WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
dowjones.com
WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#2"Because there is no way to predict the breadth of information that might be submitted through SafeHouse, the terms of use reserve certain rights in order to provide flexibility to react to extraordinary circumstances. But as always, our number one priority is protecting our sources."
Define: certain rights Define: flexibility Define: extraordinary circumstances
This is less of a response and more of a reiteration. It completely belies the intended purpose of SafeHouse. No leaker with half a brain would leak something _worth leaking_ to this as long as that clause exists, period.
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#3Given who we're talking about here (WSJ, thus New Corp), there's nothing they could possibly say that would make me trust their statement that sources are safe and anonymous. I mean, how many times did Fox News call WikiLeaks a terrorist organization? And now this conglomerate wants its own WikiLeaks? It simply doesn't add up. They cannot and should not be trusted.
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#4They spelled "breath" wrong... /grammarnazi
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#5they stated it absolutely honestly and clear :
"we are committed to protecting them [sources] to the fullest extent possible under the law."
i.e. when the law come and say "give them to me", they would give. Though i don't think it is that relevant as that seems to be just a nice Honeypot.
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#6We built Spottiness also to uncover fraud, abuse, and other wrongdoing. In Spottiness, anonymity is not an option: it is required. The site is new and hasn't taken off yet, but we are optimistic about its possible impact.
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#7Given who we're talking about here (WSJ, thus New Corp), there's nothing they could possibly say that would make me trust their statement that sources are safe and anonymous. I mean, how many times did Fox News call WikiLeaks a terrorist organization? And now this conglomerate wants its own WikiLeaks? It simply doesn't add up. They cannot and should not be trusted.
You don't trust them. Either the technology you are using is anonymous or it is not. It shouldn't matter who is on the other end.
Re: WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity
#8Leaking things to Murdoch?
Hell no!
PS: I think it's pretty clear who will be "leaking" things there: Lobbyists and PR firms who want to further insulate their wholly aware paymasters from accountability.