The vibe that OpenLeaks gave off was that it was founded by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the guy that was rumored to have betrayed (in some way) Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Say what you want about Assange (like him being the Jason Russel or Michael Arrington of whistle-blowing) but with Julian it felt like you were protected and anonymized at all cost. Whereas with Daniel it feels like the moment he's threatened with jail time he'll sell you out.
Also,
"[OpenLeaks] will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike [Wikileaks], it won’t publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact-checking, redaction and publication."
Sorry Daniel, but it doesn't work that way. In the world of whistle-blowing, it's all or nothing. You either publish the leak or you don't. Not go through 3 extra steps and a whole lot of "if/then"s and still not be guaranteed that your leak will be published. A broken model in my opinion.
Also,
"[OpenLeaks] will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike [Wikileaks], it won’t publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact-checking, redaction and publication."
Sorry Daniel, but it doesn't work that way. In the world of whistle-blowing, it's all or nothing. You either publish the leak or you don't. Not go through 3 extra steps and a whole lot of "if/then"s and still not be guaranteed that your leak will be published. A broken model in my opinion.