Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks on Sunday accused spinoff project OpenLeaks of stealing its concepts — an ironic claim to make for an organization devoted to freedom of information.
WikiLeaks threw the U.S. political elite into a frenzy by publishing thousands of confidential U.S. documents in November 2010. These documents exposed many previously concealed crimes, such as the shooting of Iraqi children by U.S. troops.
Since then, the American political establishment has called for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s blood, which has only served to increase his credibility as a defender of the public good and a threat to bourgeois power.
Following this high-profile success, numerous independent projects inspired by WikiLeaks emerged. Most prominent among these was OpenLeaks, founded by activist Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Domscheit-Berg was one of several WikiLeaks employees to depart the organization after clashes with Assange, whom Domscheit-Berg describes as brilliant but domineering.
Domscheit-Berg aspires to make OpenLeaks a more transparent and democratic alternative to WikiLeaks, though whether this will be accomplished remains to be seen.
WikiLeaks has previously slung mud at other whistle-blower programs, such as the Al-Jazeera Transparency Unit, for failing to provide adequate protection for their sources. This is an abundantly valid concern, particularly in light of the imprisonment and torture of alleged whistle-blower Bradley Manning.
However, the basis for WikiLeaks’ criticism of OpenLeaks is the notion that OpenLeaks has somehow stolen ideas from WikiLeaks.
The irony of this accusation is unavoidable: WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to the free dispersal of information, is now roaring with indignation over a violation of its supposed exclusive right to the “WikiLeaks concept.”
In fact, in order to pursue its stated goal of assisting “people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations,” WikiLeaks must encourage others to appropriate its concept.
The more centralized whistle-blowing efforts are, the easier it will be for the repressive powers of the world to eliminate them.
However, a decentralized network of independently operating pro-transparency organizations might tear away the shroud of secrecy that has, until now, helped insulate the U.S. government from accountability for its crimes.
In order for WikiLeaks’ vision to be realized, no organization can monopolize whistle-blowing operations.
Of course, it’s possible that whoever updates WikiLeaks’ Facebook and Twitter pages is an ideologically myopic Assange fanboy whose opinions do not represent those of WikiLeaks leadership. And, hearteningly, the hypocrisy of the anti-OpenLeaks position seems not to be lost on most of the pro-WikiLeaks community.
“Who cares? As long as the info spreads, who cares?” one commenter asked. “That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?”
Assange and Domscheit-Berg’s personal disagreements aside, WikiLeaks cannot oppose OpenLeaks’ right to exist without sacrificing its core principles. WikiLeaks cannot maintain a monopoly on information vital to the public good any more than the White House can.
As the hacker maxim goes, information wants to be free.