4 ms·

To demonstrate their anonymity statement is rendered useless when you go through the other data in the article.

by choot 8y ago

oh_sigh 8y ago
You're assuming some data hasn't been delicately fudged in order to anonymize the source. Maybe he worked there between August 2016 and September 2017. Maybe is a Navy, not AF veteran. Maybe he isn't a he at all. Who knows?
- damck 8y ago
  This train of thought only made me ask myself if the piece itself is real at all. The wonders of internet
- pbalau 8y ago
  What if there is somebody else that matches the made up details?
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    If you have a beef with this person, and set it up so your statements seem like they are coming from them, then you are playing with fire. If the person is very adamant that they weren't the leaker, the next question might be "well, who could leak and have a motivation to make their details look like this person's?", which may point to you. If it is just a coincidence that the details of your fudging match a specific person, then they can still deny it. I don't know, but the point of all this is to protect a source, not to protect a random person who might be implicated by bad luck and punished illegally by bad actors.
- Kaveren 8y ago
  Isn't that worse than just not revealing personal information at all? Fudging dates could be quite bad in particular if it were to become apparent that policy changes were made after the supposed time period. I don't find that the military information was valuable, it could've easily been left out, and the veteran question the author posed could have still been asked if it were rephrased.
  - jsgo 8y ago
    While maybe not particularly valuable, it is pertinent when saying "x is worse in place y than in the military": without experience in the military, it would be impossible to say (not saying the words, but for credibility).
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Yes, when it comes to anonymizing a source, releasing no information is always better than releasing any information, even if that information is a mix of truths and falsehoods. But, releasing a mix of truths and falsehoods or less specific/more generalized truths can only be equally as bad as releasing all specific truths, but it may turn out to be much better. Saying your tenure was September 2016-August 2017 might match 20 people at the company, one of which is your source. Fudging your tenure to August 2016-September 2017 might match 20 people, but not your source. Saying your tenure was 2016-2017 might match 1000+ people, including your source. There are trade offs in all of these methods, but I don't see them as being particularly wrong if you want to provide color to your story without materially affecting it, and can be confident that you aren't helping to identify your source.

To demonstrate their anonymity statement is rendered useless when you go through the other data in the article.

by choot 8y ago

To demonstrate their anonymity statement is rendered useless when you go through the other data in the article.

You're assuming some data hasn't been delicately fudged in order to anonymize the source. Maybe he worked there between August 2016 and September 2017. Maybe is a Navy, not AF veteran. Maybe he isn't a he at all. Who knows?

damck 8y ago
This train of thought only made me ask myself if the piece itself is real at all. The wonders of internet
pbalau 8y ago
What if there is somebody else that matches the made up details?
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  If you have a beef with this person, and set it up so your statements seem like they are coming from them, then you are playing with fire. If the person is very adamant that they weren't the leaker, the next question might be "well, who could leak and have a motivation to make their details look like this person's?", which may point to you. If it is just a coincidence that the details of your fudging match a specific person, then they can still deny it. I don't know, but the point of all this is to protect a source, not to protect a random person who might be implicated by bad luck and punished illegally by bad actors.
Kaveren 8y ago
Isn't that worse than just not revealing personal information at all? Fudging dates could be quite bad in particular if it were to become apparent that policy changes were made after the supposed time period. I don't find that the military information was valuable, it could've easily been left out, and the veteran question the author posed could have still been asked if it were rephrased.
- jsgo 8y ago
  While maybe not particularly valuable, it is pertinent when saying "x is worse in place y than in the military": without experience in the military, it would be impossible to say (not saying the words, but for credibility).
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Yes, when it comes to anonymizing a source, releasing no information is always better than releasing any information, even if that information is a mix of truths and falsehoods. But, releasing a mix of truths and falsehoods or less specific/more generalized truths can only be equally as bad as releasing all specific truths, but it may turn out to be much better. Saying your tenure was September 2016-August 2017 might match 20 people at the company, one of which is your source. Fudging your tenure to August 2016-September 2017 might match 20 people, but not your source. Saying your tenure was 2016-2017 might match 1000+ people, including your source. There are trade offs in all of these methods, but I don't see them as being particularly wrong if you want to provide color to your story without materially affecting it, and can be confident that you aren't helping to identify your source.