WSJ and Al-Jazeera Lure Whistleblowers

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."

Comments

Anonymity

[Iamthecheese]

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.

Re:Anonymity

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> 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.

Re:Anonymity

[flyingsquid]

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.

Re:Anonymity

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Everyone has their price,

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:Everyone has their price,

[exentropy]

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.

Re: Only ...

[Capsaicin]

[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.

Re:Not quite right...

[sn00ker]

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.