Rixstep
	`About \| ACP \| Buy \| Industry Watch \| Learning Curve \| News \| Products \| Search \| Substack`

Home » Industry Watch » The Technological

WSJ SafeHouse

'Can they be any dumber?'

Get It

Try It

NEW YORK (Rixstep) — Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal set a new standard in technological stupidity today. One that could be disastrous and even downright dangerous for those not on the ball.

They let you upload your secret (potentially incriminating) documents in the clear.

And at the same time, they publish another attack on Julian Assange and whistleblower sites in general.

Rub your eyes all you want. But it's true.

Oh So You Wanna Be ANONYMOUS?

Oh so you wanna be anonymous? No problem, dude! Just don't fill in your name or email address!

It's really easy you see. You might have heard elsewhere that this 'anonymity' thing on the Internet is tricky shit. No way! All you have to do is not fill in your name, email address, and phone - and they'll never track you! Honest!

So this is the POV of the Old Media towards WikiLeaks? That's how simple those simple-minded troglodytes think it is? Great. How enlightening. The only thing Rupert's WSJ has on DDB's OpenLeaks is that they got to the finish line first. (DDB has yet to open anything.) And from the way things have been shaping up since last September, WSJ SafeHouse is probably more secure than OpenLeaks anyway.

Afterthought

No WikiLeaks whistleblower has yet written 'please give these secret documents to Daniel Dumbshit'. Not a one. Daniel Dumbshit betrayed a lot of people's trust - he's really not much more than a common thief.

But Seriously, Folks!

But seriously, folks: unless some magic curtain appears out of nowhere, do not repeat do not submit anything to that site. This is why WikiLeaks is so important - they have a four-year proven track record, have never revealed a single source, and most of the time couldn't reveal a source even if they wanted to (and they don't want to).

WikiLeaks have the technical know-how to make anonymity possible; from the appearance of things and unwittingly or not, WSJ SafeHouse represents a really dumb - an incomparably dumb - charlatan scam.

Caveat whistleblower - stay away from Rupert Murdoch.

News organisations could create such a site if they cared about it. But it's our experience that at least the Guardian and New York Times don't care so much to protect sources. In fact for Cablegate the Guardian and the New York Times communicated over phones. They swapped cables over email.
- Julian Assange

The Journal has taken a series of measures to provide extra security around SafeHouse. These measures include encrypting any files when they are sent and stored and restricting any visibility into SafeHouse activities by third-party partners. The Journal has also minimized the technical information it receives as part of any uploads that could potentially identify the user.

For added security, you can encode your documents by downloading our public PGP encryption key. In order to use this key, you will need to install special encryption software, such as the open-source programs offered by the Free Software Foundation's Gnu Project.

If you're very concerned about anonymity, you can install software on your computer that attempts to obscure the source of any internet traffic to us or anyone else, such as the software provided by the nonprofit Tor Project here.
- WSJ SafeHouse

Can they be any dumber?
- J Tribbiani