[JaimeThompson]

What ever happened to all that banking information that Wikileaks said they would release?

"Wikileaks honcho Julian Assange told Andy Greenberg at Forbes that he was in possession of a trove of documents that "could take down a bank or two." The documents wouldn't necessarily show illegality but they would reveal an "ecosystem of corruption" at one of the biggest banks in the United States. Wikileaks would release it "early next year." "

https://www.cnbc.com/id/42762811

[542458]

There are a bunch of documents that wikileaks has, at various times, claimed they’d release then have never mentioned again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Claims_of_upcoming...

TBH, this bit in particular of wikileaks has always felt really scummy/sketchy to me. If you have the docs and have verified them and believe they are journalistically important then release them without delay. In every other scenario, why are you talking about them publicly?

[einpoklum]

There are legitimate reasons for delayed releases, like fact-checking and cross-referencing, leaker security, Wikileaks operatives' own security, coordinations with establishment press channels and possibly others.

Still, it's certainly better to limit such claims and it does feel a bit sketchy when they don't eventually publish something.

[542458]

I'm not saying they shouldn't fact check - rather, if they aren't sure about a leak, it's irresponsible of them to talk about it before they're sure! Same goes for security - if delaying a leak helps security, surely it helps even more if you don't speak about it at all until ready to release.

Furthermore, announcing leaks gives the orgs being leaked on time to get their story straight and destroy evidence, so I'm really skeptical that announcing leaks like that is the responsible course of action.