No, Wikileaks deserves it here. Contract forces recipient to acknowledge material is stolen, including origin. That's the risk
-
-
-
Replying to @DonnchaC @a_profligate
they should have sent unsolicited without acknowledging origin. E.g., "hey this fell off the back of a truck."
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dguido @a_profligate
Has their disclosure agreement been published? It's hard to discuss without knowing what they're asking for
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonnchaC @a_profligate
it doesn't matter what contract says, only that it identifies docs as stolen from CIA. That is enough to kill it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dguido @a_profligate
corporate legal doesn't want to or can't deal with leaked data?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Would it really make a difference if Wikileaks approached without attribution? Everyone knows where the 0day are from
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
yes, huge diff between "this arrived unsolicited in inbox" vs "sign contract to receive stolen goods from criminal."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.