In any huge information leakage story, the “why?” and the “who?” have the tendency to matter along with the “exactly what?” We have to keep in mind the scaries of the Afghan war that sent out Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks– and the disgust over unmonitored mass monitoring that comprised Edward Snowden’s mind for him. In amount, the perfects of the whistleblower matter too, therefore do the social function satisfied (as when America, for instance, tidied up its act after Snowden).
What, then, about “Vault 7”, the 10,000 or two CIA files exposed through WikiLeaks recently (much of them, in the nature of things, yet unread)? Exactly what was the leaker so worked out about? Television Set covertly keeping track of the front parlour, a sort of Gogglebox in reverse?
This might be a minute when anger at privacy lost lastly sparks (Ewen MacAskill in the Guardian), or when popular opinion shrugs benignly and believes the security companies are simply doing their job. But undoubtedly we likewise have to know more about who dripped it, and why. You can find lots of great examples at this site www.tully-weiss.com.
WikiLeaks vaults tossed into a political project by a foreign power plainly do not pass inspection (whoever the leakages are directed versus). Basic file discards– in Assange mark 2 mode– aren’t defensible either.
Maybe the Vault 7 whistleblower had a specific outrage in mind? Possibly she or he was simply playing wrecker– or serving some hidden master? And those, progressively, are concerns for the media to ask too. Exactly what the blank’s going on here?