Wall Street Journal launches insecure Wikileaks clone, promises to sell you out


48 Responses to “Wall Street Journal launches insecure Wikileaks clone, promises to sell you out”

  1. YarbroughFair says:


    The WSJ is doing you a favor! At least they tell you!

    Don’t ANY of you remember this?

    USA Patriot Act

    The 2001 USA Patriot Act expands federal law enforcement’s surveillance, seizure and investigative powers. If library records are requested under the USA Patriot Act, the law states that, in certain circumstances, library staff cannot inform the person about whom the information is requested, cannot speak to co-workers, the media or other government officials about the inquiry. Such requests may only be reported to the appropriate higher authority within the library.

    In brief, under the USA PATRIOT Act, federal agents may request records of your library activities (including materials you borrow and your computer workstation usage). That federal law prohibits Library staff from informing you or anyone else if federal agents have obtained records about you.


  2. YarbroughFair says:

    BTW BB, your safehouse link is not working, so what color is your pot?


  3. Anonymous says:

    YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU LIKE LEAKS SO WE PUT A LEAK IN YO LEAKS SO YOU CAN GET LEAK WHEN U LEAK. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg

  4. Skidds says:

    Safehouse huh? I guess that makes the WSJ the Ministry of Truth.

    You can’t put the lid back on the idea of Wikileaks, but you apparently can create clones to try to catch whistleblowers.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Looking forward to a leaked video of a pimp infiltrating Unicef.

  6. jimboo says:

    “… or if Rupert Murdoch doesn’t like you, or what you’re doing, or what you’re saying, or what he thinks you might do or think or say someday.” Kind of ‘the Bush Doctrine’ for journalism.

  7. Halloween Jack says:

    Welcome, WSJ astroturfers!

    Really, this is hilarious; WSJ is making a point of announcing its own irrelevance. I predict that this thing will become a cesspool of petty corporate backbiting and squabble-settling and carefully-planted “leaks” (i.e. Koch Bros.-funded rumors) about the Obama Administration that will die a quiet death shortly after the 2012 elections.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Laughable is right — my Wii doesn’t trust them!

  9. Anonymous says:

    It’s a TRAP!

    - Admiral Ackbar

    Seriously, all the honest people already quit the WSJ. The investigative work on corporate scandals is long gone. Now the pages are filled with Murdoch’s propaganda and ads for overpriced toys.

    Remember, Murdoch sued for the right to lie on the news in Canada and lost so he hasn’t expanded there. He won in the US. That’s right, the courts in the US agreed that an anational corporation knowingly lying on the news was protected speech but a citizen telling a truth that hurts the business value of an anational corporation is a crime.

    This is bizarro world.

  10. Anonymous says:

    This is a NewsCorp property: It’s the conservapedia of leak sites…

  11. EvilSpirit says:

    How to leak information to the WSJ confidentially:

    A) Put on gloves.
    B) Send the information to your printer and put the result in a box.
    C) Proceed to a central post office in the largest available city.
    D) Mail box to WSJ.

  12. pidg says:

    Ugh, Gawker’s new linking system is SO ANNOYING!!!

    UK people clicking that link end up on the Gawker homepage. You then have to go up to the address bar, replace ‘uk.gawker.com’ with ‘gawker.com’ and hit to see the article.

    Fuck Web 2.0.

    • glimmung says:

      I’ve given up on Gawker because of that – if they want to break the internet, I’ll just not use that bit, ‘cos there are plenty of good bits that aren’t broken.

      De-Gawked in the UK!

  13. Sam125 says:

    Considering this is on the WSJ, I’m guessing Safehouse is meant more for corporate whistleblowers rather than the politico kind that contribute to Wikileaks. The seemingly odd “sell out” clause is likely there to punish anyone trying to use Safehouse as a forum for slanderous/false claims.

  14. kmoser says:

    Who in their right mind would provide any identifying details of themselves when leaking something, even to Wikileaks? You never know who might intercept the leak and what they might do with that info.

    • Sam125 says:

      Yeah that’s a good point. It’s pretty safe to say that the typical PC user isn’t too network savvy and would easily be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. Heck the NSA already collects data on most US internet users if you use AT&T, Verizon or any of the large ISP. Not that the NSA is doing anything nefarious with it, but the US is more of a police state than most people realize.

  15. satn says:

    “and to safeguard the interests of others.”

    We will screw you for a dollar.

  16. Flavor_Flav says:

    I’m not saying their site doesn’t suck, but at least be unbiased enough to present ALL the information. Their terms of service actually say:

    “Except when we have a separately negotiated confidentiality agreement pursuant to the “Request Confidentiality” Section above, we reserve the right to disclose…”

    There’s no reason to cherry pick from their terms, even presented in their entirety they obviously aren’t Wikileaks:

    “Please note that until we mutually decide to enter into a confidential relationship, any information you send to us (including contact information) can be used for any purpose…”

    • phisrow says:

      Arguably, the fact that you have to “separately negotiate a confidentiality agreement” if you are visiting a site designed for leaking is itself a sign of suck:

      Leaker: Hey, WSJ! Can this be confidential?

      WSJ: Well, I don’t know, how cool/dangerous is it? We do reserve the right to rat you out until we agree on confidentiality; but we need to know whether to bother.

      Leaker: Um, WTF? This is your leaking site. Under what circumstances would I come to a leaking site without confidentiality in mind?

  17. phisrow says:

    Nice of them to be so transparent about being utterly fucking useless. After looking at those terms and conditions, I wouldn’t send anything more controversial than a press release…

  18. Rob Beschizza says:

    Why should I not be biased against something that sucks? The thing you are pointing out doesn’t even make it suck less!

    “I’d like to leak something to you, but first we need to negotiate a confidentiality agreement that will be legally meaningless unless I tell you all about myself!”

    • Stephen says:

      Bob, you should not be biased in your reporting of something that sucks because it makes it harder for others to tell what is really going on, to trust you, and to know that the thing in question does, in fact, suck.

      In effect, you’re lying to make a point. This clouds the fact that your point is perfectly valid.

      • glimmung says:

        WTF? That makes no sense to me at all.

        There is no “lying”, there is an honest and undisguised expression of opinion.

        If anyone wants to disappear up their own backside policing and calibrating some mythical “impartiality”, can they do that elsewhere please – I’m happy to read something which is clearly a well- but forcefully-argued partisan PoV and draw my own conclusions.

      • teapot says:

        Bob, you should not be biased in your reporting of something that sucks because it makes it harder for others to tell what is really going on, to trust you, and to know that the thing in question does, in fact, suck.

        Steve, you should not hold blog authors to journalistic standards when there is no prerequisite to present both sides equally – especially when one side is a fucking joke. The disclaimer on all blogs should be RTFA. So what if Rob includes his personal opinion? His opinion is probably more valid and relevant than any idiotic article that automatically presumes 50% of a story should be pro and 50% against.

        If. Something. Sucks. It. Sucks. Contrary to your point, giving undue time to irrelevant arguments would in fact make it harder to tell what is really going on.

        “Argument A seems right, but then Rob has committed equal time to the reporting of argument B, so maybe I should consider it as credible – even though it seems wrong.”
        ^This is the outcome of what you recommend

  19. Anonymous says:

    I think someone needs to start serving up a shit storm of shit leaks to this shit sandwich of a shit site.

  20. Hans says:

    I have the distinct feeling the site is soon going to be hosting some “leaks” of dubious origins from the right wing’s enemies list: teachers unions, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, NPR, etc. Stay tuned: More lies ahead.

    • Zoman says:

      A disinformation outlet – interesting. Corperate psyops.
      *puts on foil hat, and wire mess cloak* Bring it Murdock you lizard f^CK!!1

      Hopefully 4chan will get childish about the site. On thing those kids do really well is epic spam.

  21. Anonymous says:

    I think everyone is going about this wrong…they have their first big story. Did you know the Wall Street Journal just launched it’s own leak site that doesn’t offer the same protections that Wikileaks affords its’ contributors?
    Someone should probably go to the “WSJ Safehouse” and submit the transcript of the Gawker story that uncovers this irresponsible lack of proection so they can break the story to the world.
    Also, circular references are my favorite type of error.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I can’t speak to the security of the site, but there are two good things I see here. First, the terms of service are actually easy to understand and short. Second, they are up front in saying that they can’t be trusted*, which is admirable and rare: “we are unable to ensure the complete confidentiality or anonymity of anything you send to us. As a result, please use discretion in contacting us and providing us with information. You use this service at your own risk.”

    They also suggest using Tor to be responsible for your own anonymity.

    *Which journalists, mainstream or not, can you trust against their own self interest? Or against the courts? Or against government, shall we say, “encouragement?”

  23. bardfinn says:

    … And then there’s the whole uselessness of attempting to enforce a negotiated confidentiality agreement in a civil court from a CIA shadow prison.

  24. redesigned says:

    FAIL. They don’t understand what a Safehouse means.

    “and to safeguard the interests of others.”
    I agree 100% @satn’s reading of that line, they will screw you for a dollar. any third party’s interested come before those of the leakers/users.

    I’d like to leak on their site! :-)

    WSJ = What a Shitty Joke

  25. Sayes says:

    Does this mean they will “safeguard the interests” sub-prime lenders rather than report unsustainable lending practices.

  26. datura says:

    That Rupert Murdoch-Julian Assange photo mixup is priceless!!!

  27. Jake0748 says:

    Wow, the whole thing is incredibly weird. I wouldn’t touch the Wall Street Journal Leaky site with a 10-foot internet pole.

    I mean, c’mon. Who exactly are they trying to attract with that site?

    I’ll just blow my own whistle. Thanks.

  28. Joseph Hertzlinger says:

    If “information wants to be free,” doesn’t that include information on who’s leaking data?

  29. Anonymous says:

    So now they claim they will protect sources? We all know that is a lie and they would sell out in a heartbeat. Corporate means do not trust, at all. And they are the epitome of Corporate. Fuck em.

  30. grimc says:

    “Come into my parlor,” said the spider to the fly.

  31. commenterx says:

    People leak to papers all the time. This just makes it more convenient and was a way for the Wall Stree Journal to publicize themselves as an outlet for information. Maybe someone with something to leak will hear about Safehouse and decide to leak to them instead of The New York Times or Washington Post.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Lying? Really? What’s he lying about? I think he called it just fine. WSJ presents one face, branded to give a certain impression about the nature of its workings, then presents a very different face in its legal agreement.

    What’s the fucking point of having a leaking site you have to negotiate a contract with? As Rob so succinctly points out, if you deal with them on these terms, be prepared to get whats coming to you.

    Rupert Murdoch wants his “me-too” news making machine in a bid to stay relevant, but he’s only willing to copy the style, not the substance of wikileaks. He’s a man with no balls. I’ll take Assange and his arrogance any day. At least he stands for something.

    Here’s the real question:

    Why aren’t there terms of service, “We have gone through every technical possible solution to insure we don’t know who the fuck you are, so even someone asked us we’d have no way of knowing who you are anyway.”

    Oh right, that’s because it sucks.

  33. Anonymous says:

    just sent to SafeHouse:

    “Someone in my organization just informed me that the WSJ had started a “crude and insecure” site to supposedly securely share information. I found this too laughable NOT to share !”

  34. Anonymous says:

    Nice that Gawker is criticising other websites for a lack of security.

  35. Anonymous says:

    If you are ever contacted by Wall Street Journal just ignore them; don’t bother providing interview or any other info to a WSJ correspondent, cause WSJ will take all your info and data and will provide you with no credits in their article whatsoever.

  36. olele says:

    You guys are missing the point. This is deeply introspective social satire of the highest order. Of course it sucks. It sucks because it didn’t set out to succeed at either accountability or anonymity, it set out to be a wild spectacle of car chases and special effects. It’s obviously satire.

Leave a Reply