or for that matter the dealer may be a Fed or an informant.
The dual-use feature of information is a given. Information system designers and operators play a dual role in every field from religion to education to government to FOI to security and to law, the latter two in particular. Open source has always been dual-use, and the usage of the term is a sure sign of duplicity, indeed in most cases asymmetrically so. The DNI is one of the few who has admitted that is how spy agencies use the term, but looking at other uses it seems clear that it is a cloak for deception to a greater or lesser degree, primarily to get information swapping going in a particular direction to favor the initiator. Early adopters commonly promise high ROI then gradually shift to less return and more profits as confidence in the product grows and the opportunity for exploiting that confidence attracts shrewder investors. Vulture capitalists, as if there are any other kind, are especially adept at this. Informants, insiders, administrators, judges, arbiters, trusted grammarians, language police, third parties, confessors, lovers, teenagers luring Breibarts to smear congresscritters, bitcoiners, digital moneymakers, security do-gooders and evildoers, and skeptics of all these, is there any question of their pervasive dual-usage to tip the rewards toward themselves? Put them on a pinhead to see them bleat. This is not about the major religions and governments only, but any initiative to induce confidence in one belief and suspicion about others. Without that duality there would no pro- and anti-thinkers and tinkerers always working in cahoots as if an irrefutable scientific proof of the absence of god. They too two-dance pinheadedly. Informing is ordinary behavior, and its takes little inducement to open source the spigot. Mild disagreement will usually work. Even better is dinging the tip jar.