Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Former WikiLeaks Spokesman, Admits Deleting Data From Site

Ongoing tensions between former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg and embattled founder Julian Assange have reportedly reached a fever pitch after the deputy claims to have destroyed 3,500 of the site's unpublished documents obtained from unknown informants.

As Spiegel Online is reporting, Domscheit-Berg says that the documents, which he had obtained off WikiLeak's servers prior to his well-publicized departure from the whistleblowing organization last year, were "shredded over the past few days in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised."

Among the documents from the database said to have been destroyed: a copy of the U.S government's "No-Fly list," which contains names of terrorism suspects who are prohibited from boarding aircraft, and other materials containing insider information relating to 20 far-right organizations.

Also reportedly included in the lot: 5 gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organizations and U.S. intercept information for "over a hundred internet companies."

While the BBC reports that WikiLeaks confirmed those details via its Twitter feed in addition to slamming the ex-deputy's actions as "sabotage," Domscheit-Berg has offered no further information on the documents.

Domscheit-Berg and his former employer have carried on an infamously adversarial relationship. Since his departure, Domscheit-Berg -- who previously went by the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt -- has been busy promoting an alternative whistleblower platform, OpenLeaks, which "aims at making whistleblowing safer and more widespread." Furthermore, he also penned a book, Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website, in which he outlines his personal, ethical and political disagreements with Assange and the organization.

Still, other officials have cast doubt over Domscheit-Berg's integrity. As Spiegel Online is reporting, Andy Müller-Maguhn, spokesman for top German hacker group the Chaos Computer Club, noted, "He is certainly quite flexible with facts."

Comments

[GSNP]

10:19 AM on 08/31/2011

It was not Julian Assange who publicized these cables - it was Daniel Domscheit-Berg who collaborates with USG/DOJ. So far DDB is not believable - lacks integrity for the "cause" of his previous employer WikiLeaks. DDB was fired for good reason - rabble-rouser w/o conscience.
WikiLeaks encryption key file accidentally leaked online 8/30/2011
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-encryption-key-file-accidentally-leaked-online-1.381438

[GSNP]

09:57 AM on 08/31/2011

Who could believe Daniel Domscheit-Berg? While supporters of Assange mistakenly uploaded docs [with key] to other supporters....... it was Daniel Domscheit-Berg who PUBLICIZED them.
It was DDB who allowed NAMES to be publicized - and who does DDB collaborate with? None other than USG - who wants to get Assange under any circumstances even if supporting DDB to do it. USG/DOJ can't be believed any more than DDB.
For integrity I'd put my money on Julian Assange - Set him FREE and allow him his Right for Freedom of Speech/Press/Journalism. Assange stops corruption while DDB incites corruption.

"Domscheit-Berg and his former employer have carried on an infamously adversarial relationship. Since his departure, Domscheit-Berg -- who previously went by the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt -- has been busy promoting an alternative whistleblower platform, OpenLeaks, which "aims at making whistleblowing safer and more widespread."

[wardropper]

08:22 PM on 08/27/2011

I like the way his name rolls off the tongue ...

A rough translation is also very effective...

[Farmers Market]

11:28 AM on 08/24/2011

Domscheit-Berg is promoting a site that the establishment approves of. Some whistleblower! More like a blowhard!

[JackHoffman]

10:22 AM on 08/24/2011

The Bank of America got to him.

[jasev01]

06:38 AM on 08/24/2011

wow and someone got paid

[gmb007]

03:26 AM on 08/24/2011

OK, I'm no hacker but come on.

You mean to tell me that Wikileaks did not take extraordinary measures to make a super-encrypted backup of the backup of the copy of the backup of this one-of-a-kind, explosive data - cloned onto 14 disks - and all flung throughout the Southern Hemisphere, safely hidden for future use?

[gmb007]

03:14 AM on 08/24/2011

No one will ever convince me that a complete copy of this BOMBSHELL data was not made and currently resides somewhere safely.

Even for Wikileaks, this kind of explosive info doesn't come along every day.

[Kimberly Brown]

02:02 AM on 09/04/2011

Hopefully a copy DOES exist someplace and will be published post haste.

[SolarEXtract]

03:11 AM on 08/24/2011

So basically, instead of publishing leaks on his own, he's going to have them filtered by mainstream media who will handle publishing the leaks themselves.

[JrayTo]

10:22 PM on 08/23/2011

oh dumbsh*t-berg...how much did they pay you?

[yorktown1979]

08:39 PM on 08/23/2011

This guy just got millions from BofA and will continue to collect for the rest of his life! Smart man to pick such an evil institution to blackmail!!!!

[Blackorpheus]

07:34 PM on 08/23/2011

Ego battles. And Domscheit-Berg sounds to me like the jealous second-in-command.

[Ramon Noches]

12:38 PM on 08/23/2011

The sheer audacity of these "Wikileaks" fools who have set themselves up to represent the whole world on uses of personal, financial, and confidential information. Such foolish notions can cost lives, disrupt the financial standing and security of millions of innocent people. It used to be "loose lips sink ships" or typically a one-on one-situation; however today loose computer keys can reach millions almost instantly sinking a much broader array of "ships.” These fools do not seem to understand that much of the information they leaked may already be in the wrong hands and only needs a small piece of additional data to convert unknown data into valuable information to use for onerous purposes.

[whodo1952]

11:41 AM on 08/23/2011

What is the difference in "destroying" information which is kept secret from us, and keeping the "secret" from us?

Doing things right in front of our faces, behind our back is the blindly accepted AMERICAN WAY!

Because some of you have bought into the convenient response of "secrets and lies" for our own good theory, are just as mistaken as the naive children who believe the world disappears behind peek"a"boo hands, does not mean that all of us give over that much power to those who dabble in blindly accepted agendas.

Arrogantly and without fear of reprisal, putting too much power and "trust" behind those who have vivid track records of lying to us "for our own good" in spite of transparency issues for decades, gives them what they seek, absolute unquestioning power.

Having children has prepared me for recognizing squeaky wheels and, pre-empted damage control tactics.

There is more going on here than meets the eye.
Someone who claims to have proof of wrong doing wants to share that information with everybody.
Why not take a hard look? If there is nothing to it, then question credibility.
If there is something we all should share, then share.
Let me tell you this for certain, If the government wants to keep secrets, they can and do keep secrets, example, area 51.
If however they want to stir the crap pot, they blow these issues sky high and watch their brainwashed patriotic minions, champion their hidden agendas. Result, muddy water.

[crrussell]

09:33 AM on 08/23/2011

Any one associated with WikiLeaks should be arrested and tried for treason and sedition here in the US.

They deserve to be hung by the neck until dead.

[Gerald Ward]

11:43 AM on 08/23/2011

You sound like an angry little girl. "sedition" did you have to look that up? If you did you'd realize you don't know what it means. I'm sure your class will get around to it soon.

[A Wright]

07:09 PM on 08/23/2011

First: The people referenced in this article are not American citizens and therefore cannot commit treasonous acts because this is not their country to betray.

Second: It's hanged. A picture is hung. A condemned man is hanged. Just semantics.

Third: I disagree.