Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Sun Newspaper Launches Anonymous Tor-Based WikiLeaks-Style SecureDrop

Posted by samzenpus on from the keeping-your-name-out-of-it dept.

Mark Wilson writes: The likes of Julian Assange's WikiLeaks have set the standard for blowing the lid on huge stories based on tips from anonymous sources. Whistle-blowers such as Edward Snowden have brought to public attention stories which would otherwise have been kept hidden from the public, and it has been with the help of newspapers such as the Guardian that this information has been disseminated around the world.

Other newspapers are keen to ride on the coattails of those blazing a trail in the world of investigative journalism, and the latest to join the party is The Sun. Today, Murdoch-owned News Corp's newspaper and website launches SecureDrop — a way for whistle-blowers to anonymously leave tip-offs that can be further investigated.

The cloud service provides a means of getting in touch with journalists at The Sun without giving up anonymity — something which is particularly important when making revelations about companies and governments. The site provides a basic guide to getting started with the SecureDrop service, starting off with pointing would-be users in the direction of the Tor Browser Bundle.

64 comments

  1. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slashdot having a similar service for leaks, would it work?

    1. Re:What about by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that the Sun is related to fox news via Murdoch, I would suspect that they would use it primarily as a means to generate their own stories and give some credibility to their chosen path of propaganda

      Slashdot on the other hand... would probably find a way to tie it to add revenue

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:What about by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Be reasonable. They can also submit anything that doesn't fit their scope of propaganda directly to the government and remove any hint of anonymity to thus gain more favor with the government, as well.

    3. Re:What about by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Murdoch does not seek to curry favor with the government

      Murdoch seeks place people in charge of the government who want to curry favor with him

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    4. Re:What about by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I had to read that twice to make sure it wasn't a Chuck Norris statement.

    5. Re: What about by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      That would be "Chuck Norris favors curry with people in power. And basmati rice too."

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    6. Re:What about by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Nah.
      They already just make s*** up half the time, and then append "I'm just wondering/asking."

      Ever looked at Foxnation.com ?
      That's where they literally invite anyone to submit any story.
      And it's just chock full of BS.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. This got cracked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in about five minutes..

  3. But it doesn't work by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neither Manning nor Snowden remained anonymous. At some point the leak is so big that anonymity is not possible, and someone will pay the price for the leak.

    --
    John
    1. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Snowden wasn't trying to remain anonymous once he was in South Korea....?

    2. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I saw that he had come forward after the leaks broke, I couldn't help but think, "Mas cajones!"

    3. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Manning was caught because he couldn't keep his mouth shut.

    4. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Manning is a woman, you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:But it doesn't work by plover · · Score: 1

      Manning would almost certainly have been caught regardless. All those State Department cables could only have come from someone with access to the entire database. That's a reasonably short list of people, and everyone on it would have been grilled and inspected from head to toe.

      His (her) talking about it just made the inevitable happen faster.

      --
      John
    6. Re: But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, no, that was precisely the problem: far too many people had access to the diplomatic material.

    7. Re:But it doesn't work by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      There have been multiple leakers from the various US national security industrial complexes since Snowden. It's hard to spot unless you're really paying attention, but it's clear that it's happened several times now - I think we're up to at least three other leakers, all of whom are anonymous. You can tell because the info comes from non-NSA agencies, or the material is dated after Snowden left, or (most subtly of all) the articles don't attribute the source of the leak to Snowden.

      So it's not obviously useless. There are people leaking anonymously. Though for obvious reasons they don't tend to shout from the hills about it.

    8. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, over a million people had clearance to access those cables.

      and no, he wouldn't have been caught if a scumbag who is supposed to have kept his conversation private as he was required to do didn't out him.

    9. Re:But it doesn't work by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Except Snowden outed himself to give the leaks credibility. otherwise it would have collected dust along with other leaked volumes and no one would have taken it seriously. He knew this, we know this. Thats how this country works. We don't like facts, we like celebrities.

    10. Re:But it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Manning was caught because he couldn't keep his mouth shut.

      adrian lamo == Snitch ;

    11. Re: But it doesn't work by quenda · · Score: 1

      "More that 3 million" had clearance, according to the Guardian. And there appears to have been no auditing of access.

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    12. Re:But it doesn't work by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The only result of Snowdens actions will be the NSA adding more compartmentalization to the data stored. User security access will be put under the microscope and every action will be logged and monitored, especially any thing related to copying files and downloads. Snowden accomplished two main things. He gave the US enemies around the world something to use for their propaganda against anything associated with the US. Even though those countries run their own intelligence services and do the same thing the NSA does or those who have actually been cooperating with the NSA. He should have limited his publishing to only information related to US domestic arena. He could have used all the data on foreign intelligence as leverage to return home and face no charges but he didn't. The second thing he did was put into motion sweeping security reviews of both their systems and employees. Other than those two items it has still been business as usual.
      The goal of creating a safe drop box is to send information and make sure the submitter remains anonymous.Once the data is delivered anonymously why do only certain persons or groups get to hoard that information instead of making it all accessible to anyone who wants to see it. Why should we automatically trust Assange and the ex-Guardian journalist to control the dissemination of the data?

  4. Anf then... by davstok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the Sun informs GCHQ and so on so they can quickly stem the leak, I assume

    1. Re:Anf then... by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they just scan your computer to see if your girlfriend is Page 3-worthy.

    2. Re:Anf then... by bulled · · Score: 2

      This

      Seriously, who thought that the Sun would handle anything submitted with any kind of serious journalism? This is News Corp after all.

    3. Re:Anf then... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up, the Sun is absolutely not a paper to be trusted, it's pure trash, just look at their webpage:
      The Sun | The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities | The Sun (title by them not me)

      And the paper is not interested in serious news, why would they even bother? Next months story will be 'How we caught a traitor with our tor trap'.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:Anf then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the "leaks" they are looking for is nekkid celeb pics?

  5. what kind of leaks do they want. by tshawkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the Sun is more interested in who has been leaking body fluids on who, than any matters of global import. Its like the national inquirer setting up a securedrop site.

    1. Re:what kind of leaks do they want. by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's the beauty of it. Celebrities are part of a select group of people rich enough to be able to afford the expense required to actually try to investigate the source of a leak. This ought to make it easier for the Sun to get juicy gossipy details.

    2. Re:what kind of leaks do they want. by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

      Leaks about lefties will be shouted from the filthy Fox rooftops. Leaks about righties will be kept quiet and the leaker will meet with an unfortunate 'accident'.

  6. Murdoch newspapers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you trust any of Rupert's organizations to keep your information private, you are out of your mind! They don't have a very good track record doing that...

    1. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like it when someone is able to cut to the chase so quickly. Murdoch publications keeps no secrets, unless it serves their purposes. Even then - they fail. I mean, they hacked a dead girl's telephone, but couldn't keep THAT secret, could they? How in hell they gonna keep MY hacking secret?

      Best thing is, don't share your secrets with Murdoch.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      The Sun is a real dirt paper.

      The utility is for people leaking really every day stuff like "He's not her child" or some such rubbish. They probably don't expect to get anything important out of it. But if they do then they probably have the ability to compromise the anonimity in exchange for a kickback from other powerful interests, or just for their own sake.

      There's a wide range of types of leaks. I'll probably be used first for NHS stuff in the UK (overworked nurse killed my grandfather, this kind of thing)

      --
      A blog I run for the wealth
    3. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not hack a deal girl's telephone as the message was deleted by the provider to provide room for new messages but then what would you expect from a rag like The Guardian?

    4. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly the story I thought that I heard. Lemme try to find something . . .

      You're right, in that the Guardian's article comes up first in a Google search - http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

      Here, the Guardian again, backpedaling on that story - http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

      The wikipedia entry seems to confirm what you say - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... specifically, "Dowler's phone automatically deleted messages 72 hours after being listened to.[47]" HOWEVER, "in September 2011 it was reported that the Dowler family had been offered £2m in personal damages.[49]"

      Now, is it true, or is it not true, that Murdoch ALSO paid off celebrities, in the same manner, after having "hacked" into their phone/email/other accounts? It sure looks like the Guardian called it correctly - to me, anyway.

      Brief statement that falls in line with my point of view - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5d... "Until now the paper’s illegal actions, while costly and damaging to its reputation, were largely seen as being targeted at celebrities and politicians. The News of the World has been battling to draw a line under a scandal that has already seen two people sent to prison."

      I'll admit that it's possible that my take on the story is not entirely accurate. But - unless you come up with something convincing, I'll continue to hold that view. Murdoch's minions were making a lot of money by "hacking" into celebritie's accounts, with his tacit approval, if not his clearly stated approval. He was making more money off those tabloid articles than he was spending on settlements. IMHO - Murdoch's boys and girls did exactly the same thing with Milly Dowler's phone, that they had already done with other phones.

      But, right or wrong, Murdoch is still a freaking scumbag. So are all of his people associated with the case.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      Reporting on the trial - testimony establishes pretty clearly that NoW did indeed hack into the telephone.

      So - the phone automagically deletes messages that have been listened to, after 72 hours. NoW hacker listens to messages - 72 hours later, they are erased. Yeah - that would definitely screw up the police investigation, now wouldn't it? Intentionally or not, NoW was helping the deletion schedule to move along, and delete mails, giving every appearance that Milly might be alive.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Murdoch newspapers? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They did hack the dead girl's phone. Whether they deleted messages is totally fucking irrelevant to that actual crime.

      Are you really trying to defend the News of the World? Seriously?

  7. honey trap by theCat · · Score: 1

    Wonder which US government TLAs are working with NewsCorp on this project? And no I don't think TOR is 100% going to solve that particular problem.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:honey trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when there is a "basic guide to getting started" that you can access with out tor... I'm sure accessing it won't put you on any government watch lists.

    2. Re: honey trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who wants to leak documents securely uses snailmail.

    3. Re:honey trap by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      If you're running a TOR node and don't think you're on several government watch lists, then you haven't been paying attention.

    4. Re: honey trap by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The post office photographs and tracks every piece of mail. The other part of that equation hasn't been publicized yet - they have cameras with facial recognition software focused on all their mailboxes.

      No, snailmail is not anonymous. It probably was anonymous around 2000. Almost definitely anonymous in 1990. Not any more!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re: honey trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post office photographs and tracks every piece of mail. The other part of that equation hasn't been publicized yet - they have cameras with facial recognition software focused on all their mailboxes.

      No, snailmail is not anonymous. It probably was anonymous around 2000. Almost definitely anonymous in 1990. Not any more!

      Not to mention finger prints or DNA on the paper and envelope, and hand writing or printer recognition.

    6. Re:honey trap by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      They probably trust Murdoch as much as they trusted Maxwell - which is to say not at all.

  8. Link to the Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nodd5fyasyj4jqgp.onion

    Ugh. The link is hidden in an image in the middle of the article, and the article doesn't even show up without Javascript.

    Great first impression.

    1. Re:Link to the Onion by neminem · · Score: 1

      I saw your post title, and was super confused. Normally when someone says "Link to the Onion", it looks more like, say, this.

    2. Re:Link to the Onion by beowulfcluster · · Score: 2

      The Onion is a more credible news source than The Sun.

  9. One Stop Honey Pot by thetimchannel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder who trusts this particular 'news' organization enough to test their freedom with exposing that which this particular station has gone out of their way to keep from informing the public about in the first instance? Enjoy.

  10. The Sun? by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the list of 'last organizations on Earth' I'd trust with any personal data, they fall somewhere between the People's Security Bureau of China and Westboro Baptist.

    1. Re:The Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Information Retrieval.

    2. Re:The Sun? by Prune · · Score: 1

      ^5 for the Brazil reference.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  11. I suspect the leakbox will be full of Sun nonsense by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I envision Murdoch employees putting a leak an hour into that funnypot.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  12. First leak of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got evidence of a major phone-tapping operation being conducted at the behest of a series of British tabloi-ERROR CONNECTION DROPPED.

  13. And you KNOW.... by kaizendojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...you can trust Murdoch with your privacy because he's demonstrated it so well in the past. TOR isn't the issue here, NewsCorp's ethics is.

  14. #JFT96 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't buy the S*n

    1. Re:#JFT96 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YNWA

    2. Re:#JFT96 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't buy the S*n

      Amen to this!
      -=YNWA=-

  15. Securedrop, or honeypot? by blang · · Score: 1

    That's the question. If an agency has tabs on all traffic, then it is a pretty simple exercise to match up send and receive patterns at both ends to find out who sent it to whom, if not what.

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  16. This is new? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's nothing new about this. If you wanted to securely tip off Rupert Murdoch to anything all you ever needed to do was leave voice mail for Milly Dowler.

  17. Trust a Murdock owned paper and site? by GeekHillbilly · · Score: 0

    No way in HELL.Murdock's papers and other media outlets(FAUX NEWS for one) hasn't got a good track record for anything approaching decent integrity.

    --
    The Geek Hillbilly
  18. What Fox News thinks of Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ed Snowden, Russian TV star, hands Putin a propaganda coup
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/18/ed-snowden-russian-tv-star-hands-putin-propaganda-coup/

    Snowden leaks help ISIS evade US intel, report says
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/05/snowden-leaks-help-isis-evade-us-intel-report-says/

    Obama signals leniency for traitor Edward Snowden
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/28/obama-signals-leniency-for-traitor-edward-snowden/

    So why would any whistleblower trust Rupert Murdoch with information??? Why would anyone trust Murdoch and his dark empire?

  19. Yeah, Murdoch can pretend anything he steals.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... came from the drop box.

    If there was only ONE guy we had to get rid of in the mainstream media, Murdoch would be #1.

  20. If the internet has taught us one thing... by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    "The King is a fink!!"

  21. Re:I suspect the leakbox will be full of Sun nonse by tshawkins · · Score: 1

    That is a good point, perhaps this is a way of them being able to "launder" stories obtained by indefensable means.

  22. Stealing the credit from established OS proejct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've just installed this https://securedrop.org/faq on a server.