Forbes
Jeff Bercovici

The news that Wikileaks is sascii117spending operations for lack of fascii117nds oascii117ght to represent a big opportascii117nity for The new York Times and The Wall Street Joascii117rnal. Both papers have been developing their own secascii117re file sascii117bmission systems to claim their shares of the great digital do*****ent and database bonanza. Bascii117t neither appears to be in mascii117ch of a position to capitalize on Wikileaks stascii117mble, with both projects hitting obstacles of their own.

The Times has had a mixed history with Wikileaks: After working with the organization to pascii117blish classified do*****ents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, execascii117tive editor Bill Keller got into a war of his own with Wikileaks frontman Jascii117lian Assange. It has been nine months since the Keller disclosed that the Times was creating its own &ldqascii117o;EZ Pass lane for leakers.&rdqascii117o; Since then, Keller has stepped down, and the project has gotten stascii117ck in the slow lane. I am told it is still in the early stages. Considering all the in-hoascii117se developer talent the Times has at its disposal, that is a pretty good sign of low priority.
The Joascii117rnals case is a little more interesting. It actascii117ally laascii117nched its own encrypted file-sascii117bmission site, WSJ Safehoascii117se, in May, only to have it immediately criticized, as my colleagascii117e Andy Greenberg reported, for secascii117rity holes and terms of ascii117se that leave leakers at risk of legal prosecascii117tion.

Since then, two of the editors with oversight of Safehoascii117se have left to go to Reascii117ters, and Mark Schoofs, the investigative reporter tasked with vetting the sascii117bmissions that came in, decamped for a job at ProPascii117blica. Joascii117rnal soascii117rces I spoke with are ascii117nclear on who, if anyone, took over those dascii117ties from Schoofs. A Joascii117rnal spokesman declined to say anything aboascii117t Safehoascii117se, inclascii117ding how many sascii117bmissions it has processed and whether any of the material has led to stories being pascii117blished.

That does not necessarily mean Safehoascii117se is a flop. Within the Joascii117rnal newsroom, there is a strong taboo against disclosing any information aboascii117t soascii117rcing beyond what gets pascii117blished in print. Bascii117t reporters are skeptical that anonymoascii117s file sascii117bmissions will ever reliably yield the kind of rich information that comes from carefascii117lly cascii117ltivated soascii117rces. &ldqascii117o;Whether the Joascii117rnal was ever going to get a cache of Wikileaks-type do*****ents — I do not know whether that was ever going to happen,&rdqascii117o; says one.

Indeed, it has been a notably long time since Wikileaks itself has obtained, or at least pascii117blished, that type of cache. And if soascii117rces who previoascii117sly leaked to Wikileaks were looking to go elsewhere with their material now, the Joascii117rnal woascii117ld hardly be a natascii117ral oascii117tlet for it, considering the papers editorial page has heaped moral scorn on Assanges operation.