You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] 19618419? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

  • Have source

  • They tell you information

  • If you leak that specific information, it will clearly be a breach of secrecy requirements for whoever your source works for, or for whoever gave your source that information

  • If you leak it, they will suddenly get in trouble. You may lose your source, they may lose their job (if they're lucky). AAAnd it distracts people doing an important job by having to play hunt the mole rather than do their work

  • If you merely give vague hints which let others know the gist, but do not break operational secrecy of your sources organisation, there is no real harm done, and as such no need for any of the stuff mentioned above to happen

Ta-da. operational safety in a nutshell. I doubt he's saying it because he actually feels in personal threat. But don't underestimate how easily his sources could get fucked if he leaked information they gave him.

source : I know a fair few intel twitter people, albeit from the more general geopolitics side of things

0
1

[–] 19618487? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Ummm. This was pretty fucking specific. High prrifile arrest since Epstein. Big enough to VINDICATE q. Pretty specific. Nobody is gonna give a shit if juicy smellit is rearrested at this point. But if it was a clinton or a bush, now thats vindication. Thats pretty fuckin specific.

0
0

[–] 19620962? ago 

It's the opposite of specific.There's already public speculation about several people close to Epstein. A rich and powerful guy get arrested for sex trafficking no shot other rich and powerful guys might get popped too.

0
0

[–] 19625866? ago 

Then why "leak" at all? Something this vague accomplishes nothing.

0
0

[–] 19620893? ago  (edited ago)

There's no harm done but also no good

People leak info because they want it out there. What point is there to leaking someone is about to be arrested? None unless it's time sensitive or you think they'll try to keep it under wraps. In both cases you'd need to provide at least somewhat specific info to counteract that.

Someone just saying "someone big will be arrested soon" is just distracting and trying to blow up their own importance. If they're wrong nobody will be able to prove someone big wasn't arrested and if they're right they've done Jack shit.

0
0

[–] 19623011? ago 

It's essentially hopefagging, but white-hat style. In addition, it lends credibility to future information if correct, via validation of sources, encourages people to pay attention, allows people to reference back to it post-hoc as validation, things like that.

Your third paragraph is almost entirely correct though - there are issues with lots of these things. But very small leaks that reveal next to nothing can still be highly useful. This one, I agree, is not so much, but they're still useful. I'd rather minute crumbs were delivered than nothing at all, if i had to choose.

0
0

[–] 19618645? ago 

I'm a journalist, I know how it works. And it's degrees of separation. the juicier the info, the closer to the action one is; 40Head is not close to the inner circle. I have no doubt he knows who the 2nd person is. I just disagree with him suggesting he can't divulge anything due "operational security" as it suggests he's closer than he is or even part of the team.

0
0

[–] 19620545? ago 

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.