

Researchers Say WSJ’s WikiLeaks Copycat Is Full Of Holes - pessimizer
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/05/05/researchers-say-wsjs-wikileaks-copycat-is-full-of-holes/

======
lhnz
“We reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement
authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice, in order to comply
with any applicable laws and/or requests under legal process”

Would anybody here trust the WSJ to leak the documents they send and not the
identity of the leaker? I have no faith.

------
ares2012
I find the idea of a single newspaper hosting a site like WikiLeaks themselves
very strange. If the WSJ receives confidential information that is of value
but not on a topic they typically write about will the information still see
the light of day? The great thing about 3rd party sites like WikiLeaks is that
they provide the information and you decide if it's valuable or not.

I have to say that I'm not sure why I would submit info to SafeHouse instead
of just posting it online myself with an anonymous blog.

~~~
alanh
Only a fraction of what WikiLeaks receives is ever published, if my
understanding is correct. Even look at cablegate: Only a fraction of all
cables have been released.

------
hristov
Giving credit where credit is due, HN readers figured out the problems with
WSJ's submission policies as soon as news of the site hit HN.

See this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2518060>

------
rdl
I'd love to work with them to make a purely automated provably-anonymous file
dropoff system, which could then be used by others. The type III remailer
network sort of facilitates this, but there are better ways.

