2 ms·
Linkbait title. Or Wikileaks have been lying all the time. Previous wikileaks statements make a big show of saying how sources are anonymous by system design
by rurounijones 14y ago
Linkbait title.
Or Wikileaks have been lying all the time.
Previous wikileaks statements make a big show of saying how sources are anonymous by system design (i.e. "It is impossible to say if Bradley Manning was a source".).
Now they are saying that they think Swartz was a source? What is it. Is their system anonymous or not. If it is anonymous then this is non-news. If it is not then Wikileaks is broken
To me it just seems like them trying to get some more advertising by tying into this story, which is frankly disgusting.
- Volpe 14y agoThey said "they believe, but cannot prove". That is inline with their "Can't know" lines in the past. Just because the system doesn't allow them to identify sources , is not the same as saying sources are unidentifiable through any means... else the allegations against Bradley Manning would have never occurred.
- rurounijones 14y agoIf they cannot prove it then there is no merit in releasing this "news". Which brings me back to my "Jump on the news bandwagon" last line.