Leakers always have motivations. That's why reporters need to not take their leaks at face value, and do reporting to expand on the information they receive.
I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
I think people are conditioned to associate "leaks" with "scandals" (especially when it comes to the three letter agencies), when in actuality this "leak" is just a revelation of completely reasonable and expected activities.
It seems to me that this stuff might be an intentional leak in order to distract from more earthy political issues, so they actually want it to get out into the news.
I'm thinking it's more about sending a message to other (potential) leakers: "This is how powerful we are, this is how far we'll go to hunt you down. Nobody is going to help you, and no one is going to stop us."
> "Leaks" are done by insider employees wishing to harm the org they work for
This isn’t always the main motivation, and in my experience this isn’t even usually the main motivation.
(But if I’m wrong, please tell me. Don’t downvote me for my opinion/life experience. I have definitely seen the whole “f the company” scenario a number of times. But usually it’s “f a particular person” or it’s a “this violates my principles” kind of thing. Companies are legally entities but not that much psychologically, in my opinion.)
I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "danger to national security." When the leaker is someone near the top of the org. chart, it's "politics as usual", or "public relations".
My sense is that they use leaks as a way to ferret out who is disloyal, not get feedback from the Press, which they hate.
reply