced the organization to "overhaul the entire submission system" and the staff lacks time to do so.
The statement does not explain why Assange had previously claimed the submission system was down by design to stop an already huge backup of documents from growing even larger. Domscheit-Berg writes that he and the Architect won't release the unpublished documents and will return them to WikiLeaks once Assange builds a secure system.
Noting that the current site has no SSL support , Domscheit-Berg warns that anyone who visits the site to read submission instructions could be monitored. Domscheit-Berg told Threat Level in an interview on Sunday that the hijacked leaks only include those submitted since the time the system came back online in July following an outage, and the time it went down permanently.
Anything submitted before then, or via other methods, would still be in Assange's possession. Aside from the infrastructure issues, Domscheit-Berg's book alleges that Assange has told other tall tales to the press and supporters.
For example, Assange told a New Yorker writer last year that his group had spent three months decrypting a U.
Army video that the site published in April under the title "Collateral Murder. That account is supported by statements alleged leaker Bradley Manning made in chats with ex-hacker Adrian Lamo when he claimed to have leaked the video to WikiLeaks. Manning told Lamo that the Iraq video "was never really encrypted" when he found it on an Army server, but that he encrypted the file to transmit it to WikiLeaks and then separately sent the password to WikiLeaks to unlock the video file.
Domscheit-Berg began working with Assange after meeting him at a hacker conference in Germany in December Although WikiLeaks claimed to have hundreds of volunteers and an untold number of staffers, the organization consisted essentially of Assange and Domscheit-Berg, who pored through submissions, did little more than simple Google searches to verify documents and posed as non-existent staffers in e-mail and other correspondence to make WikiLeaks seem heftier than it was.
The two were later joined by "the Technician" in and "the Architect" in , both of whom assumed responsibility for the technological infrastructure, while Assange and Domscheit-Berg handled content and media relations.
0コメント