Openleaks dissenters left Wikileaks in shreds has released scans of Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s book “Inside Wikileaks”, which will be appearing shortly. A German news magazine also released a short teaser of its interview with former Wikileaks speaker Domscheit-Berg featured in the print issue coming to news stands tomorrow. 

Domscheit-Berg claims that Wikileaks is not able to protect both data and informants since September 2010, after he and other former collaborators left after falling out with Julian Assange.

Wikileaks’ main programmer, referred as “the architect”, had taken software developed for the website away, leaving basic functions of the Wikileaks platform in ruins.

In addition, Domscheit-Berg and other dissidents decided it was necessary to take all leaked data away from Wikileaks to keep informants safe, as Assange and the rest seemingly weren’t able to keep it secure. He added Assange was seemingly too busy trying to strip what data is left rather than keeping the website secure.

Asked if the actions of Wikileaks’ former collaborators, who have now set up a rival platform called, could be seen as sabotage, Domscheit-Berg replied “the architect” had simply taken his intellectual property back after previously placing it at the disposal of Wikileaks. All data taken away from Wikileaks would also be handed back to Assange as soon as he and Wikileaks could guarantee its safety

As Domscheit-Berg writes in “Inside Wikileaks”:

“Children shouldn’t play with guns. That was our argument for removing the submission platform from Julian’s control. The architect, in particular, would have had moral qualms about leaving it in Julian’s hands.

“We did not take this step to damage Julian personally. We were not motivated by revenge. And we did not want to get our own hands on the material, or divert it to Openleaks. We just decided to take away these dangerous toys so that Julian could not do harm to anyone else.

“We will only return the material to Julian if and when he can prove that he can store the material securely and handle it carefully and responsibly.”

So far, Assange has not been been able to prove anything. Domscheit-Berg however has received mail from a lawyer called John Eisenberg, deemed to be Assange’s legal advisor in Germany.

Documents from the Bank of America did not belong to the treasure trove taken into safety.

Domscheit-Berg also stated that data from the Bank of America is a bit older and he deemed it to be “totally unspectacular”. What is left of Wikileaks is currently prepping the data for release.

Domscheit-Berg also told the Stern he had “never experienced such a crass person as Julian Assange”, who on one hand he described as a free spirit, energetic and a genius, but at the same time paranoid, power-hungry and a megalomaniac.

“Inside Wikileaks” is set to cause a bonfire of criticism in connection with Wikileaks’ fundraising activities.

An excerpt reads: “Julian would later claim that the work on the “Collateral Murder” video had cost $50.000 and say that he wanted to recoup that sum in donations. He also asserted that a lot of the work had gone into decrypting the videos. I knew for a fact that this was not entirely true. We did occasionally receive encrypted videos, but with this one, we had the password.

“The resolution only had to be augmented to improve the video quality, and that was done mostly by volunteers. In essence, Julian’s only costs would have been the rent for the house in Iceland and his plane ticket.”

In it, Domscheit-Berg also writes that TV stations should make a donation or pay for interviews to use the “Collateral Murder” video. Assange’s standard response to “the issue of getting money in return for the video”, which “left a bad taste in the mouth” of Domscheit-Berg and others was “do not challenge my leadership in a time of crisis.”

Furthermore, the book is allegedly set to reveal Julian Assange’s view of women, a saucy tidbit in view of the current sex-crime extradition proceedings and the paranoiac allegations surrounding it.

“Julian’s main criterion for a woman was simple. She had to be young. Preferrably younger than twenty-two. And it went without saying that she couldn’t question him. “She has to be aware of her role as a woman,” he used to say. She was also allowed to be intelligent – Julian liked that.”