Screenshots

this is an opening for all those with documents that will help break the shackles the dirty politicians have "bestowed" upon us. it will take time, but definately a step in the right direction. good link Jeff, just like yesterday's peribahasa link.

This is probably the ultimate test on the web/MSC promise for non-censorship......let's see if our Govt walks-the-talk!

aah, tats a great news! hope can see more open and transparent world

hmmmm...how sure one person of this wikileaks that is untraceable and totally anonymous ?

the more one writes about it, the closer authorities are to catching that culprit...

we'll see

Now these people mean business. Nice.

terenoeg:
Unless the people running Wikileaks themselves are secretly turncoats, there is no reason to think that the government could easily trace those leaking documents. The government would first have to have an idea of who might be leaking the documents, and then would have to tap his/her internet connection/phone line in order to trace the leak.

T-Boy:
Yeah - it's infinitely better than that other wiki Jeff featured not so long ago. Unlike that one, this deals with cold hard facts. The other one was far too liable to libelous comments and unreliable information. This one seems like it has a chance of working.

For some real information, check out the 'Leaked' WikiLeak mailing list via Cryptome:

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm [cryptome.org]
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm [cryptome.org]

That's the hilarity of it all. John Young (owner of Cryptome) was asked by the people behind Wikileaks to be the owner of the domain (since it would end up being public, and Mr Young is no stranger to Government intimidation). He agreed and participated in the private mailing list, but became disillusioned after it appeared the creators had no actual product and were only interested in funding. He posted all the private and internal conversation his own site.

Read the two links I provided, and you'll get the story.

I've read through parts of it briefly (skipping a lot). It's quite entertaining. There was an anonymous mailing list about this project. They've talked John Young into being the frontman for the site (domain name registration, basic contact, etc.). After that there's endless self-congratulating discussion about how cool things are going to be. Since there is no real technical discussion shown it appears that they were not in the process of actually developing anything. Although they claim to have a huge number of leaked documents in store already, no evidence of that was given. Instead, this degenerated into overly ambitious and suspect fundrasing effort.
At that point John Young pointed out that instead of trying to raise millions on empty promises, they should do the actual implementation and work hard for a year or two on a shoe-string budget to prove that they are real. As a sarcastic ploy he suggested that if their goal is to fleece CIA (which is most likely to cough up $5M they're trying to raise), than they should ask for more. Astonishingly enough they took the joke seriously, and said they'll try :)
And John posted their mailing list discussion to the public (without the real names/addresses, which he said will come next), accusing them of simply being a scam to raise money.

[From Slashdot]

'Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East' - Does this mean that the West has no hidden skeletons? Maybe this is Pentagon's new strategy in disrupting legitimate Govts.

Wikileaks have no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.

Its going to be a joke when the conspiracy nutjobs crowds move.

Wikileaks does not claim any relationship with Wikipedia. See the FAQ:

What is your relationship to Wikipedia?

"Wikileaks has no formal relationship to Wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, Wikileaks will be to leaks."

If Wikileaks delivers what it claims to, then there will be a channel for regular folks to act as a watchdog over their governments. Voices of the minority will be multiplied.

Of course there's the risk that information on Wikileaks are falsified, either intentionally or unintentionally. This is also addressed in the FAQ where Wikileaks explains how the Wikipedia model may help to curb and/or correct such attempts.

Personally if Wikileaks lives up to its claims, I view it as a good thing for Malaysia. We've dwelt under an umbrella of secrecy for so many years. Its only in recent years (months?) that we've had encouraging attempts to shed more light into the workings of our country, largely due to volunteer bloggers like Jeff. So the difference, in my opinion, between us and the West, is that we have more issue with lack of information than with information overload and being unable to distinguish between right and wrong.

A Slashdotter also commented that since information on Wikileaks cannot be verified due to their nature, Wikileaks by itself is untrustworthy. I believe that Governments need to realise and manage the rest of this "Alternative Media". If false information is planted on such sites, then Governments have the duty to supply facts and manage the situation. In other words, I believe that either way Wikileaks should spur better governance, again provided it lives up to its claims.

Cannot. Cannot. Cannot. i was just thinking of becoming a Malaysian Barisan Nasional Politician and now with Wikileaks it makes it harder for me to make money. I think all Malaysians should denounce Wikileaks as it stops honest waabe politicians like me from becoming another Zakaria Derosor Said Yusuf....and isn't that why anyone becomes a BN politician anyway?

For honest people...this poses no threat to them.

Learn this and make yourself more difficult to trace (I've posted this info somewhere before).
http://www.thefreecountry.com/security/anonymous.shtml

The point is, if you have conclusive evidence in a form of a document that a member of government is doing something corrupt or illegal in the context of the law, you don't need to put it up anonymously onto the internet the wiki way.

If it is just speculative documents, it isn't going to help anyone but create more conspiracy nuts.

Or maybe, this wiki isn't going to be abuse in anyway.

Just because you stick anonymous into the buzzword doesn't make the technology will solve a social and governance problem.

As much hype is centered towards Web 2.0, IMHO, I wish that term would just die. Few people even know what it is. Fewer people even understand it.

Who needs Wikileaks and all the laws to encourage/protect whistle blowers if the administration is trustworthy and honest.

'Terrorists' have started terrorizing bloggers even.

What is the problem with this elected government? Must it be worst than a communist government?

I am very interested in Wikileaks.org but cannot sign in. Is this an error on my end or universal?