[gamblor956]

For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.

We don't. The government is also not the only entity that can perform forensics on purported documents. News companies do it all the time, and their are hundreds of e-forensics firms in the US and EU that could happily do it for a fee. There's also thousands of people with access to Twitter and the spare time to dig into any purported document leaks to verify them for accuracy. In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.

[AnthonyMouse]

Forensics on digital documents can be a lot of pseudo-science, especially when you're talking about text documents and spreadsheets. Legitimate documents can have as many anomalies as a half decent forgery.

Confirmation is having somebody to go to the place and see if the materials alleged to be there are actually there. Unless you're lucky enough for them to be clearly and unambiguously visible from public space, that means you need some kind of authorization to go in and have a look. A picture of an unknown container is not very helpful.

> In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.

What's wrong with bringing them privately to the subset of the parties whose interest is in fixing the problem?