Hacker News Reader

Comment by igul222 | Hacker News Reader

I don't get the point. If you trust them, isn't it okay to reveal your identity to The New Yorker anyway since they're legally protected from being compelled to reveal your identity? And if you don't trust them, why should you trust that they're not logging your identity even on Strongbox?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

View on HN

If you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you link you'll see this in the last line:

"In the United States, the federal government legally contends that no such protection exists for journalists."

There are well documented cases (and even a movie based on true events) of journalists having to go to prison because they wouldn't reveal sources.

e.g. Found this on Google searching "reporter source prison": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/as-fox-news-repor...

You raise a good point. However, in light of the Justice Department secretly obtaining AP phone records [1], this provides an alternative option for secure information.

For information that is best delivered anonymously, this sounds like one of many tools to get your message out there.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-s...

No he does not have a point. Even if he does trust them, that's irrelevant. The point of anonymity is so others (especially governments) don't find out your identity. That can be done regardless of how much you trust the publisher.

Why do you think Wikileaks was invented?

American journalists aren't legally protected from revealing their sources at all and there's journalists in jail right now for just this reason.

Have you some how avoided the news from the last couple days?

Actually I have, what are you referring to?

U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701436

WIth Tor your identity can't be logged. Even if they are forced to reveal their logs, they'd be completely worthless.

Because if you are going to break the law by leaking information, no matter how noble your cause, I would imagine that every additional person who is aware of your identity would give you tremendous pause.

You'll probably have to reveal your identify in many cases, unless your evidence alone is convincing beyond a doubt, but your correspondence should still be performed and stored as securely as possible.

"If you trust them"?

What does that even mean in a time when the US government can pressure reporters into giving them the information anyway, or simply spy on them (see AP spying case).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com