Excerpt From This Machine Kills Secrets

The excerpt from This Machine Kills Secretsprovides an interesting view into Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s attempts to create a truly anonymous version of WikiLeaks. It was written by Andy Greenberg, who is a technology, privacy, and information security reporter who has a vested interest in concepts such as WikiLeaks and the nature of how information is leaked and to whom it is leaked to.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg

The excerpt chronicles events surrounding the Chaos Communication Camp, basically a convention for hackers, and their attempts to create a more secure version of WikiLeaks. Domscheit-Berg’s goal for the convention was to test his OpenLeaks programming by allowing the 3000 hackers in attendance to attempt to hack into the site. While the project ended up failing, it did promote conversation concerning the nature of how leaked material is propagated and how to protect the privacy of the individuals risking themselves by leaking the information

The goal of the project was to allow leakers to post information to the OpenLeaks website, and the website itself would then forward the information to the appropriate parties so that the identity of the person providing the information would be completely concealed, while at the same time the information becomes available to the general public in order to create transparency.

I found this concept very interesting, considering that almost every website or browser contains programming designed to track user movements across the web, taking note of what websites they visit along with other information. Privacy is not something that is found frequently online. While we all engage in online activities that we think are private, they really are not. There are always programs monitoring our movements, collecting data about us.

For someone who wants to leak sensitive information, privacy is a huge concern. Even when the leaked information is proven to be beneficial to the general public, if it’s not information that a corporation or government wants leaked, trouble follows. As a result, many people who are in the positions to provide information of this nature may choose not to, out of fear of personal safety or retribution. The concept of OpenLeaks, if it had been successful, would have changed all that and allowed for a push for greater transparency in society.

Domscheit-Berg hits the nail on the head when he says:

Leak sites have to first have a leak. But how do you get this leak? For that you need publicity. Now the publicity is there, and the web-site is not. And maybe some of the leakers are turned off. In the short run, it’s a disappointment. But in the long run the issue is the leaks. To leak or not to leak, that is the question.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUZgfLT8Czo[/youtube]