▲ 46 points
back
5 comments
“We reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice, in order to comply with any applicable laws and/or requests under legal process”
Would anybody here trust the WSJ to leak the documents they send and not the identity of the leaker? I have no faith.
I find the idea of a single newspaper hosting a site like WikiLeaks themselves very strange. If the WSJ receives confidential information that is of value but not on a topic they typically write about will the information still see the light of day? The great thing about 3rd party sites like WikiLeaks is that they provide the information and you decide if it's valuable or not.
I have to say that I'm not sure why I would submit info to SafeHouse instead of just posting it online myself with an anonymous blog.
Only a fraction of what WikiLeaks receives is ever published, if my understanding is correct. Even look at cablegate: Only a fraction of all cables have been released.
Giving credit where credit is due, HN readers figured out the problems with WSJ's submission policies as soon as news of the site hit HN.
See this:
I'd love to work with them to make a purely automated provably-anonymous file dropoff system, which could then be used by others. The type III remailer network sort of facilitates this, but there are better ways.