Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ and Al-Jazeera Lure Whistleblowers

Posted by timothy on from the please-log-in-to-continue dept.

jjoelc writes "The success of Wikileaks in obtaining and releasing information has inspired mainstream media outlets to develop proprietary copycat sites. Al-Jazeera got into the act first, launching the Al-Jazeera Transparency Unit (AJTU), and On May 5, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., launched its own site, SafeHouse. According to the EFF though, both sites offer 'false Promises' of anonymity."

23 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymity by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure why someone would interact in this way with any organization: Wikileaks, the Wall Street Journal, or the local newspaper without first masking any information that could identify them unless the publishing organization demands proof of authenticity. In that case, though, Wikileaks alone has proven it will protect its sources.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Anonymity by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > I'm not sure why someone would interact in this way with any organization: Wikileaks, the Wall Street Journal, or the local newspaper without first masking any information that could identify them unless the publishing organization demands proof of authenticity.

      Most people don't have the technical skill to report things (electronically) in a truly untraceable fashion, even assuming no SIGINT, etc... There are plenty of ways to reverse engineer whistleblowers' identities. What is the information they leaked? How many people had access to it? How many live in the geolocation of the reporting IP or, if the ISP is helping, who owned the IP? Of the people who had access to the information, how many use the sentence structure patterns associated with the submission? How many use the particular subdialect of English? etc...

      I've never had a reason to submit something truly anonymously--but it's a nontrivial problem, though admittedly trivial solutions might work.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    2. Re:Anonymity by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In that case, though, Wikileaks alone has proven it will protect its sources.

      Really? Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post kept silent about the identity of Deep Throat for over 30 years. Judith Miller went to jail for three months rather than reveal who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent to her. It seems like the conventional media do a pretty good job of keeping their sources confidential, if only because nobody would leak information to them otherwise.

    3. Re:Anonymity by melikamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not go over the Net with Wikileaks or anyone else, unless I could find a trustworthy proxy. Wikileaks may be 100% true, but they wouldn't know if the police was sitting on their wire, decrypting their shit with a key gleaned through a hidden camera. But what is a trustworthy proxy? It looks like only criminals have the anonymity on the Net these days.

      But it's not really an issue, since anyone (and I mean any idiot) can put on a new long sleeve shirt, new gloves, wrap their face in a new scarf, buy a used USB stick with cash, and mail it. Knowing that mail came from Boston or Paris or Athens ain't gonna help.

      If I was a whistle-blower, I would worry first of all about my data. How many people had access to it, is indeed the question. Best case scenario is what Bradley Manning had: some old cruft accessible by millions of people. Worst case scenario, dozens of people, and everyone gets a slightly different file, steganographically marked with the receiver's identity. So there is risk of exposure, of course, but the transmission itself is trivially anonymous.

    4. Re:Anonymity by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is it really depends on how bad the government wants to get you thanks to PATRIOT and "enemy combatant". You see miller was sitting in a nice cell with access to her lawyer, everybody knew where she was, etc. But since you can be labeled an enemy combatant by "giving material aid to the enemy" frankly the government can drop a reporter in a hole and promptly forget where the hole is. How many Americans are labeled enemy combatants? Does anyone even know?

      Frankly if you are betting on a reporter to save your ass when the current administration says they have the right to assassinate Americans on American soil under irrevocable "war powers" I'd say you better be damned sure that reporter is willing to go all the way friend. Frankly even Nixon didn't have the balls to go as far as the last two administrations,and it ain't getting any better folks. I'm sure the next big leaker WILL be made an example of, mark my words. The Wikileaks leak stirred up too much shit for them to allow anybody to pull that shit again without paying horribly.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Everyone has their price, by fotbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and everyone has their vulnerability that can be exploited.

    In this case, when confronted with the choice of "fight a massively expensive legal battle" or "turn over the schmuck's details", it should be no surprise which choice ANY corporation makes.

    1. Re:Everyone has their price, by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not everyone.

      You only have a "price" if you aren't willing to drop your anonymity.

      I posted a lot of whistleblowing material this weekend against my former boss - starmedia.ca - about tax fraud, over-billing customers, scamming the government-subsidized job training programs, etc.

      I didn't do it anonymously, because anonymous whistle-blowing has zero credibility.

      Sure enough, he got so scared he contacted my hosting company (iweb.com - if you don't use adblock, you'll see they're a big advertiser on slashdot and youtube), and they suspended my hosting account. He's too chicken-sh*t to sue me because he knows he'd lose.

      So, having my account suspended is a minor inconvenience compared to the price of knuckling under and allowing him to continue to lie, cheat, and steal.

      And iWeb is now off the list of hosting companies that I would recommend, since they're located in a country that has no 1st Amendment rights.

    2. Re:Everyone has their price, by exentropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      anonymous whistle-blowing has zero credibility.

      Although having the leaker's name can increase credibility a little bit, it is ultimately the correctness of the information that matters. People believe Wikileak's documents because large portions have been verified; having whistleblower names attached to the leaked information wouldn't increase significantly increase the credibility of the docs.

    3. Re:Everyone has their price, by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      Oh, I agree that ultimately, it's the material itself that counts. However, if you're willing to put your name to it and defend it both in public and in court, people are more likely to take the time to read it in the first place.

      After all, how many people even SEE anonymous posts here on slashdot? It's part of how we think - we tend to take things more seriously if we can attach a face ... or at least a name ... to it.

    4. Re:Everyone has their price, by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's part of how we think - we tend to take things more seriously if we can attach a face ... or at least a name ... to it.

      That's why a smart whistle blower will stay annonymous and enlist someone else to independently verify the source and play the role of "lightning rod". That "someone" used to be the NYT or similar, nowadays it's Wikileaks or similar. Often verifying material from an annonymous source is as simple as watching the reaction of the "victim", for example; it's obvious to most people that the "diplomatic cables" and the "war diaries" are genuine simply because of the way governments around the world have reacted to them.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Everyone has their price, by vegiVamp · · Score: 2

      Oh, I fully agree, it's just that a piece of candy isn't particularly much of a point. Maybe the drunk millionaire will have seen the error of his ways, if he remembers what happened the morning after.

      I wouldn't count too much on it, though - he probably fully realises that there are people who can't be bought or aren't worth the trouble, just like I understand that there are people who are too dependent on Windows to switch; and he'll probably follow the same policy, too: steer clear of them and stick to the things where you *can* do something useful.

      I'm sorry, but I can't rid myself of the impression that, even if the AC account *is* true, "drunk millionaire offering a million to eat a piece of candy" is not exactly the battlefront of the freedom wars where we should deploy the tanks. Principles are a good thing, but so is moderation.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  3. I have my suspicions ... by websinthe · · Score: 2

    I often look at 'free web based proxy' sites and wonder if they're just set up by some law enforcement agency to fuel their party-van. Same goes for pr0n sites. Would there be a way for media organisations to do this legitimately? I doubt it could be done here in Australia.

  4. Re:it's a TRAP! by Larryish · · Score: 2

    Once WSL and AJ get a long list of whistleblowers, the list will be sold to Google.

    Shortly after, the whistleblowers' inboxes will be full of spam for coach whistles and blowjob videos.

  5. Hey you son of a bitch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...take that bullshit material DOWN! I knew I fired you for a reason.

    Umm, can you come and reboot the servers.

    1. Re:Hey you son of a bitch... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you REALLY want to laugh, I'm the one who set up the server at iWeb that Cholella is now using to run one of his scams - 770star.com. He's got logos of companies implying that they're sponsors, and he also used it to run an illegal lottery right after I quit, to promote 770star.com.

      The tin-foil-hat brigade might think that iWeb suspended my account because i reported how one of their servers was used for illegal activities.t.

      iWeb suspends trolltalk.com, I post it in my journal on slashdot ... seems to me that all they did was make themselves look stupid and give people a reason NOT to use them.

  6. Re: Only ... by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Only fools trust WSJ] ... because it is owned by Newscorp ( Rupert Murdoch ).

    So long as the disclosure of information is in the financial interests of Newcorp (or advances Newscorp's march towards world domination), you can trust Rupert with your life.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  7. Re:Not quite right... by sn00ker · · Score: 4, Informative

    And News Corp is owned bya guy who's notorious for interfering in editorial decisions. If Murdoch doesn't like the story, it won't see the light of day in a single publication over which he has control.

    --
    "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
  8. Why not mention the owner??? by camperslo · · Score: 2

    Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

    Somehow it doesn't seem right not mentioning that the owner of the WSJ and DJ is News Corp (as with Fox)

  9. Spring the trap... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Upload the WSJ SafeHouse terms and conditions which demonstrate its lack of confidentiality, lack of anonymity, and related legal problems as a leak to AJTU.
    2. Upload the AJTU terms and conditions which demonstrate its lack of confidentiality, lack of anonymity, and related legal problems as a leak to WSJ SafeHouse.
    3. Sit back and watch the ensuing bitchfight. Karma profit!
    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  10. Fox St Journal by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    Of course the WSJ's promises are false. It was bought by Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, back in 2007.

    I note that the world never needed accurate Wall Street reporting more than in the years starting in 2007. And instead it got Murdoch reporting.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. WSJ understand what "anonymous" means by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2

    It's how a conservative politician gets to leak news that the war is doing well and the liberals are all corrupt.

    Lest that sound like picking on the conservatives only, let's make it clean that CNN and the New York Times use anonymous sources all the time as well for things that really should not be anonymously sourced. But I can't help but think that's what a WSJ whistleblower site is really about, as a repository for political figures to say things that they wouldn't want to say to your face.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    1. Re:WSJ understand what "anonymous" means by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid that the "we will cooperate with lawyers" is also a way to protect the reporters from having to authenticate, and verify, the contents. If the reporters and newspaper would put their own names and reputations at risk protecting their informants, I'd give it more credence and be more confident that they had verified the material. But I've read the Wall Street Journal, and watched companies manipulate their hiring practices, their leaking of purchase plans, and their product announcements purely to affect news coverage in such magazines. The Wall Street Journal has some reporters who care about veracity, but it is, historically and today, a mouthpiece for conservative fiscal leaders who have no interest in their behavior being risked by whistleblowers. I'll be very surprised if this encourages any genuine news, and I'd expect a lot of "astroturfing", or attempts to leak secrets about other companies to make them look bad just before quarterly earnings are reported and companies are sold to lower the price.

      Al Jazeera, now, I've not followed them closely and would welcome insights into what they're attempting to achieve.

  12. Jeffrey Sterling and James Risen by decora · · Score: 3, Informative

    there is a case going on -right now- where Obama's DOJ is subpoenaing a reporter over a chapter in his book State of War.

    this is probably the first time this has ever happened, in the entire history of the country, in an Espionage Act case.