Answer: they don't leak classified info, they leak
restricted info that's effectively public domain.
Because both sound bad, there's benefits to all involved to do a little bait and switch there.
Notably, reputable publications don't play along.
This sounds disagreeable, but it's the boring truth. Some sourcing:
- "declassified information can still be considered “restricted,” and thus violates the game’s rules, [the game developer] said. In fact, the restricted manuals are available for purchase on legitimate websites."
[via Task and Purpose: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-military-sensitive-info-w...] [via Task and Purpose in another PR round: https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/war-thunder-challenger-2-...]
The UK Defence Journal is the worst offender, they're not reputable, but rather a bog-standard republisher that reliably finds a way to publish a headline on this every 6 months.
They cleverly don't assert anything themselves, but rather quote comments that are confused about classification. (i.e. compare to 2nd Task and Purpose link. same incident: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-tank-specs-leaked...)
They've also started using AI to write it up for them.
c.f. comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490191, the latest round of virality
Because both sound bad, there's benefits to all involved to do a little bait and switch there.
Notably, reputable publications don't play along.
This sounds disagreeable, but it's the boring truth. Some sourcing:
- "declassified information can still be considered “restricted,” and thus violates the game’s rules, [the game developer] said. In fact, the restricted manuals are available for purchase on legitimate websites."
[via Task and Purpose: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-military-sensitive-info-w...] [via Task and Purpose in another PR round: https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/war-thunder-challenger-2-...]
The UK Defence Journal is the worst offender, they're not reputable, but rather a bog-standard republisher that reliably finds a way to publish a headline on this every 6 months.
They cleverly don't assert anything themselves, but rather quote comments that are confused about classification. (i.e. compare to 2nd Task and Purpose link. same incident: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-tank-specs-leaked...)
They've also started using AI to write it up for them.
c.f. comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490191, the latest round of virality