Well, that part says three things. First, that someone's name appeared in the Epik dump as having paid for some domains, and names the domains. Second, that the

Well, that part says three things. First, that someone's name appeared in the Epik dump as having paid for some domains, and names the domains. Second, that the journalists spoke to that someone, and that he said certain things. Third (and implying that this was public knowledge before this article), that he was fired by his employer, also named. How do we know that this is correct? We can download the data via torrent and see that his name actually does appear, we have to trust that what he told the journalists is correctly quoted, and that he was fired? I've no idea, I suppose neither the employer nor the employee will be eager to talk about that, many people aren't. The journalists may be prosecuted, but for what? If that already was widely enough known that his employer fired him, what is the significant change of this article? And what else might they be prosecuted for?