zlacker

>>itcrow+(OP)
> Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington, D.C. office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and a former assistant secretary of policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said the BlueLeaks data is unlikely to shed much light on police misconduct, but could expose sensitive law enforcement investigations and even endanger lives.

But then there was this: https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/1273329710576152581

>>CiPHPe+E2
They said the same thing about Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden's leaks. Apparently, everything sensitive was so secret that if anyone was hurt or killed as a direct result of the leaks blowing their cover, we never heard about it. Several instances of appalling behavior (read: constituting war crimes) were exposed, though.

Watch them find something KKK-related in here.

>>bsanr2+U5
I understand what you're saying about what was exposed, but do you really believe that intelligence leaks don't cost lives at some point? I find it harder to believe that identities of spies and TTP being publicized just has zero negative effect afterwards. Those people, though leaked, are likely still classified in some manner so there's no reason for the US or any government to admit that they've lost people or the upper hand in clandestine environments.

Police departments, comparatively, are not that classified or secretive. It's definitely much more likely that there's evidence of undercover operations that were leaked by this, probably. Certainly much more likely than something KKK related, what makes you say that? I admittedly haven't looked to see how far back in time these files go, so something these days seems a little outlandish, at least from what I know right now.

>>easter+5a
The job of intelligence agencies are to gather intelligence and analyze the outcome. The publications that came out of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden was not published unannounced, nor was the content of the leaks unknown. Common practice is also to request comment on such content a few days before publications, even if intelligence agencies usually refuse to comment. In the case of Chelsea Manning, I recall they even asked the agency a few days ahead in helping them redacting names of people.

So unless they are very bad at their job at gather intelligence and analyze outcomes, leaks don't cost lives unless they allow it. It like a pyromaniac telling the fire department the exact location (down to the meter) and exact time (down to the second), and what exact mechanism they intend to use to light a fire. The fire department will get annoyed and angry, and the police will likely show up, but the risk for someone to die in a fire is quite low.