From Fastcompany:

According to Slashdot, Wikileaks has announced a plan to create a leak “uploader” feature that news orgs can embed in their Web sites. The uploader will allow quick and anonymous submission of leaked material that journalists can use exclusively for a window of time–before Wikileaks pulls the information into its publicly available database…

…The upload feature should give anonymous sources a safer, easier way to disclose sensitive information. It will also transfer legal responsibility for the material away from a given journalist and onto Wikileaks itself, a site that has proven very difficult for lawyers to thwart.

ITWorld fills in the details:

The upload system will give potential whistle blowers around the world the ability to leak sensitive documents to an organization or journalist they trust over a secure connection, while giving the receiver legal protection they might not otherwise enjoy.

“We will take the burden of protecting the source and the legal risks associated with publishing the document,” said Julien Assange, an advisory board member at Wikileaks, in an interview at the Hack In The Box security conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Once Wikileaks confirms the uploaded material is real, it will be handed over to the Web site that encouraged the submission for a period of time. This embargo period gives the journalist or rights group time to write a news story or report based on the material.

Basic background: as bloggers stake out their microniches, and advertisers recognize that bloggers have become the influential people within that niche, they can flow the influencer some cash dollars to speak nice about them — or at least recommend them — to their audiences.

The FTC wants Bloggers to reveal the relationship and the spirit to promote transparency is commendable. How practical it is is another story. Here’s what I wrote to a Listserv I belong to:

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing. I think transparency is a best business practice so advocate for it whether legally required or not.

But should it be legally required? Different question and I just don’t know. Our whole media environment is pretty murky.

I’m more concerned with CNN/Fox interviewing retired four-star generals that have undisclosed commercial interests with military contractors than I am a blogger with undisclosed ties to a gadget company.

Since who we are and what we do is only as reliable as our credibility, I think any organization, large or small, would/should sink if they don’t reveal their ties.

That said, here’s an article against the regulations.

As I looked into it, the FTC regulations focus specifically on Bloggers. In its view, Bloggers are different than other media entities (read: big media, or mainstream media) and therefore deserve special regulation (Note to Bloggers: You always wanted to be important, now you are).

Continuing with my Listserv conversation:

What’s a “blogger” anyway?

As the author points out, a blog is only a delivery mechanism, and one that is used by both pajama clad typists and established news organizations. So is it just “independent” media, ie, the lone blogger or three, that needs to disclose?

Since the FTC leaves out traditional media (newspaper, television, magazines, radio, tv), how is it decided who’s included. For example, David Pogue has known interests outside his blog at the NYT. Should the Times be required to run a disclaimer next to all his posts, and if not, why should SomeLittleSite.com have to.

Or, when does the lowly “blog” become a “legitimate” news site that is no longer covered by the regulation.

A trickier nut to crack is that companies have paid people to post positive reviews on product sites. The most well known, recent case being Belkin.

How would the FTC say something like that be handled?

Anyway, or either way, the issues are important. While infinite good information is found on the tubes, so too is infinite bad. Throw shysters into the mix and you can understand the desire to regulate against duplicity. I think though that it has to be all in or none at all.

If Fox/CNN don’t need to reveal commercial and political interests, neither do I.

Not that either is a good thing.