5 ms·
That does seem logical, but the other side is logical too - the leaker might not have been a 'lone wolf', and by officially confirming the leaker's identity, th
by micheljones 9y ago
That does seem logical, but the other side is logical too - the leaker might not have been a 'lone wolf', and by officially confirming the leaker's identity, they could jeopardize leaker's helpers.
edit: and I forgot the main point, they need to keep the status/image they have, that they will NEVER give up leaker's identity, so they don't scare off future leakers.
- sanswork 9y agoThat doesn't make sense. Confirming his identity wouldn't make it any easier to identify any helpers unless you believe all 3 of the following things: He leaked the emails, He was killed for leaking the emails, The killers won't know his identity unless Wikileaks confirmed it.
- micheljones 9y agoI will not try to claim I know their motivations. But it's a security/OPSEC rule, and just because it doesn't apply in specific cases doesn't mean it should be thrown out. And like I said, I believe their main motive is to keep the trust of possible future leakers, in the sense of insisting that they will never officially confirm identity of their sources for any reason.
- sanswork 9y agoIf they really believed in not releasing the details they wouldn't have hinted at all. They wouldn't have said anything because hinting at the identity is the same as confirming it if it is really the leaker. The fact that they have but aren't actually confirming it says it all really.