Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

computerweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

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

#51

Post by dadrian »

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…

Oh, that's easy. It's because Assange committed crimes that Greenwald did not.

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

#52

Post by darkclouds »

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…

[dead]

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

#53

Post by ForOldHack »

deanCommie wrote: post #29
believecty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

The point is, his post is from a lunatical radical conspiracy theorist, and can only be construed as 'The sheeple did no research." Personally, I received 3 mRNA vaccines, and I got a-symptomatic Covid-19. No symptoms. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were shown to do nothing, except the placebo effect, lure the sheeple into a false sense of security, and then Un-alive them, like Herman Cain. I would pump this post full of references, as there are a few hundred, but ... just do not waste your time.

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

#54

Post by ForOldHack »

antoinebalaine wrote: post #42
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 al…

"...avoid operatives on foreign soil being endangered." See Valarie Plume affair.

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

#55

Post by giantg2 »

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…

"of which there is no way it's 99% vs 1%"

It very well could be. People with a background jnnsocial engineering know there are many small and seemingly innocuous pieces of information that could be useful to an attacker.

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

#56

Post by user_7832 »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #26
duxup wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How did it come to this? Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be? It's a tough situation because the government may not be a trusted partner, but I understand asking / trying to avoid collateral damage.

> Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be? With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

> With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

It isn't "with this". In a way (in recent history) it always has been. Case in point, almost any political event. See what the NYT publishes on the Israel-Gaza conflict, in comparison with any middleeast/asian outlet. I'm not saying that this is always on purpose, it's likely a lot of it is human bias - but it doesn't change the fact that journalistic organizations have bias, and you need to read different papers for a complete picture.

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

#57

Post by mbakke »

photochemsyn wrote: post #17

Snowden made a mistake in not dumping the whole archive to Wikileaks as was done with the US State Department cables and the CIA's Vault 7 files. I think there's probably a lot more in those files that's of great embarrassment not just to the NSA and the US government in general (such as proof that it was conducting an illegal warrantless mass surveillance program in violation of US law) - but also to their collabora…

They were also tapping the private network links of the Norwegian oil company Equinor (formerly Statoil) according to the original leaks.

It's kind of odd that neither of these oil giants have put pressure on the U.S. government as a result. They are about the only "victims" big enough to pursue the case legally.

I suspect a Supreme Court case is just about the only thing that can bring some of the remaining documents to light. Anyone with access today is almost certainly under some gag order.

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

#58

Post by saghm »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #43
johannes1234321 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but they do that anyways, and it's not like holding the documents in secrecy is somehow crippling the ability of bad-faith actors to act in bad faith. If anything, it allows them to claim things _without_ good faith actors being able to scrutinize their claims.

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

#59

Post by feoren »

pauldenton wrote: post #24
jasmes wrote: post #8

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.

Just like they did in 2003 with WMDs in Iraq? Or when they said that Trump colluded with the Russians and that's why he got elected? At least the journalists who said Saddam had WMDs didn't get a Pulitzer Prize, like those reporting on Russiagate did back in 2018. https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/the-absurd-russiagate-pulitzer... Meanwhile NYPost breaks the Hunter Biden Laptop story and gets banned from every major soci…

> Meanwhile NYPost breaks the Hunter Biden Laptop story and gets banned from every major social media and tech site for saying the truth, while NYT and Washington Post get Pulitzer Prizes for telling lies

"Truth" and "lies" mean something different than "things that emotionally resonate with me based on my a-priori beliefs" and "things that make me angry". It's weird that it's so easy for us humans to forget that. Or perhaps it's "things the correct people say" vs. "things those other people say"? Not sure which definitions you're using here.

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

#60

Post by noman-land »

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.

Whether you like it or not, this is not your determination to make.
Post reply on HN