Cryptome Critiques Wikileaks

Cryptome Critiques Wikileaks

The following is an email from John Young (co-founder of cryptome.org) to an Al-Jazeera journalist/researcher. Do note that John Young was a founder of Wikileaks.

The email:

7 August 2010

The principal deficiency of Wikileaks is its lack of transparency
about its operators and funds, characteristics of spies and secret
societies up to no good and whose main purpose is to hide
from public accountability and conceal corruption and criminality.

Such organizations always use a noble purpose and claim secrecy
is needed to protect supporters. In practice the secrecy protects
the principal beneficiaries, the operators and sources of funds, and
supporters are sacrificed to protect the continuation of the
enterprise.

Wikileaks has followed the lucrative model of the cult of national security,
the largest world's secret enterprise, composed of selected elements
of governments, military, intelligence, NGOs, contractors, lobbyists
and supporters, identified by their clearance for access to classified
information.

Royalty and religion have long demonstrated the power of secrecy
in misrepresenting what they are up to, pronouncing a great public
benefit while reaping privileged rewards behind this cloak -- a lavish
cloak of property, ceremony, titles and prizes, architecture, clothing,
language and literature, music, fine arts, and not least, a complex
apparatus of punishment for apostates and infidels, often by
military means but equally often by covert attacks.

Cults of royalty, religion, military are the main practitioners of secrecy
and they are role models for ambitious persons who believe they
have a mission to be superior to the public and must violate public
trust to battle those who have similar ambitions. They invent
enemies to warrant this betrayal.

They also combine with their competitors to advance their causes.
Thus the appeal of global initiatives to violate national borders
in transgression of local law hidden by secrecy.

That's the short sermon. Far better is the browsible library of bountiful
supporting information undoctored by sermonizing, Cryptome.

John's critique brings up some interesting questions based on his observations. Like, why would Wikileaks shield so much of their operation from the public eye? Isn't transparency their aim? Are they not conducting themselves uncannily similar to the forces (be they political or military) they wish to expose? Ultimately though, how could an organization that is our best shot at exposure and transparency structure and caste themselves in the shadows - Isn't that exactly the problem at hand?

I certainly am not postulating that Wikileaks has any aims other that what they state. Nor am I suggesting that the organization is a front with malicious intent. I am however stating that they have and continue to operate in a manner that forces questions upon their intentions.

This is frustrating for me because, as I alluded, I do believe that Wikileaks, with is international exposure and headlines, is our best hope at global reformation, transparency, and, most importantly, liberty.

Please note that this email is part of a larger Cryptome story of media outlets, e.g. Al-Jazeera, attempting to exploit information from Wikileaks insiders. Even without Mr. Young statements, the overall Cryptome story certainly sheds an unfavorable light upon mainstream media tactics, and even possibly their agendas.

Source: cryptome.org...

Also for those interested, an interesting CNET interview with John Young: news.cnet.com...

I suggest that all interesting parties browse through Cryptome's library, relating to Wikileaks or not.

[edit: to change 'ex' tags to 'quote' tags - what's up with 'ex' tags cutting off txt?]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by misinformational]

Inside Wikileaks

I have some very serious trust issues
with wikileaks and it all started when
their submission SSL for their website
was hijacked/diverted to a government
server. The red flags started going up
at that point and then a host of other
issues I won't bore you with.

wikileaks website should come with a warning label

"Use at your own risk!"

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Thanks for that ghostsoldier - I've yet to watch those interviews. I'll do so tonight.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by boondock-saint


I agree boondock-saint, there are definitely some red flags regarding their means of secretive operation and some surrounding happenings as you mentioned. However, I want to believe they are operating in this manner for reasons unapparent.

Perhaps there is method to the madness. Perhaps they have to shield themselves in secrecy in order to operate and expose truth.

I, for one, would be a lot willing to get behind Wikileaks (I'm already behind the cause of course) if they would clear up their manner of operations publicly - even if they continue to operate in secrecy, at least state why.

At the end of the day, the Wikileaks cause is a worthy one. WL could possibly be the best chance my government (U.S) has at reformation. I just hope their intentions are what they state.

reply to post by ghostsoldier


I watched the interview you've posted in another thread... While this interview with a journalist embedded with Assange is intriguing, does any of that interview clear up their manner of secretive operation? Does it lower any of those red flags? It doesn't for me.

However, those videos do help in developing the persona that is Mr. Assange and I'll post a relevant reply to your thread.

S & F.

I have enough questions about Wikileaks. I even started a thread about my thoughts a while back.

What Wikileaks is Becoming.

Wikileaks is just another company looking to gain the trust of the world as the go to place for things that TPTB don't want you to know, and subsequently, control the flow of information.

TPTB control them and they're monopolizing the field of receiving and reporting leaks about the people they're working for. They can't be transparent.

reply to post by Portugoal


I strongly desire to be able to disagree with your opinion of Wikileaks - However, I can't. And this is only because they are not transparent.

An organization knows it has problems when a founder of said organization is so strongly worded against. Of course, it's plausible to attribute Mr. Young's distaste for WL to a bitter ending for his work with the site (he was only involved for three weeks).

So in the end, I'm still in the place I hate most - On the fence. As cliches indicate worth of a statement ~ Only time will tell.

Wikileaks came on my watch list when they started getting 50/50 treatment in the MSM.

HELLO!?! MCFLY!?! HELLO!?!

MSM is the mouthpiece of TPTB. Assange hasn't been roasted in the media. He's had positive and negative commentary.

I'm on the fence, and I'm just watching. Not a whole lot I can do anyway. I doubt that I would submit anything to them.

Why don't they recommend people ways to get their own information out? Why is it "Send us all your information!"? Seems fishy.

And a big hell no, I'm not downloading their insurance policy. Pffft!

there is an interview with this guy about wikileaks

lets be real

if you are working with material that could hurt organizations, its not a good idea to be very visible ... you dont want to get killed

and, it looks like he is jealous of wikileaks, since they expel him from the project

but who knows, we dont know what wikileaks is, only time will tell

Second time Al-jazeera has 'tricked' him out of 'info'! lol

Doh!

In a worst case scenario, Wikileaks is nothing more than a means to an end. In a best case scenario, i guess you could say the same.

Their intentions is what will decide the end that they are a means to. I really do not want to see the internet shut down. It pisses me off when i want to watch Black Hawk Down and can't because the Fed has shut down every site, or blocked it in my region.

Freedom my ass.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I could find that movie to watch online right now if i wanted to.
We are both in amerika, yeah?

A couple of the sites for flicks got shut down (if that's what you mean?)
But there are still quite a few good ones up.
www.letmewatchthis.com...
There's at least 10 links to the movie, there.
"letmewatchthis" is a good site for such.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Ahmose]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In a worst case scenario, Wikileaks is nothing more than a means to an end. In a best case scenario, i guess you could say the same.

Their intentions is what will decide the end that they are a means to. I really do not want to see the internet shut down. It pisses me off when i want to watch Black Hawk Down and can't because the Fed has shut down every site, or blocked it in my region.

Freedom my ass.

Wait what, why should you have freedom to steal exactly ?

Im sure you could go to your local video store and rent it for $2 or head over to netflix and order it.

reply to post by maskfan


This is a debate that I will not convince you of, and you will not convince me of. Either you belief in free use, or you don't.

I do. I also pay for many of the apps i use that are free but accept donations. I figure 30 bucks to be able to download a youtube video isn't bad. I would rather support them, than a larger company.

Besides, I seem to remember that in the 80's it was ruled that you could record what comes on TV for later viewing. This paved the way for things like DVR's.

Black Hawk Down is just such a movie (the licensing scheme for movies dictates the type of content, and its release date of 2001 puts it in the bracket of movies that are available for network and cable use). What is really stealing about watching a movie for free that I could watch for free on TV if it were on?

I am not talking about downloading and airing it in a theater. I am talking about showing my son a part of our recent history, as we had been discussing Somalia for a few hours that day.

John Young has, IMO, diagnosed precisely what is potentially wrong with Wikileaks. Not only should Wikileaks be transparent, it should also not interfere in any way with how these leaks are disseminated.

For instance, with the war diaries, Assange has claimed he has reviewed the docs and removed names to protect individuals. He also claims he sought approval to release them or at least conferred with the WH. Then he set about "vetting" them in his own manner by forwarding them to some news outlets for analysis. All of these actions were mistakes, not only because it makes him more liable for what these files contain but he is the one responsible for disseminating them.

A whistleblower should have unfettered ability to place any material they want to leak with no overview provided by Wikileaks, by following a more P2P business model (such as Torrents). The poster/whistleblower/leaker then becomes the only one liable for the leak. I mean anyone can leak material to the WWW without Wikileaks now, but they have undertaken certain actions that effectively places them in a position to moderate what is being leaked - and that moderation makes them more liable. It also means the trust they've garnered from media and the international community could be abused by those seeking to "leak" disinformation, and all the while we have no idea who these mysterious persons are behind the scenes of Wikileaks (aside from Assange that is).

reply to post by maskfan


Oh Please.
"Steal" my ass.
good god man..
loosen up.

I see wikileaks as a business. making money.
maybe he runs it that way to look good. credible to the news people.

the only true way to get secrets out.
is to send them to as many people as you can.

but a problem with sites like ATS.
is that they wont evidence facts!
if they had that they would not use sites like this.
it is the government who if supposed to discredit it.
not ATS...

Wow this could be getting big. Apparently now there is suspicion that Wikileaks has ties to OSI and George Soros. Further, John Young has emailed the CIA, enacting the Freedom of Information Act, to sequester any information regarding Wikileaks.

Here's an anonymous email to Cryptome discussing OSI and George Soros:

A writes:

I've been following coverage of Wikileaks' release of the Afghan Diaries closely, and have admired your skepticism. I feel firmly we are on the same page. However, I would like to make an attempt to clear some possible disinformation that is floating about. While it's obvious that the "diaries" are a mix of propaganda and publicly available information, I do suspect the entire operation is funded from a controlling interest.

Thank you for taking the time to read this far, and allow me to voice my concern. Many are running with the claim that Wikileaks was funded by The Open Society Institute. (Soros connection). I, myself, suspected the same, after Declan's CNET interview with you...

"Operating a Web site to post leaked documents isn't very expensive (Young estimates he spends a little over $100 a month for Cryptome's server space). So when other Wikileaks founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected "our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies," Young says, he resigned from the effort."

However, judging by that article, it's just not clear to me, whether or not Open Society Institute, in fact, provided funding for Wikileaks.

John then copies emails of requests to both OSI and the CIA here: cryptome.org...

John could be uncovering some important information. Stay tuned

Not only do CRYPTOME take a critical view of Wikileaks, PGPBOARD's new site is also very critical. The main difference appears to be that PGPBOARD is very much more critical of Julian Assange, yet is supportive of the Wikileaks original concept. Take a look at this link:

www.pgpboard.com...

I am more sympathetic towards this approach.


Ralph Peterson