Re: An idea of leaking alternative to wikileaks

[gold flake <ptinstructor () gmail com>]

> I did understand the differences. The main issue is that "dangerous"
> material may be published anonymously without verification or indeed, any
> peer review.
>
> Keep in mind that you can easily set off people by telling them a UFO
> crashed in the centre of New York, and there are actually those that would
> believe it.
>
> Just consider the kind of laymen running blogs and how they react over
> anything that stirs the slightest "news".


I am with you on this one.  Take a look at the shitstorm in Pakistan
over faked wikileaks cables (0), (1) & (2).

(0)  
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jP2p0uuRX56yc0w9vXP8PRH5t5YA?docId=CNG.ff5b1dec5d31e4c8a507f2ccde331d41.881

(1)  http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/17/massaging-public-opinion.html

(2)  http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article948427.ece

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/