3 ms·
Submission for leaks (usually) also involves some sort of authentication, however. And that authentication needs to be kept confidential. The result is that t
by furyg3 16y ago
Submission for leaks (usually) also involves some sort of authentication, however. And that authentication needs to be kept confidential.
The result is that there's no way around a 'trusted' provider who signs releases, and that will inherently be a personality like Assange.
Simply relying on a reddit-style submission method would lead to a worse form of reddit. Currently you can evaluate whether or not you 'trust' content submitted to reddit by looking at the site hosting it (is the content from the NYT or a random blog?). For a wikileaks-reddit, all submissions would have to be anonymous, and you'd have no idea what is a real leak or not.
- avar 16y agoThere's no need for a trusted singular provider. You can just implement this sort of thing as a circle of trust. A leak could be made by anyone. But content would only be published on somerandomsite.com if it has been digitally signed by someone. Who that someone is could be configurable. wikileaks.com would be things that are only signed by Assange, but you could spin up your own site with your own signing policies.