Assange, Snowden, and Manning spilled the beans? Found to be illegal? Enter secure drop.

Apology for topic location, please move where most appropriate.

So the above named individuals collaborated/conspired to tell the truth/secrets? Only damaged egos as far as I can tell.
But now they've got competition...Don't go telling your secrets to wikileaks, these other guys rarely reveal their source for their 'journalism'.

I'm just posting this to see if other's here can catch the wtf-it's I'm seeing.
I'll come back tomorrow to check the replies and give props to the smarties who figure it out.

A GROWING NUMBER OF DISAFFECTED government insiders have been approaching journalists to share information anonymously since the election in November and the inauguration just over a month ago. In response, news organizations have made it safer and easier for potential whistleblowers by actively encouraging them to use a variety of secure communication channels.
Many outlets have even posted instructions and assigned additional staff to monitor the information that arrives over these channels–such as the encrypted mobile application Signal and the dedicated whistleblowing platform SecureDrop. The Washington Post wrote a lengthy piece offering advice for leaking government documents. ProPublica updated its “How to Leak” page and posted an instructional video with Nieman Lab. And The New York Times published a page titled “Got a confidential news tip?” which details a number of secure channels, from encrypted email to plain manila envelopes, alongside basic instructions for using them safely.

Source 1
Source 2

Sounds to me like a good way to actually keep the leaks contained. I mean if you think about it, tons of stuff has already been "leaked" and nothing has really been done about it. I'm sure you can use your imagination to know what I may be refefering too here.

Why would anyone trust to leak to WP for example? They are already on the "fake news" scope for many. If they do have the ties of being controlled now, I'm guessing they would just take the leak tips they get and give them right back to the controllers. Probably add a good spin to whatever they are allowed to leak themselves.

I was just thinking to myself this morning that the boy has cried wolf one to many times. The chaos has been established. People will just tune it ALL out now, the good bad and ugly.

Tonight on Fox News, there was an interview with Trey Gowdy. He could not divulge confidential information regarding ongoing investigations, but, he said something that jumped out at me. It was brief, but it rang like a loud bell to my ears. He said be cautious of what you read in The Washington Post and The New York Times.....hmmmmm.

Wikileaks leaks documents attempts to get them verified and some can be verified once released, not statements from anonymous people are much more difficult to verify. Wikileaks tries to maintain credibility unlike some other outlets.

originally posted by: loveguy

Apology for topic location, please move where most appropriate.

So the above named individuals collaborated/conspired to tell the truth/secrets? Only damaged egos as far as I can tell.
But now they've got competition...Don't go telling your secrets to wikileaks, these other guys rarely reveal their source for their 'journalism'.

I'm just posting this to see if other's here can catch the wtf-it's I'm seeing.
I'll come back tomorrow to check the replies and give props to the smarties who figure it out.

A GROWING NUMBER OF DISAFFECTED government insiders have been approaching journalists to share information anonymously since the election in November and the inauguration just over a month ago. In response, news organizations have made it safer and easier for potential whistleblowers by actively encouraging them to use a variety of secure communication channels.
Many outlets have even posted instructions and assigned additional staff to monitor the information that arrives over these channels–such as the encrypted mobile application Signal and the dedicated whistleblowing platform SecureDrop. The Washington Post wrote a lengthy piece offering advice for leaking government documents. ProPublica updated its “How to Leak” page and posted an instructional video with Nieman Lab. And The New York Times published a page titled “Got a confidential news tip?” which details a number of secure channels, from encrypted email to plain manila envelopes, alongside basic instructions for using them safely.

Source 1
Source 2

It is a disinformation campaign bro keep coming with unprovable things and the truth gets lost in the mix or so they think tptb aren't used to people having the ability to think for themselves was about 30 or so years ago so many people started waking up to the fact that they don't care about us they only wanna make them and theirs rich and #Ick all us middle lower class it's all just a bs campaign

originally posted by: loveguy

Apology for topic location, please move where most appropriate.

So the above named individuals collaborated/conspired to tell the truth/secrets? Only damaged egos as far as I can tell.
But now they've got competition...Don't go telling your secrets to wikileaks, these other guys rarely reveal their source for their 'journalism'.

I'm just posting this to see if other's here can catch the wtf-it's I'm seeing.
I'll come back tomorrow to check the replies and give props to the smarties who figure it out.

A GROWING NUMBER OF DISAFFECTED government insiders have been approaching journalists to share information anonymously since the election in November and the inauguration just over a month ago. In response, news organizations have made it safer and easier for potential whistleblowers by actively encouraging them to use a variety of secure communication channels.
Many outlets have even posted instructions and assigned additional staff to monitor the information that arrives over these channels–such as the encrypted mobile application Signal and the dedicated whistleblowing platform SecureDrop. The Washington Post wrote a lengthy piece offering advice for leaking government documents. ProPublica updated its “How to Leak” page and posted an instructional video with Nieman Lab. And The New York Times published a page titled “Got a confidential news tip?” which details a number of secure channels, from encrypted email to plain manila envelopes, alongside basic instructions for using them safely.

Source 1
Source 2

Illegal For wiki to publish but if MSM does it it is ok. Also trust your info to "these guys" they will inform the public for you. /sarc

a reply to: loveguy

Riiiiighhhht, and put yourself on the line with the media?

Does everyone here have faith that if a leak so large and damning to either political side would get traction on any or all media outlets?

Something leaked damaging to Obama or Clinton to prosecute them, would this be reported by the New York Times? How about Fox and the Bush's or Trump?

Graffik

It's my understanding that this new 'secure-drop' may be tied to Snowden by way of
Freedom of the press. (Snowden follows 1 person on twitter, I don't have an account so I can't snoop)...

If that is the case then I think it may confirm that Wikileaks is compromised...in a way that scares whistleblowers from coming forward...who to trust if wiki's compromised?

Julian isn't updating because he's waiting for the Ecuadorian election result, April 2, 2017; if he stays or is expelled...if expelled, he'd have to walk the gauntlet to safety...but there is no safe place for him, nor his family...If the election result gets him expelled, he'd have to exhibit proof of life...which I don't foresee happening.
That would confirm to me he's been gone since Oct. 2016, when his internet was cut-off.

I find it peculiar that secure drop runs an ad on freedom page...a stir of competition?

So yeah, the reply posts here are conducive to my own thoughts.

Secure the names of whistleblowers but not for the purpose of serving any kind of justice to the people...tag 'em and bag 'em seems the M O...

Update page?
UN hearing

Now, the United Nations has found that the United Kingdom’s request for review of this decision (filed on March 24) was inadmissible; the United Kingdom has now reached the end of the road in its attempt to overturn the ruling. As a member of the Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Kingdom must respect its commitment to the United Nations, and release Mr. Assange immediately. Now, more than ever, moral leadership is required; maintaining Mr. Assange’s effective detention (which stands at six years as of 7 December, 2016) will only serve to green light future abuses against defenders of free speech and human rights.
Mr. Assange stated "Now that all appeals are exhausted I expect that the UK and Sweden will comply with their international obligations and set me free. It is an obvious and grotesque injustice to detain someone for six years who hasn’t even been charged with an offence."

So, what do ya' think?