Due to the investigation into the Secret Service involvement with #AaronSwartz we have decided to disclose the following facts (1-3) — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 19, 2013 
 
 The Secret Service took over Swartz's case two days prior to his arrest, according The Verge. Aaron Swartz assisted WikiLeaks #aaronwartz (1/3) — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 19, 2013 
 
 2. It also disclosed that Swartz, who committed suicide last week, was "in communication" with founder Julian Assange during 2010 and 2011. We have strong reasons to believe, but cannot prove, that Aaron Swartz was a WikiLeaks source. #aaronswartz — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 19, 2013 
 
 A caution: we can't say what this really means when it comes to Aaron Swartz. In a series of tweets, Wikileaks claimed Saturday that late Internet activist and hacker Aaron Swartz was an ally and possible source for the organization. Here's an excerpt from WikiLeaks' policy on anonymity for sources (bolding ours): 
 
 As far as we can ascertain, WikiLeaks has never revealed any of its sources. "We cannot provide details about the security of our media organization or its anonymous drop box for sources because to do so would help those who would like to compromise the security of our organization and its sources."
– Aaron Swartz may have been a WikiLeaks source, the group said on its Twitter feed over the weekend. In a series of tweets, WikiLeaks said that activist and hacker Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month while awaiting trial on computer fraud charges, "assisted" the organization and "was in communication with Julian Assange, including during 2010 and 2011," Mashable reports. But the tweets did not go so far as to name Swartz as a WikiLeaks source, only saying, "We have strong reasons to believe, but cannot prove, that" he was. WikiLeaks also noted that its disclosure was due to the Secret Service's involvement—it had taken over the investigation two days before Swartz was arrested, the Verge reported last weekend. Now, the Verge also notes that these tweets from WikiLeaks could be implying that the Secret Service was targeting Swartz in order to attack WikiLeaks, but that "taking that implied claim at face value would be irresponsible without more evidence"—because it could also just be a grab for attention by WikiLeaks. (The website also notes that WikiLeaks may have just violated its own policy regarding anonymity.)