22 August 2011. On February 16, 2011, Cryptome bought a copy of Inside Wikileaks in English, marked "First American Edition." It appears to be the same as the excerpts from a review copy shown below. Recently a source provided a PDF of the book which shows changes made in some of the excerpts. For comparison excerpts from the recent PDF have been added below next to the those from the review copy. 12 February 2011. Add: http://crownpublishing.com/2011/02/12/crown-statement-regarding-the-english-language-edition-of-inside-

wikileaks-by-daniel-domscheit-berg/ Crown Statement Regarding the English-Language Edition of Inside WikiLeaks by Daniel Domscheit-Berg The website cryptome.org has leaked some passages from the English-language edition of Daniel Domscheit-Bergs book Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the Worlds Most Dangerous Website which is to be published on February 15 in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and Australia. The text of this edition contains discrepancies from the German edition of the book that were not authorized by the author or the German publisher, Econ. Crown, the publisher of the U.S. edition, acknowledges responsibility for these discrepancies and is making corrections to the English-language edition so that it conforms to the authorized German edition of the book. These corrections will be made as quickly as practicable to the e-book version as well as to future printings of the physical book. Reviewers and journalists must check with the publisher any quotes derived from the English-language edition to ensure that the text being quoted conforms with the authorized German edition. For questions, please contact:

Campbell Wharton, 212-572-2296

cwharton[at]randomhouse.com 9 February 2011. Wikileaks responds to the book excerpts with threat of legal action against Domscheit-Berg: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-fires-back-at-defector-over-book-claims/ 9 February 2011. Add Daniel Domscheit-Berg comments and another Cryptome comment. 8 February 2011. Add Cryptome comments. 7 February 2011 Excerpts of Daniel Domscheit-Berg's Book A sends from a review copy of the book: From Daniel Domscheit-Berg's Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website: On page 8, Daniel discloses he left with all outstanding Wikileaks submissions after blocking Assange's access to them. On page 2 "Jay Lim" is a pseudonym for Assange. Here is "Lim" corresponding with Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html and commenting on a post in Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/wikileaks-force/ On page 3 Daniel writes that Assange lied in claiming to The New Yorker to have decrypted the gunship video of killing Reuters reporters: The video was digitally encrypted, and it took WikiLeaks three months to crack. Assange, a cryptographer of exceptional skill, told me that unlocking the file was moderately difficult." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all Recent PDF, marked "v3.1" Images of the review book excerpts: http://www.netzpolitik.org/2011/wikileaks-dokumente-wurden-an-sicheren-ort-entfuhrt/ The Domscheit-Berg book excerpts were made by the unknown source from a review copy. Cryptome has not seen the book. Jay Lim was used as a nym for the WL Volunteers mail list from 9 June 2007 to 7 March 2008. These messages were commingled with others by Julian Assange, J, J.A., and Julien. Another WL mail list message concerning TW refers to two people, xxx/lim, asking about Chinese language capability. Julian Assange has many pseudonyms, anonyms, fictional characters, obscuratisms and operations he deploys to manage his reputation and hide his great fortune from tax authorities who will pay handsomely those who leak locations of stashed cash. This is not unusual for scoundrels online and off, indeed, obligatory to heighten drama and mystery as Wikileaks admitted at its beginning and as demonstrated by the former Mr. Schmidt, along with the brave posters here. You may call me scoundrel JY, omitting the A. And another by Cryptome, same place: Good observation about sitting on the alleged documents. However, every leak outlet, like any media, has the opportunity to benefit from what it chooses to make public and what it provides in secret. Open and secret information are always united with each being used to increase the value of the other. Open to publicize the products availability with alluring samples, then secret distribution to those with capability to pay for exclusive access. That is the arrangement worked out among Wikileaks and its succession of main stream media partners. The MSM partners are quite accustomed to this two-faced way of doing business, especially proclaiming about not paying for news and never admitting the sale of information to secret buyers, or more commonly, bartering one type of information for another. Sources become publishers, publishers become sources. Wikileaks is a crafty newcomer to a very old practice and is likely to be screwed for love until able to convert to the gold standard by marrying a rich mate, or more accurately, several mates simultaneously and serially. Julian is inside the mansion being clothed, fed, bedded and feted like a prince after being on the run from hoodlums on his tail, and he looks quite pleased with his concubinage in ankle bondage. The promise of this exalted stature to last several years of litigation and madcap media bloodsucking his droning verbiage must be intoxicating as if a Chaplinesque dictator. The cables will slowly fart for the duration of incarceration. Why take low-grade submissions when this mysterious pile assures never-ending avoidance of paid labor. OpenLeaks is setting out to do the same marketing of virginity, awaiting proposals for polygamy. http://www.netzpolitik.org/2011/wikileaks-dokumente-wurden-an-sicheren-ort-entfuhrt/ [Google translation, see URL above for German original.] Hi all, The excerpts published in Cryptome are not accurate translations of my authorized, final text. In respect to the passage on the data, my text reads: "The architect has taken care to instruct the other technicians. Patiently he explained to him in the transfer phase, as the whole thing had to be configured. The young techie's actually a really good programmer, and would he also knows, in our new project always welcome. However, he was simply overwhelmed with the reconstruction. Julian has not adequately cared or supported him, but rather just complain. Why the system in January 2011, four months after our departure, still not working again, I do not know exactly, but it can think of. We are still waiting on that Julian restore security so that we can give him back the material, which was on the tendering platform. We have no interest in the material, even for OpenLeaks we will not use it. We are Julie but return again until he can prove to us that he can keep it safe and so carefully and responsibly deal. Until now, until the publication of the book, we have what anyone says. Because we were afraid of the public debate. We were afraid we might lose them. Maybe that will happen now. But I am fully on this decision. We were and are primarily committed to the safety of our sources. " This is my text, any other versions are not accurately translated. We have never wanted to take away any of those documents, but no one cared to tell us where to put them. Specifically not Julian. We have on numerous occasions after we left reconfirmed that we want this handover to happen  to no avail. The only thing that happened rather than just organizing that we have offered hand over that for months now, is that I have recently received a letter from lawyer John Eisenberg, who seems to represent Julian here in Germany. Best ones. daniel Cryptome comment to: http://www.netzpolitik.org/2011/wikileaks-dokumente-wurden-an-sicheren-ort-entfuhrt/ To correct an earlier message to Detlef about the number of Wikileaks volunteers: A Jay Lim fund-raising message dated 14 September 2007 on the WL Volunteer mail list states: "While Wikileaks has many diverse friends including over 1500 people on this list, the reality is a few journalists, graduate students and anti-corruption people do -- with a handful of notable exceptions -- all the work. So far most work has gone on recruiting sources, protecting sources, censorship resistance and writing articles. Presentation and indexing of source material has not been automated but there is so much material it is impossible to deal with manually. It is a big task and the only way to have it and several other tasks done quickly is to pay specialists to work on them full time. None of the founders are experts in these areas." It is common to claim as participants those who merely sign up for information. The CIA does the same with what it calls "sources." See http://cryptome.org/cia-2619.htm. In addition to the private mail list, "WL," Wikileaks had several public mail lists which overlapped: WL Volunteers

WL Talk

WL News

WL Editors

WIKILEAKS (press office) Some 415 messages were distributed by these various public lists from 14 January 2007 to 7 March 2010. This is not to say there were not others lists and means for public commnunication besides the main web site which provided links to forums and bulletin boards.