| ▲ | blitz_skull 4 hours ago | |
Explain like I’m stupid: what is the most gracious interpretation of redaction when releasing files like this? Why should anyone involved retain any anonymity? I’m asking in good faith because naively it seems like this should not even exist. All of it should be exposed. EDIT: I did not think about the innocent folks that might be caught in the crossfire. That checks out. Thanks everyone! | ||
| ▲ | OsrsNeedsf2P 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Iirc WikiLeaks took the position of any information that would directly lead to the bodily harm of an individual (or something to that effect). The rational being, "Yes, group A did something horrible that warrants investigation, but if we publish their GPS coordinates they will be blown to smitherines" | ||
| ▲ | krapp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Protecting the identity of victims, eyewitnesses or informants. | ||
| ▲ | empath75 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The files of a high profile and long running investigation are going to be full of false leads, hoaxes and other bullshit. The reason they don’t just always release the files after closing cases is that there genuinely are going to he innocent people caught in the crossfire who have privacy rights. This case is so important and such a clusterfuck that the files need to be opened anyway. | ||