This much I agree with, in general. I think the conclusion is wrong though, for the reasons I mentioned : he's allowed (or at least, not disallowed) to know, but him telling anyone would compromise the security of his source, or their organisation, or their operation. Now it may not be a huge breach : "we don't tell anyone before this date", broken < 24 hours beforehand is unlikely to fuck things up. But if its a big deal and you want to play the media? It could still be stunningly important.
It may come across to normies like he's close/part of the team, but people who know a little more understand the reasoning behind it, even if they disagree about the importance. You can't always provide things at the level of the lowest common denominator.
[–] 19621220? ago
i can agree with that. It almost reminds me of the Kappy incident. He had access to info; he was the outer fringe; and likely used some info for some kind of gain.
[–] 19623066? ago
aye, the analogy is a good one. Information is a very powerful tool if you know how to leverage it. Of course, if you leverage it wrong then yeah you pay the price, be that a "suicide" or merely a nice long jail sentence.