WSJ and Al-Jazeera whistleblower sites offer terrible, dangerous terms-of-service

Discuss

9 Responses to “WSJ and Al-Jazeera whistleblower sites offer terrible, dangerous terms-of-service”

  1. fnc says:

    Wow. If they’re going to set up a honeypot for whistleblowers, they’re going to have to do better than that.

    If I had something juicy on ANYBODY with more power than me, you can bet any publicly owned corporation whose ultimate concern is always limiting their liabilities would be my LAST consideration for handing it off. And that includes corporations that claim to be involved in journalism.

  2. Lobster says:

    Al-Jazeera is a great source for anything that is not happening in Qatar, which owns them.

    Wall Street Journal is a great source for leaks that might have an impact on your stock investments.

  3. millionpoems says:

    Gah! you tricked me into looking at Mordoch

  4. Anonymous says:

    is that a photo of Assange in the future?!

  5. Anonymous says:

    I went to a Wikileaks like site once, it focused primarily on business as I recall. When I looked up businesses in the community where I was living, I found more astroturf than I have ever seen in my life. There was absolutely NO way I could have posted a leak as the deck was so obviously stacked against me.
    I can’t remember the name of the site . . . I wonder if they are still around? (duh)

  6. Anonymous says:

    There is *always* a Directive 4.

    At least you can see this one in advance.

  7. hep cat says:

    Seems like pretty good terms of service , basically it can be summarized as
    “don’t trust us, we don’t know if our security works, we don’t trust each other, and don’t count on our boss going to jail to protect you”

Leave a Reply