[cgshaw]

It doesn't depend on anonymous tips, but encourages them.

PJ is basically saying she wants to prevent folks from sending her honest questions about things they have done or are involved from admitting guilt to law enforcement who can read everything.

[danso]

Make sense, but I still think it's an overreaction. My original question still stands (is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox?), and I would also argue that PJ could mitigate this by simply removing any contact form or information from her site. Yes, people who know her email can still contact her anyway but obviously, that means they can already do that after the site is shut down. Groklaw could continue to operate as an outspoken advocate for legal freedom...perhaps Glenn Greenwald will find himself in a similar position, in which all communication to him is expected to be compromised, but I'd still think he'd continue to do his reporting and writing even if his sourcing was scarce.

[toyg]

>is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox?

It's actually fairly dangerous, knowing what we know now.

There is a reason the powers that be are so rattled by these revelations: the tactical advantage they're currently enjoying is huge.