>Delaney also said data uploaded to the site will be discarded as quickly as possible. ®
And who do they "share" it with?
Yes, I'm looking at you, NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc. etc.
A new chapter has started in the long and complex story of Julian Assange’s relationship with mainstream media, with the Wall Street Journal launching a competitor whistleblower site. SafeHouse is soliciting whistleblower documents covering “politics, government, banking, Wall Street, deals and finance, corporations, labor, …
It doesn't matter if they delete it (using wipe (linux) or sdelete (windows).) If their server is in the metro-DC area, then a copy of the data will exist forever in an NSA repository. This is the same reason that a traceroute will occasionally show your traffic routing through Reston,VA. Not because it's the best route, but because its the 'because we can legally capture all data transiting this POP' route.
I've seen traffic from several Atlanta suburbs transit Reston on their way to ATLANTA. When that happens I run my personal ping app that uses 'fuckyou' as the packet data.
Posting anonymously...ha ha, that's just too damn funny.
You really think that:
1) The NSA needs the traffic to physically route through the DC area (Fort Meade, more correctly) to sniff your traffic?
2) Any method the NSA uses for sniffing traffic would be detectable by a traceroute?
3) The NSA can legally* sniff traffic within the US?
* (Yes, I know many will argue "they'll do it anyway", or will point out that monitoring communications where one party is outside the US is legal, but the OP implied that the NSA messes with routing tables to make the intercept legal).
Also posting anon because, you're right, it's too damn funny!
There's a zone (can't remember the name) that encompasses the entire metro DC area, in which all voice/data traffic is recorded. Apparently they don't want another Kennedy or Reagan incident, because it makes them look bad, not because our goverment lacks the redundancy to survive shit like that.
I'm not arguing the fact that 'they do it anyway', nor am I going to argue that messing with BGP tables to route all U.S. traffic is what they do, hell, they could simply have AT&T set up a port mirror (vaguely il/legal) and route THAT traffic into Reston.
You're right, I need to patch my system so that all padding bytes are strings of 'fuckyou'.
Maybe we need a declared war on all people who think we're wrong. Maybe we'd lose, maybe not, but at least after it was over (again, ha ha) there would be no need for CIA, NSA, etc. Just think how much better we could build civilisation if we started over from scratch.
The problem is that the information 'is needed'. No, the problem is really that we are lead to believe that the information is needed.
re: 1) no, but they have legal protection if their capture devices are in DC
re: 2) depends (see above)
re: 3) yes, in metro DC, and anywhere else that some well-paid judge has signed off on.
And you're absolutely right, it's too damn funny.
"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, to operate our systems properly, to protect the property or rights of Dow Jones or any affiliated companies, and to safeguard the interests of others."
Which is nice
The whole reason d'être for Wikileaks was the abject failure of newspapers to report on stories of value - Wikileaks offered a route for stories the media was no longer telling (well, initially, before it became the Assange™ Marketing Mechanism®). Ah, the irony..
I see three options for why this came to be:
- the publication is fed up with the antics and Assange sponsoring hoops it has to jump through to get at the news
- it wants to quell leaks at source
- it genuine wants to go back to basics with reporting.
Given the owners of the publication, I deem option 3 the less likely one but I hope I'm wrong.
Whatever the answer, it does amount to a firmly raised middle finger to Assange and Wikileaks..
My guess is that this site is really hosted by US authorities, such as Homeland Security or the FBI, as a means of phishing for whistle blowers. Anyone who is stupid enough to trust Murdock and company to keep their identity secret deserve what they get - Darwin in action!
The WSJ is only doing this get more eyeballs. A nice juicy Federal lawsuit to unmask a leaker can be milked for yet more eyeballs (then the WSJ will go balls up and surrender once the juice is gone, hint hint wink wink sez DOJ, and we know where you live).
The WSJ is a mostly worthless rag. I see someone reading WSJ, I know they are pretty clueless (might be rich, but clueless). NYTimes, maybe some intelligence. The Economist, that is someone with some weight in the money world, at least they might know something and not just someone.
That Indian woman reading Nature on the train though.... 'nother story.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021