Using Technology to Protect Anonymous Sources?

A not-so Anonymous Anonymous Coward asks: "The New York Times has a story describing how newspapers are looking for new ways to hide the identities of anonymous sources from prosecutors. This seems like a something the Slashdot crowd might know something about. How can a newspaper setup an IT system that completely hides every trace (including emails, phone calls notes, logs and so forth) of an anonymous source's identity?"

Comments

Easy...set up nym accounts..

[cayenne8]

Should be easy. Set up an email address as a 'nym' account...that bounces about 4-5 times around the world through various mix of nym servers and mixmaster ones...encrypted each leg of the way individually to each server..headers stripped each time.

That would pretty much set things up virtually untraceable.

If they really wanted to get paranoid about it...the end leg could go through a mail2news server, and post responses anonymously, PGP encrypted to USENET groups set up just for this.

Total anonymity not good

[Mirri]

I've heard an interview with Bob Woodward where specifically said that he told his editor who his source was and that he thinks that the editor should know who a reporter's source is. It is a check and balance that leads to an internal accountability. Something which avoids the problems we've seen in the press lately of reporters claiming anonymous source when its really a completely fictitious sources. Doesn't the complete anonymity being talked about here lead more easily toward that kind of abuse?

Re:Regarding Portable HDs

[Phillup]

How 'bout a country that had 13 of it's citizens drive planes into two of our office buildings?

That one seems to be beyond our reach...

buy everyone an iPod

[EccentricAnomaly]

"Yeah, I just carry it because I am supposed to, but I really haven't used it." ...or just buy everyone an iPod :) Then no funny excuses as to why you carry it around... and it's plausible to have one lost or stolen.

Don't weaken the strength of your democracy!

[BerntB]

The best thing is to ditch anonymous sources.

My personal belief is that USA works as a democracy because of the quality of their digging press. I believe my country, Sweden, would be a better place if our media were half as independent and competent.

NY Times and Washington Post seems to find more scandals in the US president administration than the rest of the world's media find in the rest of the world's governments.

(-: They seem to be as good at news as the English press is at digging into the private lives of football (sorry, socker) stars. :-)

Locally, most newspapers can't survive without big handouts from the state (a large part of that problem is the heavy taxation of work time. Give with one hand, take back with the other -- with the axe always ready to fall if they become too problematic...)

One of the (probably few) places where Sweden seems superior, is that it is illegal for public departments or employees to inquire for sources.

So NY Times et al could just start a local Swedish magazine, tell all people with sensitive information to call here -- and buy stories from the Swedish magazine, which would be their only source of income. :-)

(I guess the local magazine would have to publish something, too, to keep the rights as a paper magazine. They could always charge $100 a magazine to stop having to print many newspapers. :-)

Simple, don't use it.

[edunbar93]

Pretty much any technology is trackable, and chances are you don't even know it. While I'm more-or-less referring to things like printers that print invisible serial numbers and exported Pentium chips that double as guided missile beacons, I'm also talking about encryption and anonymizer accounts. All it takes to crack those open is a court order, as the Church of Scientology has been so effective in demonstrating.

But a pen and paper is untracable. Just like pay phones and small bills instead of cell phones and credit cards.