3 ms·
“according to two people who were familiar with the requests and who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential legal matters.” Yes, there is a lot (more) w
by IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
“according to two people who were familiar with the requests and who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential legal matters.”
Yes, there is a lot (more) we would like to know.
But this is as good a time as ever to do a little experiment regarding the practice of anonymous sources: at some point, we are likely to learn more about this investigation. Then, you can check if the information we have now was correct. Or, as the common accusation goes, it was a wholesale fabrication by the Times.
- 3xblah 8y agoThank you. Sadly, I missed that line. It sounds like a leak from within Facebook or another tech company on the receiving end of one of these requests. I always thought grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. Maybe this explains the anonymity. I guess it is not unusual for the fact of the existence of proceedings to leak and for media to speculate? Does this have potential to negatively affect the outcome?