4 ms·
Isn't the message more like "expose, but anonymously"? Well, I mean, hopefully that's how people would understand it.
by tomp 9y ago
Isn't the message more like "expose, but anonymously"? Well, I mean, hopefully that's how people would understand it.
- dagw 9y agoAnonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.
- sneak 9y agoAnd yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers. Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
- dagw 9y agoPretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps. I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?
- sneak 9y agoThe face doesn’t need to be his face.
- r00fus 9y agopseudonymity != anonymity. Most pseudonyms give away plenty of information to be able to be tracked by an assassin or other kind of "influencer".