5 ms·

The Wall Street Journal Launches a WikiLeaks Competitor, SafeHouse

89 points by ssclafani 15y ago

blhack 15y ago
You guys are missing the point. Nobody will use this because it's "generic", and WSJ knows this. What this does is lend credibility to wikileaks.
- arkitaip 15y ago
  So WSJ is doing this ... to support Wikileaks?!
corin_ 15y ago
Let's say the cables that WikiLeaks got hold of were sent to WSJ through this method, would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government? (Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.)
- moondistance 15y ago
  I assumed that they would until I read this: "If you upload or submit any Content, you represent to Dow Jones that you have all the necessary legal rights to upload or submit such Content and it will not violate any law or the rights of any person." https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/terms.html https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/terms.html
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Some pretty amazing leaks they're going to be getting, then!
  - orblivion 15y ago
    "Dow Jones retains sole discretion in deciding what to do, if anything, with the information received through SafeHouse. Dow Jones does not make any representations that the information provided through SafeHouse will be used or published in any form." I don't imagine much fun information coming out of this.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      In all seriousness, what do you expect to find in their TOS? What if I send them an email showing that one of my colleagues is sleeping with the boss. Are they going to guarantee it will get published? In the end it will come down to trust. If they act in a manner that wins the trust of whistleblowers, they'll get whistleblowing. I can't see any of the legalese affecting this one way or the other.
      - orblivion 15y ago
        The words "Dow Jones" is enough for me to dismiss this, at least as a real competitor to Wikileaks. But sure, to be more serious, plenty of good information outside of their sphere of interest could still get released.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    That just protects Dow Jones. It allows them to sue the anonymous uploader for breach of contract or perjury or whatever if they want (which they don't), but it turns it the rights into the uploader's issue, not Dow Jones'.
- hugh3 15y ago
  (Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.) Well the US Government has yet to manage much in the way of actually going after wikileaks. The Wall St Journal has the advantage of falling under its jurisdiction. But the answer is: no, I get the impression that the WSJ will be more circumspect about precisely what it publishes. On the other hand if the WSJ does publish your leaked documents they automatically get a lot of credibility. And if you leak documents to the WSJ and they refuse to publish you can always leak 'em to someone else. On the other hand, it's not like Wikileaks is publishing things indiscriminately nowadays -- they're still sitting on a huge stash of diplomatic cables and releasing a few every time they feel like it. As I've said before, if I were the wikimedia foundation I'd be complaining pretty hard about the fact that Wikileaks isn't actually a Wiki any more.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    If WikiLeaks were a company in the US, and all their people worked in the US, they would be in deeper shit than they already are. But, PR can spin WikiLeaks as anti-American, it's much harder to do that while trying to shut up the WSJ.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Depends on whom they were embarrassing. If WSJ (owned by Murdoch) published something embarrassing to the Obama administration then the machinery of the left will spin it as "Oh, that wicked Fox News up to their usual tricks again".
      - corin_ 15y ago
        It's amazing that you've come in and criticised "the left" for spinning something pointlessly, when in fact you're just spinning it right back at them, while nobody else had made this discussion in the slightest bit party-political.
- gamble 15y ago
  > would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government? Of course not. Wikileaks isn't solving a technical problem. They need to exist because traditional news agencies aren't willing to take the hit associated with releasing unflattering information. We saw what happened to financial businesses that dared to provide perfectly legal services to Wikileaks. Journalists who imitate Wikileaks can expect to be harassed, fired, or even prosecuted. I find it ironic that so many traditional media figures bemoaned the loss of their "gatekeeper" role when the birther controversy was still monopolizing headlines. They have no trouble acting as a gatekeeper when journalism threatens the rich and powerful.
- roc 15y ago
  The Times and the Journal have both admitted to sitting stories, altering stories and burying facts at the behest of the United States Government. And I can only imagine that 'inflammatory' data about corporations who have a relationship with the Journal would be treated in a similar way. In short: if publishing doesn't align with their best interests, they can be relied upon to not publish.
mayukh 15y ago
Its a step in the right direction. Traditional responses to the market failures, corruption, fraud and general seediness of those in power has been more regulation. And that hasn't really worked too well has it.. What we need is transparency, while protecting privacy. Shining a bright light into the dark corners of wrong-doing should serve as a better deterrent than any ambiguous, unenforceable regulation. Lets hope the safehouse gets some competition (nytimes are you listening?)
- hugh3 15y ago
  Leaking stuff to newspapers is a time-honoured tradition. But with an anonymous upload site it can be done much more easily. The biggest problem I see is fake leaks. Make up some fake documents to embarrass someone you don't like (or just for the sake of the lulz) and how are they supposed to verify whether they're real or not before publishing 'em?
  - CapitalistCartr 15y ago
    By doing their job. Much of journalism is research.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      But that doesn't help. If I have in my hand what is supposedly a top-secret document then how do I confirm whether it's real or not? (Let's assume that the forgers haven't made any obvious mistakes.) I sure as hell can't go knocking on the door and asking whether I can compare this document with the original version. A great example was the Rather-gate memos from the 2004 election, a supposedly "leaked" memo which got published with great fanfare despite the fact that the forgers did make some obvious errors (ie producing a 1970s document in Microsoft Word using default fonts, spacing and parameters). But if the forgers hadn't been complete dumbasses then how would we have ever known whether they were real?
      - msredmond 15y ago
        Unfortunately, unless you can verify them, you don't publish them. That does mean that some things that are genuine will not get published. But it avoids what's worse -- publishing things that aren't true.
jmjerlecki 15y ago
I agree this is a step in the right direction, but I don't imagine something like Watergate breaking from SafeHouse.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Why not? The last Watergate broke via the Washington Post. Actually I think the question of who breaks the next Watergate may depend on whose ox is being gored. If you're leaking information to bring down a Republican president you'll leak to a left-leaning outlet (like wikileaks) and if you're leaking information to bring down a Democrat president then you'll leak to a right-leaning outlet like the WSJ. Wikileaks and the WSJ is not perfect symmetry, but it is satisfying to know that all ideological bases are more or less covered.
marcusbooster 15y ago
This is probably way for them to aggregate potential exclusive story ideas. I'd treat it like you were going to speak to a reporter anonymously, they may have your back, they may not.
- msredmond 15y ago
  It's so sad to me that people think of it this way -- not guaranteed. You should always be able to trust a reporter who promises you that. The unethical ones really burn us all.
  - marcusbooster 15y ago
    I don't mean to disparage all the good journalists out there, they certainly exist and I have massive respect for the ones that go to jail for their sources. But WikiLeaks has already built a reputation and technical infrastructure, important things that this new site doesn't have.
RainFlutter 15y ago
This is huge. Maybe their implementation will take off and maybe it won't, but either way this is a tacit admission by the WSJ that the WikiLeaks model will be a serious part of what it means to commit journalism going forward. All of the lawyerly caveats have to be taken in context of that you have a major US media organization now following in the footsteps of a widely disparaged and isolated vigilante organization. This is just standard CYA protocol.
r00fus 15y ago
Who's going to trust the WSJ if they have anything of serious consequence? Rupert Murdoch has been pretty cozy to western governments and large corporations, so why would I as a whistleblower/leaker choose WSJ's outfit given the ideological and conflict of interest issues? Say what you will about WikiLeaks, but it's pretty much got one purpose and no obvious conflict of interest. In the case of SafeHouse... not so much.
- hugh3 15y ago
  You don't need to trust 'em. Worst case scenario is that you leak to 'em and they ignore it so you go take your leak somewhere else. Competition is always good. Whether or not wikileaks has obvious "conflict of interest" they have a certain ideological outlook, and having a competitor with a different ideological outlook might help in cases where wikileaks chooses to sweep something under the rug.
  - lukejduncan 15y ago
    Unless you leak to them, they don't print it, and they leak your contact information to someone you don't want to have it...
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Except (and this is the point) it's a site for anonymous uploading. They don't have your contact information.
      - e40 15y ago
        Most people don't know how to mask their IP address.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        How about your IP address?
      - rdtsc 15y ago
        > They don't have your contact information. So how to they catch all those "online pirates"? I am sure they don't provide their address, name, and social security number when they download a song for example. However that has not stopped thousands upon thousands of cases to be filed (now whether you think identifying people by IP is right or wrong is besides that point, it is happening and it is part of the system). So "no" you should not leak anything to these people unless you know every well how to hide (chances are you might not, even your browser's identifying info like fonts, OS version etc. can be used to narrow down the search and there are other things as well).
asolove 15y ago
Nothing makes me feel more secure than "a fairly complicated" system!
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  If it's complicated, it must be foolproof!
jbooth 15y ago
"Competing" with Wikileaks seems to miss the point. You can collaborate, or you can oppose. The goal is to publish information, not to monopolize it. (Although if this gets the libertarians/republicans off of their cultural-identity perch and into the game, then I'm all for it.)
- smosher 15y ago
  I was about to post this when I saw your reply. I'll add it here instead since it's similar: The term 'competitor' is all wrong. Ostensibly, the point of WikiLeaks is to publish the truth. If WSJ wants to compete with that it sounds like they want their own truth. Of course the SafeHouse site doesn't describe itself as a competitor, but it doesn't compare itself to or even make mention of WikiLeaks either -- I think that betrays competitive intentions. For WikiLeaks and similar sources to function, what's needed is redundancy in some kind of mutually-respectful oligarchy. Those two items will keep them online and honest in aggregate (to some degree.) Sadly even the EFF is using the term 'competitor' to describe similar potential sites. See here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/will-rise-wikileaks-competitors-make https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/will-rise-wikileaks-co...
kurtsiegfried 15y ago
WSJ Terms about Confidentiality: 3. Request Confidentiality: If you would like us to consider treating your submission as confidential before providing any materials, please make this request through this online submission form. Please note that until we mutually decide to enter into a confidential relationship, any information you send to us (including contact information) can be used for any purpose, as outlined in point 1 above, and described more fully below in the Limitations section). If we enter into a confidential relationship, Dow Jones will take all available measures to protect your identity while remaining in compliance with all applicable laws. Wikileaks version: 2.3 Protection for you Wikileaks does not record any source-identifying information and there are a number of mechanisms in place to protect even the most sensitive submitted documents from being sourced. We do not keep any logs. We can not comply with requests for information on sources because we simply do not have the information to begin with. Similarly we can not see your real identity in any anonymised chat sessions with us. Our only knowledge of you as a source is if you provide a coded name to us. A lot of careful thought by world experts in security technologies has gone into the design of these systems to provide the maximum protection to you. Wikileaks has never revealed a source.
- eli 15y ago
  I could see how others might disagree, but I think the WSJ's terms are reasonable. The WSJ also has an admirable policy of not respecting embargoes slapped on press releases unless there's an agreement in advance. If what you're leaking is so secret that you can't even discuss it with them in advance, then you shouldn't trust them period. It's on you as the leaker to make sure they have no way to determine your identity in the first place.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Only one of the two has proven themselves to be trustworthy at all, and only one of them doesn't use weasel words in their terms. If your criteria is whether the leaker is unsure of being able to discuss their material, the WSJ is even more useless. Basically, it appears you're arguing for the case that the WSJ is a great place to send your leaks if you already know there won't be repercussions (via your own precautions or their flaccid protections), which is pretty much what they have now. What's the difference between this and a link to "tips@wsj.com"?
nice1 15y ago
Is it true that internally they call this "BlackHole"?
lazugod 15y ago
The WSJ doesn't already have the capability to take in and report directly on confidential leaks?
- msredmond 15y ago
  You're exactly right that they do -- it's called reporters. If you're going to submit to the WSJ, do it through a person -- not this system.
pessimizer 15y ago
For me, the entire point of Wikileaks is that it is a secure way to leak anonymously designed by a crypto theorist and expert. The security involved with this WSJ thing is opaque, and sounds loosey-goosey based on the Delany paraphrase here. I think they would have been better off trying to get Openleaks off the ground, because Domscheit-Berg seems like he has a model of being a trustworthy technical middle man for traditional outlets. My bet is that the WSJ is not comfortable with actually not knowing the sources of the leaks - the security sounds like its goal is to prevent intrusion by external entities, rather than to anonymize.
yahelc 15y ago
I was impressed that this site didn't make any obvious privacy snafus: HTTPS, no cookies, no externally hosted files, no JavaScript analytics running.
msredmond 15y ago
As a journalist I find it really disturbing that the WSJ has this clause. The #2 rule in journalism (after tell the truth) is protect your sources -- if you promise not to reveal your source, you don't reveal your source. It's not, "well, I promise not to reveal you -- unless I get a subpoena, then you're SOL." And yes, that means going to jail if you have to. Which is why as a journalist you have to be very careful who you give it to. I realize that by the nature of what they've posted they're not promising it, so now there's two standards -- if you submit through the site, you have some protection, but to a journalist on their staff, then, you have the (assumed) full protection. But now there's that separate level of protection -- we'll give you anonymity, depending on some sort of arbitrary process if submitted through this site. And most people don't understand what a professional reporter will (or should) do for their source -- if they hand papers over in one or two cases, many people will assume that all journalists will just cave,and that will hurt everyone. I do understand why they don't want to give blanket full protection for things unknown/unseen, but unless they're willing to do that, I really don't think a journalistic entity should do this kind of site at all.

89 points by ssclafani 15y ago

You guys are missing the point. Nobody will use this because it's "generic", and WSJ knows this. What this does is lend credibility to wikileaks.

arkitaip 15y ago
So WSJ is doing this ... to support Wikileaks?!

corin_ 15y ago

Let's say the cables that WikiLeaks got hold of were sent to WSJ through this method, would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government? (Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.)

moondistance 15y ago
I assumed that they would until I read this: "If you upload or submit any Content, you represent to Dow Jones that you have all the necessary legal rights to upload or submit such Content and it will not violate any law or the rights of any person." https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/terms.html https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/terms.html
- corin_ 15y ago
  Some pretty amazing leaks they're going to be getting, then!
- orblivion 15y ago
  "Dow Jones retains sole discretion in deciding what to do, if anything, with the information received through SafeHouse. Dow Jones does not make any representations that the information provided through SafeHouse will be used or published in any form." I don't imagine much fun information coming out of this.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    In all seriousness, what do you expect to find in their TOS? What if I send them an email showing that one of my colleagues is sleeping with the boss. Are they going to guarantee it will get published? In the end it will come down to trust. If they act in a manner that wins the trust of whistleblowers, they'll get whistleblowing. I can't see any of the legalese affecting this one way or the other.
    - orblivion 15y ago
      The words "Dow Jones" is enough for me to dismiss this, at least as a real competitor to Wikileaks. But sure, to be more serious, plenty of good information outside of their sphere of interest could still get released.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  That just protects Dow Jones. It allows them to sue the anonymous uploader for breach of contract or perjury or whatever if they want (which they don't), but it turns it the rights into the uploader's issue, not Dow Jones'.
hugh3 15y ago
(Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.) Well the US Government has yet to manage much in the way of actually going after wikileaks. The Wall St Journal has the advantage of falling under its jurisdiction. But the answer is: no, I get the impression that the WSJ will be more circumspect about precisely what it publishes. On the other hand if the WSJ does publish your leaked documents they automatically get a lot of credibility. And if you leak documents to the WSJ and they refuse to publish you can always leak 'em to someone else. On the other hand, it's not like Wikileaks is publishing things indiscriminately nowadays -- they're still sitting on a huge stash of diplomatic cables and releasing a few every time they feel like it. As I've said before, if I were the wikimedia foundation I'd be complaining pretty hard about the fact that Wikileaks isn't actually a Wiki any more.
- corin_ 15y ago
  If WikiLeaks were a company in the US, and all their people worked in the US, they would be in deeper shit than they already are. But, PR can spin WikiLeaks as anti-American, it's much harder to do that while trying to shut up the WSJ.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Depends on whom they were embarrassing. If WSJ (owned by Murdoch) published something embarrassing to the Obama administration then the machinery of the left will spin it as "Oh, that wicked Fox News up to their usual tricks again".
    - corin_ 15y ago
      It's amazing that you've come in and criticised "the left" for spinning something pointlessly, when in fact you're just spinning it right back at them, while nobody else had made this discussion in the slightest bit party-political.
gamble 15y ago
> would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government? Of course not. Wikileaks isn't solving a technical problem. They need to exist because traditional news agencies aren't willing to take the hit associated with releasing unflattering information. We saw what happened to financial businesses that dared to provide perfectly legal services to Wikileaks. Journalists who imitate Wikileaks can expect to be harassed, fired, or even prosecuted. I find it ironic that so many traditional media figures bemoaned the loss of their "gatekeeper" role when the birther controversy was still monopolizing headlines. They have no trouble acting as a gatekeeper when journalism threatens the rich and powerful.
roc 15y ago
The Times and the Journal have both admitted to sitting stories, altering stories and burying facts at the behest of the United States Government. And I can only imagine that 'inflammatory' data about corporations who have a relationship with the Journal would be treated in a similar way. In short: if publishing doesn't align with their best interests, they can be relied upon to not publish.

mayukh 15y ago

Its a step in the right direction. Traditional responses to the market failures, corruption, fraud and general seediness of those in power has been more regulation. And that hasn't really worked too well has it.. What we need is transparency, while protecting privacy. Shining a bright light into the dark corners of wrong-doing should serve as a better deterrent than any ambiguous, unenforceable regulation. Lets hope the safehouse gets some competition (nytimes are you listening?)

hugh3 15y ago
Leaking stuff to newspapers is a time-honoured tradition. But with an anonymous upload site it can be done much more easily. The biggest problem I see is fake leaks. Make up some fake documents to embarrass someone you don't like (or just for the sake of the lulz) and how are they supposed to verify whether they're real or not before publishing 'em?
- CapitalistCartr 15y ago
  By doing their job. Much of journalism is research.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    But that doesn't help. If I have in my hand what is supposedly a top-secret document then how do I confirm whether it's real or not? (Let's assume that the forgers haven't made any obvious mistakes.) I sure as hell can't go knocking on the door and asking whether I can compare this document with the original version. A great example was the Rather-gate memos from the 2004 election, a supposedly "leaked" memo which got published with great fanfare despite the fact that the forgers did make some obvious errors (ie producing a 1970s document in Microsoft Word using default fonts, spacing and parameters). But if the forgers hadn't been complete dumbasses then how would we have ever known whether they were real?
    - msredmond 15y ago
      Unfortunately, unless you can verify them, you don't publish them. That does mean that some things that are genuine will not get published. But it avoids what's worse -- publishing things that aren't true.

jmjerlecki 15y ago

I agree this is a step in the right direction, but I don't imagine something like Watergate breaking from SafeHouse.

hugh3 15y ago
Why not? The last Watergate broke via the Washington Post. Actually I think the question of who breaks the next Watergate may depend on whose ox is being gored. If you're leaking information to bring down a Republican president you'll leak to a left-leaning outlet (like wikileaks) and if you're leaking information to bring down a Democrat president then you'll leak to a right-leaning outlet like the WSJ. Wikileaks and the WSJ is not perfect symmetry, but it is satisfying to know that all ideological bases are more or less covered.

marcusbooster 15y ago

This is probably way for them to aggregate potential exclusive story ideas. I'd treat it like you were going to speak to a reporter anonymously, they may have your back, they may not.

msredmond 15y ago
It's so sad to me that people think of it this way -- not guaranteed. You should always be able to trust a reporter who promises you that. The unethical ones really burn us all.
- marcusbooster 15y ago
  I don't mean to disparage all the good journalists out there, they certainly exist and I have massive respect for the ones that go to jail for their sources. But WikiLeaks has already built a reputation and technical infrastructure, important things that this new site doesn't have.

RainFlutter 15y ago

This is huge. Maybe their implementation will take off and maybe it won't, but either way this is a tacit admission by the WSJ that the WikiLeaks model will be a serious part of what it means to commit journalism going forward. All of the lawyerly caveats have to be taken in context of that you have a major US media organization now following in the footsteps of a widely disparaged and isolated vigilante organization. This is just standard CYA protocol.

r00fus 15y ago

Who's going to trust the WSJ if they have anything of serious consequence? Rupert Murdoch has been pretty cozy to western governments and large corporations, so why would I as a whistleblower/leaker choose WSJ's outfit given the ideological and conflict of interest issues? Say what you will about WikiLeaks, but it's pretty much got one purpose and no obvious conflict of interest. In the case of SafeHouse... not so much.

hugh3 15y ago
You don't need to trust 'em. Worst case scenario is that you leak to 'em and they ignore it so you go take your leak somewhere else. Competition is always good. Whether or not wikileaks has obvious "conflict of interest" they have a certain ideological outlook, and having a competitor with a different ideological outlook might help in cases where wikileaks chooses to sweep something under the rug.
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  Unless you leak to them, they don't print it, and they leak your contact information to someone you don't want to have it...
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Except (and this is the point) it's a site for anonymous uploading. They don't have your contact information.
    - e40 15y ago
      Most people don't know how to mask their IP address.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      How about your IP address?
    - rdtsc 15y ago
      > They don't have your contact information. So how to they catch all those "online pirates"? I am sure they don't provide their address, name, and social security number when they download a song for example. However that has not stopped thousands upon thousands of cases to be filed (now whether you think identifying people by IP is right or wrong is besides that point, it is happening and it is part of the system). So "no" you should not leak anything to these people unless you know every well how to hide (chances are you might not, even your browser's identifying info like fonts, OS version etc. can be used to narrow down the search and there are other things as well).

asolove 15y ago

Nothing makes me feel more secure than "a fairly complicated" system!

mattdeboard 15y ago
If it's complicated, it must be foolproof!

jbooth 15y ago

"Competing" with Wikileaks seems to miss the point. You can collaborate, or you can oppose. The goal is to publish information, not to monopolize it. (Although if this gets the libertarians/republicans off of their cultural-identity perch and into the game, then I'm all for it.)

smosher 15y ago
I was about to post this when I saw your reply. I'll add it here instead since it's similar: The term 'competitor' is all wrong. Ostensibly, the point of WikiLeaks is to publish the truth. If WSJ wants to compete with that it sounds like they want their own truth. Of course the SafeHouse site doesn't describe itself as a competitor, but it doesn't compare itself to or even make mention of WikiLeaks either -- I think that betrays competitive intentions. For WikiLeaks and similar sources to function, what's needed is redundancy in some kind of mutually-respectful oligarchy. Those two items will keep them online and honest in aggregate (to some degree.) Sadly even the EFF is using the term 'competitor' to describe similar potential sites. See here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/will-rise-wikileaks-competitors-make https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/will-rise-wikileaks-co...

kurtsiegfried 15y ago

WSJ Terms about Confidentiality: 3. Request Confidentiality: If you would like us to consider treating your submission as confidential before providing any materials, please make this request through this online submission form. Please note that until we mutually decide to enter into a confidential relationship, any information you send to us (including contact information) can be used for any purpose, as outlined in point 1 above, and described more fully below in the Limitations section). If we enter into a confidential relationship, Dow Jones will take all available measures to protect your identity while remaining in compliance with all applicable laws. Wikileaks version: 2.3 Protection for you Wikileaks does not record any source-identifying information and there are a number of mechanisms in place to protect even the most sensitive submitted documents from being sourced. We do not keep any logs. We can not comply with requests for information on sources because we simply do not have the information to begin with. Similarly we can not see your real identity in any anonymised chat sessions with us. Our only knowledge of you as a source is if you provide a coded name to us. A lot of careful thought by world experts in security technologies has gone into the design of these systems to provide the maximum protection to you. Wikileaks has never revealed a source.

eli 15y ago
I could see how others might disagree, but I think the WSJ's terms are reasonable. The WSJ also has an admirable policy of not respecting embargoes slapped on press releases unless there's an agreement in advance. If what you're leaking is so secret that you can't even discuss it with them in advance, then you shouldn't trust them period. It's on you as the leaker to make sure they have no way to determine your identity in the first place.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Only one of the two has proven themselves to be trustworthy at all, and only one of them doesn't use weasel words in their terms. If your criteria is whether the leaker is unsure of being able to discuss their material, the WSJ is even more useless. Basically, it appears you're arguing for the case that the WSJ is a great place to send your leaks if you already know there won't be repercussions (via your own precautions or their flaccid protections), which is pretty much what they have now. What's the difference between this and a link to "tips@wsj.com"?

nice1 15y ago

Is it true that internally they call this "BlackHole"?

lazugod 15y ago

The WSJ doesn't already have the capability to take in and report directly on confidential leaks?

msredmond 15y ago
You're exactly right that they do -- it's called reporters. If you're going to submit to the WSJ, do it through a person -- not this system.

pessimizer 15y ago

For me, the entire point of Wikileaks is that it is a secure way to leak anonymously designed by a crypto theorist and expert. The security involved with this WSJ thing is opaque, and sounds loosey-goosey based on the Delany paraphrase here. I think they would have been better off trying to get Openleaks off the ground, because Domscheit-Berg seems like he has a model of being a trustworthy technical middle man for traditional outlets. My bet is that the WSJ is not comfortable with actually not knowing the sources of the leaks - the security sounds like its goal is to prevent intrusion by external entities, rather than to anonymize.

yahelc 15y ago

I was impressed that this site didn't make any obvious privacy snafus: HTTPS, no cookies, no externally hosted files, no JavaScript analytics running.

msredmond 15y ago

As a journalist I find it really disturbing that the WSJ has this clause. The #2 rule in journalism (after tell the truth) is protect your sources -- if you promise not to reveal your source, you don't reveal your source. It's not, "well, I promise not to reveal you -- unless I get a subpoena, then you're SOL." And yes, that means going to jail if you have to. Which is why as a journalist you have to be very careful who you give it to. I realize that by the nature of what they've posted they're not promising it, so now there's two standards -- if you submit through the site, you have some protection, but to a journalist on their staff, then, you have the (assumed) full protection. But now there's that separate level of protection -- we'll give you anonymity, depending on some sort of arbitrary process if submitted through this site. And most people don't understand what a professional reporter will (or should) do for their source -- if they hand papers over in one or two cases, many people will assume that all journalists will just cave,and that will hurt everyone. I do understand why they don't want to give blanket full protection for things unknown/unseen, but unless they're willing to do that, I really don't think a journalistic entity should do this kind of site at all.