|
||||
|
25 July 2014 The Cryptosphere Interview of Cryptome The article published: http://thecryptosphere.com/2014/07/24/cryptome-kills-the-kickstarter-an-interview-with-john-young/ Related: 2014-1027.htm Increased-Diverse Disclosure Initiatives Needed July 23, 2014
To: The Cryptosphere <thecryptosphere[at]gmail.com> Hi Lorraine, Congrats for your new venture, much success will surely follow. The Cryptosphere: Money gets people's attention. Is that why you started the Kickstarter? To attach money to a crusade and thus get more coverage, more reads, more exposure for your crusade to get all the Snowden documents released? It is one of Cryptome's ongoing efforts and experiments to communicate, learn and teach in new and diverse ways, with content, outreach, invitation to critique, probe crowd-funding, diminish corrosiveness and corruption of funding secrecy, and share the results with the public while in progress. And more to come on why and what. Speaking of money, has Greenwald come after you for posting the PDF of his book? If so, how? If not, why do you think he hasn't? No, nor offered to pay for the publicity. He's is a deadbeat arrogant leech on other people's work, not only of Snowden's, it has been his life's sole purpose. But not that different from the usual narcissistic, deranged, lawyer, journalist, NGO panhandler who preys on public generosity and trust by converting free time and effort to branded profitability. You would never do that, now, would you? You had an average donation of over $70 on the Kickstarter; that's unusually rich. What do you think that reflects about the people who support Cryptome? $70 is both below and above the normal for donations over 18 years. One was over $11,000, many for $25, some for $100 ($25-100 is for the Archive), a lot for $0. The very best support is provided by those supplying disclosure material, that is the lifeblood of Cryptome. Donations are appreciated but most funding has been by us and is remains a trivial concern. Are you going to refund the money, use it to produce archives, or do something else with it? Donate it to the Paypal 14, just to annoy Omidyar? Canceling Kickstarter cancels the pledges, so nothing to return except an apology to those who pledged for Kickstarter's siphoning and selling their profile. (A fair number said this is why they would not participate in this or any other crowd-funding scam, that we should be ashamed of aiding and abetting the hustle.) Had you reached the $100,000, what would you have done with the money? I mean, that's worth two potato salads in the Kickstarter economy. We explained on Kickstarter: 25% to little known disclosure sites struggling to survive, 25% to new disclosure sites, 25% to provide free copies of Cryptome Archive; 25% to purchase better ISP service for Cryptome. Why did you tie the end of the Kickstarter to the pclob meeting that was yesterday? No connection, did not remember the totally fraudulent and propagandistic PCLOB. But thanks for reminding to slur the sleazybastards in public. It seems to me you've been dropping hints about another leak/publication system in the pipeline. What is it? Is it a concrete project, or are you just hoping to inspire/flush someone out? What do you mean by this "Distributed" model you talk about in the Kickstarter? Is there one project out there that has your backing, specifically? Or are you working on someething behind the scenes? We initiate new disclosure means every few months. We operate about 12 domains now and fund several others. Three of our latest domains were set up recently, not yet announced, awating suitable material. We distribute our Archive by a variety of means, online and off. We exchange material with other initiatives. We urge those providing material to us to set up their own initiatives, many have. We also recommend avoiding entanglement with us and other initiatives due to the high likelihood of compromise, honey pot, entrapment, witting or unwitting. No disclosure initiative can avoid being spied upon sooner or later. Best to keep very low profile as long as possible, do not trust security promises of existing initiatives, including Cryptome. The more popular the disclosure initiative the greater the chance of screwing those who provide material to advance the interests of the operators. Distributed is the only way to disclose, concentrated means are never honest -- see note above about perfidy of pols, lawyers, journalists, NGOs. You are the exception. What kind of changes does the future hold for Cryptome.org? You've had tussles with servers and DNS before. It's hard to believe this would put you off for long. We stated at the start of the Kick that Cryptome will continue to evolve, in new and unexpected ways. No doubt, money fucks up everybody, grotesquely rich or desperately poor. Cheating and lying about it is obligatory across the spectrum around the planet -- see note above about perfidy of pols, lawyers, journalists, NGOs. You are the exception. Anyway, that's all the questions I've got for now. I'm sure the answers will be as thought-provoking as they are bitterly amusing, as usual for Cryptome. Send us material venal cowards dare not publish -- see note above about perfidy of pols, lawyers, journalists, NGOs. You owe it to the fucked over public or shut your shop. Thanks again. Lorraine Murphy
At 07:39 AM 7/24/2014, you wrote: Grab the Cryptome logo on our home page. Another point or so, ha: Commercial, NGO and individual incitement of disclosers to take risk by funding dropboxes and disclosure sites as well as outright bribery with fund-raisers (crowd-funding laundering), speaking fees, honoria, travel costs, and legal expenses is cowardly, sleazy and corrupting of public disclosure. The same as what spies and LE does to conspire, entrap, coerce, cut deals with, gullible disclosers. Snowden a prime example of organized lawyer-media crime against risk takers. The canard that journalists and publishers do not pay sources, and assures confidentiality and comsed f sources, is a giant [crock] of shit that needs disposing and cleansing in sewage processing plants. Moreover, media practice of consulting with governments on what to publish or withhold of material disclosed by risk takers, is anti-democratic, unconsitutional, venal, protective of privilege and betrayal of public trust. See note about pols, lawyers,journalists, NGOs and manipulative oligarchs. Not you, never. Grouchmeister
|
