OpenLeaks, a similar type of service launched by a former management member of WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, is launching, and it promises even better protection for would-be whistleblowers. 

Before we continue, this article is not to discuss the “right or wrong” implications of these whistleblower sites.  Nothing about the launch of OpenLeaks is going to change the way people feel about these entities, nor should it. 

This article is merely a conduit explaining the next step in Internet leak life-cycle.

Granted, those out there who thought it began and ended with Assange will be disappointed or possibly angered by this news, but I digress.  As for OpenLeaks, again, they are firmly in the camp of protecting those who leak information to them, something the mission statement reveals quite well, as does the above video:

Just in case you can’t decide where the OpenLeaks founder stands, the following responses to Reuters will eliminate any confusion.  As far as the leaks themselves, Domscheit-Berg wants total transparency and in today’s world of technology and never-ending strife, especially in the Middle East, his position is easier to understand, at least, to this writer.

"We have to create transparency where it is refused.”  Domscheit-Berg goes on to say, “it is our obligation as a society to give these people [the whistleblowers] whatever protection we can give."

Currently, OpenLeaks is still collecting funds needed for its operation, and while the site is currently live, there are no leaks contained within.

Google claimed in an email to Inner City Press that after reviewing the site, it could no longer be included in Google News. The search advertising company alluded to “user complaints,” but offered no specifics.

Inner City Press believes the action came as a delayed reaction to its questioning of Google’s Michael T. Jones in late 2007 at a United Nations Development Program press conference. The question concerned whether or not “if Google was a member of the UN Global Compact, through which corporations sign up to principles of human rights including non-censorship.”

Considering Google’s acceptance of Chinese censorship conditions in exchange for operating its search servers in the country, that little hardball came as a surprise. Jones could not answer the question.

The answer is no, Google is not nor has ever been a member. A Fox News report gave Google’s explanation:

Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker told FOXNews.com that “Google generally does not sign petitions or join coalitions but prefers to support public-engagement and advocacy efforts through the work of Google.org and by leveraging our products, such as Google Earth.”

This quickly takes a turn for the conspiratorial. Inner City Press, long accredited by the UN as well as by US federal agencies, dropped this little bombshell:

In fact, UNDP sources describe communications from the UN system to Google executives, asking that Inner City Press be de-listed from Google News, and that a well-read blog, UNDP-Watch, be striken from that data base.

Recently a whistleblower in UNDP’s legal department had his office computer impounded and was told, you have visited InnerCityPress.com multiple times. While the interrogation reflected contempt for the freedom to read and freedom of the press, the issue goes far beyond the corporate culture at UNDP, to that of Google.

The Government Accountability Project also criticized Google for delisting Inner City Press.

“Google’s reference to ‘user complaints’ is disturbing,” said Bea Edwards, International Director. “We can’t help wondering who is complaining about Inner City Press. Considering their continuing coverage of U.N. whistleblower issues, it