It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WSJ Starts Its Own Wikileaks Alternative: SafeHouse

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:06 PM

WSJ Starts Its Own Wikileaks Alternative: SafeHouse

Every news organization would love to have access to the sort of document dumps Wikileaks gets, but no one relishes the thought of working with Julian Assange. So a number of outlets have experimented with creating their own whistleblower-friendly file-sharing systems.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:" target="_blank" class="postlink">https:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:06 PM
I do not know what to think about this. I get mixed emotions. Apparently, WSJ now has a confidential file-sharing system to upload confidential whistle-blower documents to. There is a big problem with this though. I can guarantee none of the executives would go to jail to make sure their sources were not uncovered. Also, who is to say WSJ wouldn't just sort through disclosed documents and only release what they wanted? Here is to hoping though, since half the people do not believe wikileaks and the other half do not believe the MSM.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
The idea of trusting Mr. Murdoch's WSJ seems less than attractive to me.

Of course, if there's a way you can turn a profit by encouraging "whistle-blowing" I'm sure the Murdoch crew will figure it out....

... but once you add the element of profit into the affair, I am not sure you can really expect the results most idealistic whistle-blowers might hope for.

I find it interesting that Julian Assange, a mere celebrity figurehead, would matter at all in the decision to "do the right thing," which is ostensibly what "whistle-blowing" is all about.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:58 PM
So when will Mr. Murdock be getting arrested for rape?

Now the CIA has an official outlet for "whistle-blower" secrets. No one will question the integrity of the WSJ, right?

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM

Funniest thing I've heard all year!

As if anyone's going to trust them.

As if this isn't potential entrapment.


posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
Of course, they want to dilute it (power of Wiki and WBing in general) and fizzle it out. Also gives them the ability to edit, I am sure, what to keep and focus on and what to play down. Brilliant yet replusive.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Absolutely. I would NEVER trust the MSM with my life or liberty.

Good luck with that WSJ. The MSM has pretty well blown their credibility in my eyes as much for what they wont show, (images of the war dead, images of supporters of governments we hate, images of riot police assaulting drunken college kids, images of protesters against various things) as for what they do show.

What good is it to have freedom of the press when the press chooses to push propaganda and not provide an accurate and critical perspective on world events?

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:08 PM
LOL this has to be a joke right? Murdoch and a whistle blowing repository? yeah right, he is part of TPTB part of Bildesburg group.

Ask yourself this, just how many of his newspapers or TV stations supported wikileaks? NONE

Giving him leaks is like giving the oil companies the patents to water based fuel, they would say thanks and its never seen again

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by PrinceDreamer

I think this is exactly what they want. They want their own secrets delivered to them. Then they can deal with the person leaking the material.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:02 PM
as MaxMars stated above.
this is a Murdoch paper.
so it will be biased toward
the right wing agenda.

all others will be ignored
or shared amongst the
alphabet soup.

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:27 AM
Absurd rules make WSJ's new leak site a non-starter

Just keeping the subject fresh.....

..... So when the SafeHouse story was abroad online last night, I read its terms of use, too. Like Al Jazeera, the WSJ says leakers should have "all the necessary legal rights to upload or submit such Content". Having done that, they must grant the WSJ "a non-exclusive, transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use, distribute, publicly perform, display, reproduce, and create derivative works from, the Content in any and all media".

What is it they don't get about the status of leaked documents? In addition, Al Jazeera and the WSJ both say they reserve the right to identify leakers to law enforcement if pressed to. .....


edit on 6-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:38 AM

Security experts slam Wall Street Journal’s attempt to rival WikiLeaks

The Journal claims that its SafeHouse site is located on secure servers, and it promises potential whistleblowers anonymity and the use of file encryption. However, internet security and privacy experts have already concluded that the site is anything but secure.

"Don’t leak to the Wall Street Journal’s new Wikileaks knockoff," Gawker's Adrien Chen warned on Thursday, the same day the new site was rolled out. "SafeHouse is the opposite of safe, thanks to basic security flaws and fine print that lets the Journal rat on leakers."

The opposite of safe. Uh huh.
edit on 5/7/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:39 AM
You have two choices, trust Murdoch or trust a rapist.

Hard to choose, I say just plaster it all over every forum site you can find.

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 08:09 AM
This is not a whistleblowing venue. This is just normal submission venue advertised as a leaksite.

"Except when we have a separately negotiated confidentiality agreement… 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."

Terms of use

reply to post by moogins

Rapist who?

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:56 PM
What do these guys from WSJ think they are. Trustworthy???
I just send them a small Mail with this link-Pic
Grandma's Finger

top topics


log in