Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

eviks wrote: post #4

bena wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should make a wiki for all of these leaks.

and have a catchy descriptive name for the project

Leakypedia™

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#6

Post by garciasn » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

> Why was only 1% of the documents published, in the end? “The documents are not like the WikiLeaks ones from the US state department, which were written by diplomats and, for the most part, easily understandable,” said Ewen MacAskill. “The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. There are also documents that relate to operational matters. Snowden said from the start he wanted us to report on issues related to mass surveillance, not operational matters. So we stuck to that.”

Ignoring the operational limitation requirement (of which there is no way it's 99% vs 1%), a capable public can make this determination; we do not need journalists doing it for us. I am uninterested in the journalistic value of these documents; I am interested in the public value of potentially knowing the content of those documents and how the government is surveilling us and/or abusing their authority.

>“The bottom line is that Snowden is facing charges under the Espionage Act. If he was ever to return to the US and face trial, the documents could be used against him.

Snowden knew this when he leaked the documents and he now resides, ironically, in one of the most surveilled countries in the world. He believed he was acting in the best interests on the public and is it NOT the job of journalists to protect a known source entity; they are to protect unknown sources.

Release MORE of the files, your profits and/or biased concerns for the journalistic value of the information shared be dammed. There is WAY more at stake.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#7

Post by kylebenzle » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

The answer is burried, here is the only real reason given:

When MacAskill replied: “The main reason for only a small percentage [being published] was diminishing interest [from the public]...”

This is insane. They have 99% of the leak under lock and key and they say the reason is because no one wants to see it? My guess is its a gag order/request, if they publish they will lose other access or something but why would this Ewen MacAskill, @ewenmacaskill feel comfortable lying so directly?

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#8

Post by jasmes » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

Journalistic integrity balancing with the national security interests of the most powerful nation on the planet is complicated. I am comfortable trusting the NYT to do their job.

I hope that eventually all the technical papers eventually are available out of nerdy curiosity, but I’d prefer that be through declassification and not espionage.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#9

Post by aestetix » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

> “The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. There are also documents that relate to operational matters. Snowden said from the start he wanted us to report on issues related to mass surveillance, not operational matters. So we stuck to that.”

Sorry, was the point of these revelations to increase public interest (aka to make the newspapers money), or to bring accountability against the NSA? So far there has been nothing published that would give any individual standing to bring such a lawsuit. Is this because Snowden was naive, or because the journalists sacrificed real accountability for self-interest?

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#10

Post by pphysch » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

> the files are in the New York Times office

What a sham. The NYT has openly said many times that it allows the US Government to determine what is "fit to print". How did it come to this?

I strongly believe there was some level of collusion between Greenwald & the USG. How else did he get to have a successful media career in the West, while fellow publisher/journalist Assange rots in prison?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/opinion/government-censor...