5 ms·
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
by hugh3 16y 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 16y agoUnless 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 16y agoExcept (and this is the point) it's a site for anonymous uploading. They don't have your contact information.
- e40 16y agoMost people don't know how to mask their IP address.
- anigbrowl 16y agoHow about your IP address?
- rdtsc 16y 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).
- hugh3 16y agoWell if you're going to be that paranoid then you shouldn't leak anything to wikileaks either.
- pjscott 16y agoIf you're going to be that paranoid, you should consider carefully the credibility of whoever you're leaking things to. Do they have a track record of keeping secrets? How hard are they for The Man to pressure? And so on. Wikileaks does very well by those criteria. The WSJ has less of a track record, and inspires less confidence with their privacy policy and somewhat dubious web site security. The best thing that could happen is that the WSJ hears criticisms like this, takes them to heart, and turns into a serious competitor to Wikileaks. As it is, though, they've got a lot of catching up to do.
- mnutt 16y agoYou have to trust their promise that their anonymous submission process is actually reasonably anonymous. Many whistleblowers probably couldn't tell between an anonymous process and a seemingly anonymous process that isn't.
- hugh3 16y agoOK, but if you're going to be that paranoid you shouldn't trust Wikileaks either, right?
- mnutt 16y agoRight. But in this case trusting WSJ to keep your anonymous submission secure as well as trusting their ability to run a leaks site would be a mistake: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/wall-street-journal-leak-site-works-on-security-fixes/?partner=rss&emc=rss http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/wall-street-journal...