5 ms·
> some sketchy anonymous government source for whatever reason, you are refusing to grapple with the fact that the second, just-released article, does not rely
by jstrong 6y ago
> some sketchy anonymous government source
for whatever reason, you are refusing to grapple with the fact that the second, just-released article, does not rely on the testimony of anonymous government sources, "sketchy" or otherwise, but on multiple, named, private sector sources. the people who are quoted have reputations that are important to them. they are claiming to have participated in concrete events. it's a very different category of testimony than "government sources say."
- michaelt 6y ago> the second, just-released article, does not rely on the testimony of anonymous government sources The first article relied on briefings from unnamed government sources. The second article has named private sector sources who say "an unnamed government source briefed me too" That's just anonymous government sources, but with extra steps.
- jstrong 6y agothe difference is, the motivation for the two kinds of communication are completely different. anonymous govt sources talking to the media want the info to be public. govt officials telling a limited circle of people involved in core infrastructure generally do not want the info to be public. if you are trying to broadcast info to the public, your message is much more suspect, because the likelihood of an intent to deceive is higher. if you wanted the message to get out, there are far easier ways that telling a small circle of private sector people. generally govt isn't going around telling dams, nuclear power plants and drinking water plants about bogus chinese hacking threats on purpose. they can easily be wrong. it's a lot less likely they are lying about something like this.