

WSJ Responds to Safehouse Security and Anonymity - tysone
http://www.dowjones.com/pressroom/presskits/safehouse.asp

======
jameskilton
Given who we're talking about here (WSJ, thus New Corp), there's nothing they
could possibly say that would make me trust their statement that sources are
safe and anonymous. I mean, how many times did Fox News call WikiLeaks a
terrorist organization? And now this conglomerate wants its own WikiLeaks? It
simply doesn't add up. They cannot and should not be trusted.

~~~
bh42222
You don't trust them. Either the technology _you_ are using is anonymous or it
is not. It shouldn't matter who is on the other end.

------
mvkel
"Because there is no way to predict the breadth of information that might be
submitted through SafeHouse, the terms of use reserve certain rights in order
to provide flexibility to react to extraordinary circumstances. But as always,
our number one priority is protecting our sources."

Define: certain rights Define: flexibility Define: extraordinary circumstances

This is less of a response and more of a reiteration. It completely belies the
intended purpose of SafeHouse. No leaker with half a brain would leak
something _worth leaking_ to this as long as that clause exists, period.

------
VladRussian
they stated it absolutely honestly and clear :

"we are committed to protecting them [sources] to the fullest extent possible
under the law."

i.e. when the law come and say "give them to me", they would give. Though i
don't think it is that relevant as that seems to be just a nice Honeypot.

------
spottiness
We built Spottiness also to uncover fraud, abuse, and other wrongdoing. In
Spottiness, anonymity is not an option: it is required. The site is new and
hasn't taken off yet, but we are optimistic about its possible impact.

------
ropers
Leaking things to Murdoch?

Hell no!

PS: I think it's pretty clear who will be "leaking" things there: Lobbyists
and PR firms who want to further insulate their wholly aware paymasters from
accountability.

------
ltamake
They spelled "breath" wrong... /grammarnazi

