Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by garciasn » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #30

garciasn wrote: post #6

> 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. The…

They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.

The reasoning in the article is primarily about how the journalists felt there was fatigue/reduced demand/lack of ability to understand/etc, aside from the comment about censoring the operational pieces, there was little mention of Snowden's wishes.

So, based on the article, we shouldn't be blindly trustful of the journalists' thoughts on this matter; they are clearly biased toward the information published as well as the value it brings their brand (individual or employer).

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

#42

Post by antoinebalaine » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #10

> 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/2…

Checking in with USG before publishing leaks is actually fairly standard procedure in order to avoid operatives on foreign soil being endangered. Wikileaks did so at everyone of the major releases they did in conjunction with NYT, WSJ, spiegel and Le monde - it's also the reason they stopped collaborating with some of those journals when they found out some of their journalists hadn't followed procedures. And it's also the reason why claims from USG that WL was endangering people's lives abroad were always bogus.

About NYT withholding documents: well, that's just another nail in the coffin of the paper's credibility, along with yet another betrayal of the trust they got from WL...

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

#43

Post by entropicdrifter » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #33

saulpw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

True the average person can't do that. However there are many organisations who can analyze different aspects from different perspectives and pull out consumable information from it. By having the raw material available this then can be cross-ckecked. If it's kept secret you need complete trust.

Unfortunately there are several times as many organizations who will take an undecipherable wall of text as an excuse to push their pre-existing beliefs and agendas with cherry-picked out of context quotes, intentionally misleading interpretations, and bad faith arguments.

Bad faith actors would use it and a pile of techniques used mainly by religions and cults in order to try to seize power.

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

#44

Post by netsharc » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #10

> 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/2…

Snowden has said he picked Greenwald/The Guardian over NYT because he knew Greenwald had the journalistic integrity not to squash the story/defer to the government, meanwhile NYT delayed publication of a story to after the 2004 Dubya reelection when requested.

As to Greenwald's media career? He seems to have gone really fringe the last few years, but maybe I'm saying this because I believe the mainstream Russia and Trump 2016 story, and he seems convinced about US mainstream media incompetence/deference, but he just sounds angry all the time...

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

#45

Post by jerf » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

saulpw wrote: post #21

garciasn wrote: post #6

> 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. The…

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

The public is not capable of creating an open source ecosystem of highly technical software spanning almost every software genre with multiple options across decades.

The public is not just the bottom most or the average member. It's everyone. If "the public" is not capable of understanding this information neither are the members of "the public" normally producing and consuming this information.

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

#46

Post by olddustytrail » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:14 PM UTC

saulpw wrote: post #21

garciasn wrote: post #6

> 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. The…

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

Yes I am. You might not be but don't I count as "the public"?

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

#47

Post by wubrr » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:14 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #12

kylebenzle wrote: post #7

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…

Remember, the purpose of journalism is to make money - news is a product like any other. A story people aren't as interested in anymore is a story that doesn't make as much revenue.

You're ignoring the role of the state and intelligence agencies in shaping the media and what's reported. If you look at any war, conflict, theory about adversaries, etc. - the news in Western (and equivalently any other region) mainstream media is almost always completely aligned with the government positions and the position of the 'intelligence community' (CIA/NSA). So, yeah media/news is strongly driven by profit, but the ability for the organization to exist and continue to make profit is very dependent on having the right political alignment/spin.

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

#48

Post by schoen » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:14 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #30

garciasn wrote: post #6

> 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. The…

They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.

Yeah, if journalists simply bypassed the agreement, a future source might say "OK, I want to expose this bad thing that a government agency is doing, but if I do, the journalists will probably be careless about it and people will get killed" (or whatever the case may be).

If Snowden himself had had to redact everything ahead of time, or study everything in fine detail beforehand to determine all the implications of publishing it, he wouldn't have been able to leak nearly as much material.

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

#49

Post by schoen » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:15 PM UTC

garciasn wrote: post #41

criddell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.

The reasoning in the article is primarily about how the journalists felt there was fatigue/reduced demand/lack of ability to understand/etc, aside from the comment about censoring the operational pieces, there was little mention of Snowden's wishes. So, based on the article, we shouldn't be blindly trustful of the journalists' thoughts on this matter; they are clearly biased toward the information published as well a…

I'm surprised that they didn't bring up their agreement with Snowden in this context. Maybe the interviewer somehow didn't ask them about that aspect?

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

#50

Post by entropicdrifter » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 7:15 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #34

deanCommie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to be clarify, is your point that the MRNA vaccines do not work, but ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine do? I don't have a response, I just want to make sure I understand precisely what your statement meant.

I think they probably agree with saulpw and referencing the COVID stuff is a funny way to make that point.

I'd love to believe that, but they made a new account just to make that comment. I'm guessing it's unironic.