[AnimalMuppet]

I don't think he can give citations or evidence. He gets told some stuff in confidence. He can violate the confidence, and not be told stuff in the future. Or he can say nothing. Or he can tell us as much as he feels he can, even though that's annoyingly vague and unspecific. As far as I can see, those are his only options.

On this topic, he chose the third option, because he felt that people needed to know, even though he couldn't give specifics. It sounds like you wanted him to pick the first option. If he did, though, it would be the last time he would be able to do so, because his information would dry up.

That's the pragmatic argument. There are also some of us who feel, when you tell someone that you aren't going to blab what they told you in confidence, that you should keep your word...

[linkregister]

I think you are mischaracterizing my statement. At no point did I suggest he should violate journalistic integrity by belying his sources' confidence.

I do say that it's inappropriate to expect implicit trust after all his previous integrity failures (conjecture as fact, etc). I want to believe this article. I do believe it. But I also can't rely on it, as his track record shows that given the topic of computer security, he will even present unfounded speculation to Congress as fact if given the opportunity.

[whiddershins]

Can you please do as you say, and provide specific citations and examples of his conjectures framed as fact?