Customize

WikiLeaks Rival by Wall Street Journal

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, May 5, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. Ann O'Nymous Member

  3. AnonLover Member

    And their TOS is so blatantly skewed & biased against protecting the whistleblowers, its an affront to basic common sense that they even equate themselves comparable to wikileaks.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Anonymous Member

    more about this?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. AnonLover Member

    digging... it passed by on twitter about 2hrs ago and i raged so hard i accidentally the browser and lost it
  6. Anonymous Member

    NOT nice.

    via http://www.thenation.com/blog/160452/wikileaks-news-views-blog-thursday-day-159
    • Like Like x 2
  7. AnonLover Member

    here it is:

    http://www.psfk.com/2011/05/wall-street-journal-launches-wikileaks-style-site.html

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    Doesn't sound so bad. Granted it's not wikileaks, but the WSJ can't openly break laws to protect someone's privacy.
  9. Anonymous Member

    It's too easy to qualify for questionable legality. You think people have trouble with being reported on Youtube? If I can get reported and closed down for a David Bowie video posted "illegally" than good luck with that. Also, Patriot Act.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    Aside issues of protection of whistleblowers, I wouldn't trust that the WSJ would make the best use of a leak, too much private interests involved. Best is to stick to non-profit, public-interest organizations IMO.
    • Like Like x 6
  12. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  14. Besides, isn't the WSJ now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation? I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could spit a rat.
    • Like Like x 4
  15. WhiteNight Member

    It has a clause in the small print that says that it reserves the right to share your info with the authorities if there is suspicion of illegal activities.
    What's the point in trying to set up a Leak site, and then admitting that you'll bend over for the authorities. If you're leaking something, it tends to be illegal!
    • Like Like x 5
  16. Unknownhackah Member

  17. AnonLover Member

    exactly. so you got Murdoch's vast empire of connections, plus all the big fortune 500 companies that advertise there or invest in Murdoch's enterprises, equals a fk ton of conflict-of-interest situations that can oh so easily fall under some sort of "confidentiality" arrangement such that a huge portion of corporate america is pretty much guaranteed to leave lots of potential whistleblowers out in the cold.

    SafeHouse my ass. SafeToilet is much more appropriate... throw your dox our way and we'll suck up all the profit we can and flush your anonymity down the crapper however we see fit.

    Thx, but really - no thanks, and FU WSJ.
    • Like Like x 5
  18. Zak McKracken Member

    Either outright illegal or at least very embarrassing.
    Things that embarrass the government or large corporate interests, while skirting the "safe" side of the letter of the law
    are liable to provoke enough bawwww that "suspicion of illegal activity" is pretty much a given.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    Let the financial and legal idiots fire footbullets on this new site. Nothing of value...
    • Like Like x 1
  20. WhiteNight Member

    I meant "It's probably illegal for you to be leaking it". I mean... It's like handing evidence of a theft you just commited abd you contact details to a guy who says he'll keep them safe until the cops ask him for them. Oh, and he'll go waving the evidence in everyone's faces saying "nah nah nahnah nah! Look what I've got."
    Ermm... Yeah. EXACTLY like that...
    *cough*
    • Like Like x 3
  21. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

    I just leaked this document to the WSJ's FailHouse:

    fingerw.jpg
    • Like Like x 5
  23. Herro Member

    • Like Like x 1
  24. Loki's spawn Member

    I can't wait till OpenLeaks gets up and running.
  25. SwordofTruth Member

    Isn't Openleaks the same though, they will release information through the media giving said media the control and not have it accessible in raw format to the public ?
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    Hence why Openleaks is fail.
    • Like Like x 5
  27. SwordofTruth Member

    That only stuck in my head because it was in the same interview on Panorama (which disappointed me greatly) where Daniel criticised Wikileaks for not giving Manning more funds, I was thinking ohh so if someone gets arrested and it's claimed they leaked info to Openleaks and you have no clue if it is true you would give that person vast amounts of funds for legal aid.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Loki's spawn Member

    Actually, yea, I just read a little more about it on their web page. Said something about leaking to already established institutions. Disregard previous post, I suck cox.
  29. SwordofTruth Member

    Yeah you might as well just give the information you risk all to get, to Murdock's setup if you go with Openleaks both will end up with selective censorship for special interests.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Herro Member

    Sometimes censorship is necessary.
  31. LocalSP Member

    expand please
  32. Herro Member

    Sometimes it's important to keep things secret.
  33. LocalSP Member

    keeping secrets is not the same as censorship.
  34. Herro Member

    It can be.
  35. LocalSP Member

    Only if some finds out your secret and wants to let the info out for public consumption and you forbid them from doing so.
  36. Herro Member

    Yup
  37. LocalSP Member

    They should learn to keep secrets better then there would be no need for censorship.
  38. Just goes to show that corporations can commercialize and sell anything.
  39. AnonLover Member

  40. Anonymous Member

    Previously, members of the press have fought like hell to protect the confidentiality of their sources, with some success.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters'_privilege

    Compared to that, WSJ/AlJ's current terms are a bad joke. Meh, they'd don't even say that they'll wait until they get a court order before divulging. If leakers don't hide behind at seven proxies when contacting WSJ/AlJ, they might as well drop their pants, spread their legs and lube up to save time.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins