30 June 2010

A2 sends:

Just read this:

http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-acts.htm

Your dude is a psycho infowarrior losing his nerves. He has put too many eggs in one basket, which means he wrote too much about everything he could and even didn't care to be logical. And these "demonstrate just how powerless" and specially these "we challenge" multiplied over several places, show this guy is as much fan of Wikileaks as I am of New York Rangers...

A1 sends:

Don't you find it odd that your alleged WikiLeaks Insider has no idea on how to spell Daniel Schmitt correctly? If he or she is really an insider with the organisation who seems to be in direct contact with Assange and Schmitt, shouldn't he/she know his name, even though it's just an alias?

I really like your site, but your motives for spreading biased FUD against WikiLeaks aren't really clear to me. The alleged Insider didn't back any of his accusations with hard evidence so far. Nothing against scepticism, although there's a thin line between scepticism and paranoia.

Cryptome:

Cryptome has been publishing "biased FUD" and unbiased FUD since its beginning. That is what it does and lets readers decide what to make of it.

Wikileaks offers biased FUD, which is what all leaks are, although WL pretends to authenticate its product without disclosing who does that and how it is done.

We understand that authentication makes products more sellable, which is why all authoritatives claim the magic power to do what they dare not let readers do -- doubt them and not pay up.

Cryptome does not authenticate nor believe in it nor in those who claim to be able to authenticate and brag about it, indeed charge money for it. Smart authenticators claim free information is not worth much, heh.

Misspellings are ubiquitous, Assange more than what's his name. John often is, that damn h, where does it go.

Thanks for the comments.

Wikileaks Insider Messages: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-mess.htm

A sends via PGPboard, 29 June 2010:

WIKILEAKS: OUR ACTIVISTS ONGOING CONCERNS

To say that the rank and file activists are becoming disillusioned with the direction WIKILEAKS is taking would be a spectacular understatement. We have revealed some of our concerns which have been published by Cryptome. And we update the current situation below:

The principal issue that concerns Assange now is the ongoing lack of funding. Assange was particularly incensed when WIKILEAKS failed to unhook $537,000 in funding from the KNIGHT FOUNDATION. As we speak, WIKILEAKS has NO MAJOR DONOR. Funds from internet donations is WIKILEAKS only income stream, and by its very nature this is unpredictable and unreliable. Currently WIKILEAKS reduced income is totally dedicated in supporting Assange's international travel and expenses.

In the meantime, we (WIKILEAKS ACTIVISTS) have pressed both Daniel Schmidt and Assange to publish some of the supposed thousands of documents in our possession. The costs associated with the online publishing would be minimal. WIKILEAKS unpaid foot soldiers could do this starting tomorrow. To date we have received no commitment from Assange and Schmidt to follow through with ANY publication of existing documents in our possession.

We challenge both Assange and Schmidt to address our concerns regarding this issue.

This brings us to comment on our website, the function of which has been reduced to publishing miscellaneous PR statements, and Assange's ramblings concerning his personal safety. The website was closed down for months for supposed lack of funds.

Now we can say that this was false. The required $200,000 was available from February 2010. As we indicated in previous messages only $55,000 was actually required to keep the lights on in terms of a meaningful web presence. In terms of whistle-blowing the WIKILEAKS website is not fit for purpose; it has degenerated into an Assange propaganda outlet in order to talk-up his importance to the world media, and promote his latest scoop. Like it or not Assange has become part of the global media circus he initially and supposedly despised. Furthermore, Assange intends to profit personally from cultivating such an association.

The Manning issue has demonstrated just how powerless WIKILEAKS is in protecting and defending an exposed source. The WIKILEAKS legal team never made it into KUWAIT, and chances are that it never will. WIKILEAKS have received no objection from The Advocate General Office for civilian attorneys to represent or assist in the defence of Manning. However WIKILEAKS would be responsible for expenses incurred in such a defence.

We challenge Schmidt and Assange to address and clarify this issue, and explain just how they would defend any WIKILEAKS activists implicated in Manning case.

Finally, we would welcome some sort of clarification from Schmidt and Assange as to the direction in which WIKILEAKS appears to going.

Will Schmidt and Assange address our concerns about influence a group of liberal left wing Icelandic politicians headed up by Birgitta Jonsdottir. is exerting upon WIKILEAKS, and the risk of WIKILEAKS becoming a source of information with a deliberate left wing tilt, as opposed to taking a more neutral stance.

The recent helicopter gunship footage was in fact produced, edited, and scripted by Birgitta Jonsdottir and her associates. Putting aside the issue of a serving member of the Icelandic government participating in such activities and the security implications this has going forward, the skewed political bias was evident when comparing the raw footage against WIKILEAKS edited release.

Wikileaks Insider

Authentication Code Follows

[Code omitted]