• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies

    Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.

    We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.

    And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.

        They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.