3 ms·

I'm curious why Greenwald and Schneier seem so keen to publicly conjecture that there are multiple whistleblowers. It seems rather counterproductive to me. Is t

• INTPenis 12y ago
  Interesting that you would ask that because as I was reading the article I kept thinking that it's beneficial to the US government to stop prosecuting these things due to two reasons. 1) Maintaining a facade of complete denial. 2) Not giving credence to the idea that there were two people willing to rat out their government due to what they had seen, so as to maintain the possibility that it was just a lone rogue. But this is just my external perspective, as a european who never set foot on US soil.
• pgeorgi 12y ago
  After someone published Aug 2013 material, it was clear that Snowden isn't the only one. There's no harm in talking about two whistleblowers at that point. Emphasizing that there's more than one might encourage even more whistleblowers. Talking about a certain number might also hide that there are even _more_ out there. Knowing the exact number of sources might help the agencies assign publications to sources, and thus, support in locating them. If you try to assign material that is actually from five sources to just two, you'll have a hard time seeing a clear picture.