O'Brien is right that no trustworthy anonymity is possible over a public network like the Internet due to the basic design of the Internet to track its use. At best there are varying degrees of trustworthiness such as Tor-like widgets, the semi-classified milnet and intelnets, somewhat isolated nets like BlackNet and Darknet, partially-hidden encrypted paths, kind of cloaked nets, ineptly-cloaked multi-level proxies and subterfuges, and more that proffer protection but suffer in all cases from limiting adjectives of partiality and depending upon outwitting a user and an opponent by preening, obscuritism black magic formulas, algorithmic daredevilry, superlative-slathered acronymic technology for quasi-concealed transmission beyond belief. This is not to say that the legacy means of shoe leather, deep throats, drops, brown packages, cranium crypto, homing pigeons, "unbreakable math," were any less porous or less subject to dreamy exaggeration, black bagging, bribes, sex stings, vanity and stupidity. What hope for noble journalism (not the same as cranky, cantakerous, paranoid, ill-paid journalists) remains, though, is the gullibility of sources to believe their risk is protected by journalistic ethics as good as those of lawyers, doctors, architects, bankers, officials and BFFs. "Sources" is an asymmetrical term of artifice not to be believed. STFU or publish yourself or be gulled by the allure of never-anonymous infame. "Liberationtech," too, smells of tech sting.