Responding to DOJ invasion of AP records, New Yorker launches "Strongbox"

[RgrF]

This morning, The New Yorker launched Strongbox, an online place where people can send documents and messages to the magazine, and we, in turn, can offer them a reasonable amount of anonymity. wrote:

New Yorker

[Bill in NC]

or just budget monthly for a few 'burner' phones

[cbelt3]

Bill in NC wrote:
or just budget monthly for a few 'burner' phones

Um.. if you think about it, that won't work. You have to make the phone known to possible sources.

While this concept is 'cool', the use of the Tor network is considered a 'sign of criminality' to most law enforcement organizations, and is heavily blocked all over the place. Since the whole issue surrounds 'leakers' from the government, and even suspicion of a leak means you get put on the polygraph, I'm not too sure.

The real issue is that an administration that was elected in order to improve transparency and accessibility to Government has been shown to be less accessible and less transparent than it's predecessor.

I recognize that governments need to keep secrets. Believe me, I understand classification. But to campaign based on removing secrecy and then agressively adding layers of secrecy is sad hypocrisy.

[Lemon Drop]

But to campaign based on removing secrecy and then agressively adding layers of secrecy is sad hypocrisy.

Yep. well said.

major damage has been done to the media's ability to do it's job, AP in particular and we don't know who else.

The sad thing is that no laws appear to have been broken by the DOJ since it doesn't have to go to a judge to get these subpoenas, it just issues them itself. That is illegal in 40 states, but legal at the federal level.
Yeah, we need some reforms and the White House has no credibility now to lead that charge.

[Lemon Drop]

The real issue is that an administration that was elected in order to improve transparency and accessibility to Government has been shown to be less accessible and less transparent than it's predecessor.

no, not even close to agreeing with that. this is bad but it's not an illegal war sold with lies. let's don't get carried away.

[cbelt3]

Lemon-
The point was just on the transparency thing. Not extending to Iraq, etc.. But if you DO want to go there, we can talk about extra-judicial killing of American citizens all day... :devil:

[Lemon Drop]

Lack of transparency means the gov't not being straight with the people, and I can't think of a worse example than the Iraq War, in terms of unnecessary expenditure of life and treasure and goodwill.

Doesn't mean I'm not terribly let down by this current fiasco, I am.

Reading now about what the IRS did to these conservative groups is surreal - one group described it as "a proctology exam through your earlobe."

[Bill in NC]

Actually, just heard on NPR today reporters are already doing this.

They buy a burner for their source and one for themselves.

Then toss them both once the story runs.

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Bill in NC]
or just budget monthly for a few 'burner' phones

Um.. if you think about it, that won't work. You have to make the phone known to possible sources.

[max]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Doesn't mean I'm not terribly let down by this current fiasco, I am.

Scathing, absolutely scathing.

One step away from "disapointing"...