emptywheel

Targeting/leaking of someone’s personal emails by a government is entirely different than Panama papers, but sure, keep up your narrative.

In my next tweet I make it clear I was comparing ICIJ and Snowden journalism. Also, where did PP come from?

Sorry paradise papers. And with your clarification, makes more sense. I lean Dem and had no problem with Snowden leaks.

Yeah, my ultimate goal is to note that we need a real discussion abt what we expect journos to do w/big dumps from known & unknown sources.

I'm happy abt the PP leaks, but find it remarkable that it's the 3rd in a row of dubious provenance and no one finds that curious.

Leaks are not the same as hacks because done by a whistleblower.

1) This tweet was a followup describing my point. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/927543201333997571 … 2) Do you know how ICIJ got the PP docs?

I know less about this than I should, but I am sure I support criminal prosecution. Hacking is illegal.

I've got mixed feelings. Not about the hacking (which is illegal) but about using the materials. Are we "by any means necessary"?

I actually don't know what answer is--it's really, really complicated. But I do think people need to be more honest abt the leaks they love

Except, Wilbur Ross admitted to having off shore accounts today.

Not disputing, at all, value of Paradise Papers. I'm saying that we all should understand better how journos should deal w/big dumps.

Care to reconsider this ridiculous straw man?

Care to explain why it is one? Thus far everyone who has tried has either betrayed ignorance or supported my point.

Sure. Let’s start with the “most Dems swore” generalization. Then let’s jump to “all leaks” from “Russian-hacked docs to influence election”

Oops. You see, the comparison is Snowden docs to ICIJ (with the latter's unknown provenance). Try again.