It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Whistle blown on Wiki site for whistle-blowers

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:13 AM
A great new resource for government officials to blow the whistle on corruption and fraud has been leaked to the public. __._ will be up and running in a few months this site is being set up to encourage people within governments to tell about shady practices and government corruption.
It had to happen. A Web site set up to encourage anonymous leaks of controversial government secrets has been exposed before its launch.

Government insiders around the world will be invited to use the site as cover to leak evidence of corruption and injustice. It is meant to be an adaptation of Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, to encourage whistle-blowers to come forward.

Depending entirely on voluntary contributions for its content, www....__._ will officially go live in a few months: instead of the public submitting entries, it is asking officials to publish state documents.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

An untraceable way for government employees and workers to expose the truth of corruption, waste, and fraud in government policies is a boon to not only keeping balance and honesty in government practices. But it also allows for more of a transparency into government spending and policy.

This may be also a great new way for sites such as ATS to expose and discuss the way government has shielded our eyes to the lies and deceit that has become the status quo in government today.

Sites such as have become a feeding ground for people to see what happens when governments gain too much power and not enough oversight. This may encourage more people that are afraid to talk about shady practices to come forward and expose elements of our governments that otherwise would be left unnoticed.

Related News Links:

[edit on 11-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:34 AM
How is it an untraceable source? Wikipedia can trace a persons IP whenever they have defaced a page or improperly edited a page. If Bush made it illegal to publicize things of this nature, they can subpeona them easily. Isn't whistleblowing now considered a crime?

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:38 AM
actualy it's not a crime, in fact any person that blows the wistle on corruption and illegal activities in government and in the private sector are heavily protected under the law. If they are intimedated and coerced, this can lead to just compensation under the law.

whistleblower laws

Its a shakey ground that wistleblowers must face but it always ends up being worth it in the end...

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:43 AM
Whatever it is, I can smell something fishy here. With the current domestic spying and other who knows underground eaves dropping activities of the government, if there is an area where they need to be more on guard is should be the potential would be whistle blowers from the government.

IMO, this would only make the potential whistle blowers to be easily traced and recognized.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by searching_for_truth]

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:45 AM
This was being discussed last month and I still wonder if Wikileaks is a government sting operation.

ATS Untraceable Whistelblower Site To Go Online To Expose The Truth

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:07 AM
it could very well be, but if it was wouldent it be realy dangerous to set up? perhaps the illegal activity would get out anyway and be exposed. Although there are ways to protect yourself from your online paper trail.

Even if it was a sting operation there is realy nothing the government could do short of annother illegal activity to cover up a whistle blower. If they brought them to court over it, the whistle blower would be protected from the government because of current law.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:15 AM
As per a sting op: you submit to wikileaks, the men in black show up, you're labeled an enemy combatant and wisked away to parts unknown. Who's going to verify you have disappeared due to anonymous whistleblowing submission and shipped off to one of the many US secret prisons all over the globe? Nothing is ever revealed and you have no rights as an enemy combatant...end of story.

Smells like Fed to me...too good to be true.

Military Commissions Act Does Affect US Citizens

Since 9/11 the PATRIOT Act has been used in numerous cases involving American citizens, including strip club owners, toy store proprietors, the homeless, owners of websites, writers, artists, photographers, and common criminals.

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Regenmacher]


posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:22 AM
This might have some Big Brother hand in it. But not just as a sting operation.

This could potentially give justification for legislation that breaks down Internet privacy law, and cause to modify the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The Government is already allowed to demand network logs in an emergency situation, with emergency being defined as something that is life-threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an amendment to redefine emergency.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:27 AM
I can't argue with the MIB idea, as I have never actualy witnessed them before acting in any capacity. I have seen DEA agents, FBI agents, CIA agents, DOD agents, NSA agents at work but I have not ever seen a single MIB agent at work.

course I never had the opertunity either to ask for proper MIB ID
although you may be right to assume that the MIB would track down a person accuse them of being a trator of the US and ship them off to some dark hole somewhere never to be heard from again. I wouldent know and hopefully this wikileak idea isnt a total setup by the government to silence those that have an objection to the way that government is run.

would make for an interesting conspiracy though you would have to admit. Someone posts something annonomously to the site next thing on the news a person in washington suddenly is charged with some BS crime and whisked away never to be seen again or all of a sudden a sad tragic murder at the capital takes place.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:34 AM
I use MIB as a general term in regards to federal agents in suits, but there are also blackops:

Men in Black Wiki
Individuals who may be considered a risk to national security based on loose conversation or publishing information after being 'read-in' to or 'read-out' of a special access program are sometimes visited by 'men in suits' according to an unnamed source at AFFTC Det 3. These 'men' are very much human but can bring a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to the terms of the signed disclosure restriction statement due to the authority they have from an undisclosed federal agency.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:48 AM
I imagine that these people could go to an internet cafe of some sort and just input the info on wikileaks there.

Still I am rather suspicious as well. Sounds like a trap for some poor fool. Posts it on this wiki page thinking its protecting his ID, not realizing how easy it is to track him.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:18 AM
IP addresses can be hidden by using a non transparent web-proxy, ie one that does not forward your IP address to the website being viewed, otherwise you can use the newly designed TOR network.

Quote from

What is Proxy Server?
A proxy server is a machine that sits between the proxy users and the servers that they need access to. When a proxy user requests a certain remote resource using a URL, the proxy server receives this request and fetches the resource to fulfill the client’s request. This process enables the proxy server to store the requested content in a cache. Any new request that asks for information already in the cache no longer needs to be serviced by fetching it from the remote server. Instead, the new request is serviced from the cached data. In typical proxy scenarios, the purpose of a proxy server is to fetch the requested resource from the remote server, return it to the requesting user, and cache it in local drives.

What is an anonymous proxy server?

Anonymous proxy does not transfer the information about the IP-address of its user, and thus effectively hide the information about you and your surfing interests. In addition, some proxies (the so-called elite proxies) can also hide the fact that a user surfing through a proxy server. So there are two types of anonymous proxies (see below).

Anonymous Proxy server does not send HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR variable to host, this improves privacy since your IP address cannot be logged.

Elite proxy (high anonymity) does not send HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR, HTTP_VIA and HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION variables. Host doesn't even know you are using proxy server and of course it doesn't know your IP address.

Also, if you're not going to bother with proxy servers, you can install TOR, an onion ring protocol, it pipes your send/receive requests through other people using TOR as well - so its their IP address being logged - not yours. Of course, to use the TOR network, others have to have the ability to go through you.

Their website is:

Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet. Using Tor can help you anonymize web browsing and publishing, instant messaging, IRC, SSH, and other applications that use the TCP protocol. Tor also provides a platform on which software developers can build new applications with built-in anonymity, safety, and privacy features.

Tor aims to defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal anonymity and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Communications are bounced around a distributed network of servers called onion routers, protecting you from websites that build profiles of your interests, local eavesdroppers that read your data or learn what sites you visit, and even the onion routers themselves.

Tor's security is improved as its user base grows and as more people volunteer to run servers. Please consider volunteering your time or volunteering your bandwidth. And remember that this is development code—it's not a good idea to rely on the current Tor network if you really need strong anonymity.


posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:57 AM
I have been going over the sticky wicket of releasing classified info on the net for the last few days. I started off thinking that it could be done albeit with an off-site interview. Then as my research deepened it became evident that it could not be done. If a crime is committed such as releasing classified info that included operational methods of our military, or locations, or identities then the FBI would have full authority to investigate it to their full ability.

While the new wiki whistleblower site is interesting, it does not mean that suddenly docs will appear there outlining the truth about this secret or that one. It will only facilitate the stories of wrongdoing within the government. Unless a secret is a cause of corruption or misdirection of our understanding of our country’s intentions I seriously doubt it will have anything that ATS will be interested in. My guess is that it will mainly be utilized to whistleblow any underhanded tactics by any party during the upcoming election process.

A whistleblower is righting a wrong, without taking classified docs and releasing them to the public. They have a procedure to follow. Someone who just throws classified info. onto the net is not a whistleblower and is not protected by the whistleblower statute. If someone has classified info.that they feel is of great import it should be evaluated carefully and procedures should be sought on how to release it without by in the act of doing so commit crimes against our country. The sentences are stacked one upon the other so do not be deceived by the $10,000 fine and maximum one, three, ten year jail sentences that are shown in the links. Especially if it can be proved that by releasing the information our security was damaged and people were put in harms way. That would put it in the criminal area with much more time involved.

To do what Wiki is proposing they must have hired a law firm that has extensive experience in sorting out the individual situation that will arise with each and every entry. I hope that they also advise the posters there and guide them through the morass of statutes. If it is shepherded well it should be an asset to us all with many wrongs being righted.

Below are some links outlining the form that most government employees sign upon receiving classified security clearances and I believe it is also used in the military. I’ve excerpted a few sections relevant to this discussion.

Standard Form 312
Question 16: Does the SF 312 conflict with the "whistleblower" statute?
Answer: The SF 312 does not conflict with the "whistleblower" statute (5 U.S.C. sec. 2302). The statute does not protect employees who disclose classified information without authority. If an employee knows or reasonably should know that information is classified, provisions of the "whistleblower statutes" should not protect that employee from the consequences of an unauthorized disclosure.
In addition, Executive Order 12958, Sec. 1.8(a), specifically prohibits classification "in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) to restrain competition; or (4) to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security." This provision was included in the Order to help prevent the classification of information that would most likely be the concern of whistleblowers.
Finally, there are remedies available to whistleblowers that don't require the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There are officials within the Government who are both authorized access to classified information and who are responsible for investigating instances of reported waste, fraud, and abuse. Further, each agency must establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures must ensure that: (1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions; (2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and (3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established by section 5.4 of Executive Order 12958.
Question 18: Why do the obligations to protect classified information under the SF 312 extend beyond the duration of an employee's clearance?
Answer: The terms of the SF 312 specifically state that all obligations imposed on the signer "apply during the time [the signer is] granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter." This provision recognizes that the duration of the national security sensitivity of classified information rarely has any relationship to the duration of any particular individual's clearance. The injury to the United States that may result from an unauthorized disclosure is not dependent on the current status of the discloser.
The obligations imposed by the SF 312 apply to classified information. If particular information has been declassified, under the terms of the SF 312 there is no continuing nondisclosure obligation on the part of the signer. Further, the signer of the SF 312 may initiate a mandatory review request to seek the declassification of specified classified information, including information to which the signer has access.
Question 20: What civil and administrative actions may the Government take to enforce the SF 312?
Answer: Among the civil actions that the Government may bring in Federal court are the application for a court order enjoining the publication or other disclosure of classified information; suits for money damages to recompense the United States for the damages caused by an unauthorized disclosure; and suits to require the forfeiture to the United States of any payments or other monetary or property gains that have resulted or may result from an unauthorized disclosure.
The scope of prospective administrative actions depends on whether the person alleged to have violated the SF 312 is a Government or non-Government employee. A Government employee would be subject to the entire range of administrative sanctions and penalties, including reprimand, suspension, demotion or removal, in addition to the likely loss of the security clearance.
In situations involving an unauthorized disclosure by a non-Government employee, the action will focus on the relationship between the Government and the organization that employs the individual. The Government cannot remove or otherwise discipline a non-Government employee, but it can, and in all likelihood will revoke the security clearance of that employee, and prevent the employing organization from using that employee on classified projects. The Government may also move against the employing organization in accordance with the terms of their relationship. For example, in a Government contract situation, the Government may move to terminate the contract or to seek monetary damages from the contractor, based on the terms of the contract.
Although the enforcement of the SF 312, as a contractual instrument, is limited to civil or administrative actions, the Government may also criminally prosecute individuals or organizations that are alleged to have violated a criminal statute that involves the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. These criminal statutes are listed in the SF 312, and are reprinted in this booklet.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:06 PM
I dont' see why a person would use a centralized clearing house when they can just go to a reporter.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:31 PM
Here’s what I’ve found so far, Nygdan:

When a news organization receives — or realizes that it already has — classified information, it faces a variety of issues: whether to publish it or return it, whether publishing the information could harm the country, and how to protect where it came from.

"The law is — as long as it's truthful, newsworthy and you didn't illegally obtain it — any statute punishing you from publishing it is unconstitutional," said George Freeman, assistant general counsel for The New York Times. "The key point — and it's not a very popular point — is that ultimately the decision whether or not to publish is made by the newspaper, not the government. If you get it legally, we can't have the government telling us what to publish or not to publish."

There's a delicate balance to strike in dealing with the government over classified matters.

"For national security concerns, generally speaking you'll want the government to explain to you and convince you that there's a harm in publishing," Freeman said. "You have to be open and objective in any showing that they make, you don't want to be too cynical or too passive."

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:58 PM
A site like wikileak could either be a disinfo propaganda porthole or a real boon to people like us at ATS. I wonder if its not worth the risk for someone to post anything on there. If they had a concience I think that the risk would be outweighed by the benifit to humanity as a whole.

Hopefully fear can be overcome by information and knowledge.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:06 PM
So, take your laptop, go to an internet cafe and blow all the whistles you want to...

What's the big deal? It is not that difficult to be as anonymous as you want to. Just remember, don't go to the same one too many times.. HAHAHAHAHA


posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
So, take your laptop, go to an internet cafe and blow all the whistles you want to...

What's the big deal? It is not that difficult to be as anonymous as you want to. Just remember, don't go to the same one too many times.. HAHAHAHAHA


That's not exactly true. Just because you're in a public cafe, using public internet, doesn't shield you, especially from using your own laptop. Your laptops network adapter has a MAC address that can easily be traced back to you. Apart from that there's other key things that could be used to track you down.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
How is it an untraceable source? Wikipedia can trace a persons IP whenever they have defaced a page or improperly edited a page. If Bush made it illegal to publicize things of this nature, they can subpeona them easily. Isn't whistleblowing now considered a crime?

Whistleblowing is not a crime. Doing the things a whistleblower might need to do to get the info out, that might be a crime.

However, this page is located outside of the US (Australia as I recall) and therefore not under US jurisdiction unless a treaty specifies otherwise. So no subpoenas would be effective.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by promomag

Originally posted by semperfortis
So, take your laptop, go to an internet cafe and blow all the whistles you want to...

What's the big deal? It is not that difficult to be as anonymous as you want to. Just remember, don't go to the same one too many times.. HAHAHAHAHA


That's not exactly true. Just because you're in a public cafe, using public internet, doesn't shield you, especially from using your own laptop. Your laptops network adapter has a MAC address that can easily be traced back to you. Apart from that there's other key things that could be used to track you down.


It is NOT easy to trace a MAC address. It is also NOT easy to even discover the MAC address... Some interesting statistics are...

1. Almost 98% of all child porn that goes undiscovered, or unreported is now emanating either from open internet connections, or "Internet Meeting Sites."
2. It requires a Search Warrant to legally obtain the MAC address.. (I am a computer Forensic Investigator for my department)
3. Say someone goes to the Internet Cafe, uses his computer and you discover his MAC address... How does that help you? How do you identify exactly which user and THEN get his laptop? Impossible or Improbable at best.

I wish it was easier, I could get a lot more perverts off the street.


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in