HERE in Techrights we always tell or at least try to tell the truth, even when it is not convenient, e.g. risk of harming the reputation of supposed allies. But there remain some exceptions or -- put another way -- circumstances under which we cannot share information. The primary reason, in our experience, is source protection. If we say something that a source does not wish to be said (for fear of being caught or identified usually), then the key dilemma arises: while not legally-binding, the promise to one's sources establishes a nonverbal contract of trust. In other words, if we choose to say something a source does not want said (or prefers to keep private), then there's an element of betrayal that reduces prospects of future tip-giving and leaks.

"The reality of the matter is, responsible reporting cannot just be a data dump, the reason typically being source protection."What does that all mean?

Simple. It means that over the years we've amassed a lot of information that we never published. Some of it may seem like gossip, but some of it is substantial. Some of it has proven essential for judgment or understanding of various affairs.

"We turned 13 a month ago and have not burned sources since the start/inception."The reality of the matter is, responsible reporting cannot just be a data dump, the reason typically being source protection. It's a level of obfuscation necessary to ensure the ongoing/future flow of information.

We turned 13 a month ago and have not burned sources since the start/inception. We intend to keep it that way, even if that means keeping particular bits of information close to our chest (with the possibility of publicising in the future, if or when it becomes safer). ⬆