Quoted post unavailable.
do you honestly believe that?
"comon maaan"
Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#52I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…
Of course and that’s how we get our civil rights eroded. Revolving door between security apparatus and news agency. Why do the media have fifth amendment protection then I may ask.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#53Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#54The Obama-Biden WhiteHouse, make it clear who was in control of the US at that time.
It’s the same people calling the shots for this regime.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say "television news" I said "reputable media". And no, none of them have any legal obligation whatsoever to do anything really (aside from slander/libel). What they do and don't publish is weighed against their mission and their reputation. If the mission is "spread outrage and generate ad revenue" they'll publish whatever sounds sexy. I (full disclosure) work for a non-profit newsroom that has a genuine mi…
You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
> what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care about such high quality news as long as it follows some ideological line. Lack of access is important, but readers are way more important.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#56I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…
> very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest.
I would reformulate that so that security agencies have to do that calculus too and it is suspected that they do often calculate wrongly.
There is not a single example contrary to more information available to the public. There can be exceptions for immediate cases, but if you rely on information to stay hidden from the public for an extended period of time, it is a fault in your security architecture.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#57I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…
There are real cases where this is true and it's the responsibility of a news organization to weigh the public good against the consequences of sharing information and being very selective about what secrets to publish. You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by publishing literally everything they get their hands on (Wikileaks) or acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of…
> You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by ... acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice).
But this is what they are actually doing. They saw some time ago that being in conflict with the state does not help revenue.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#58I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…
> ... i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable What makes you think so? For example, the German government prevented a number of terror attacks by monitoring electronic chat and mail exchange.
The German government is not a good example for well behaved governments, especially in regards to individual rights and free expression.
Fear drives surveillance ambitions and some stereotypes have some merit.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
> what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access. The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care…
Yes, paying customers and advertisers are a very important part of that calculus, I agree. We know from the work done by Soley and Craig [1] that newspapers will refrain from publishing unflattering stories that could jeopardize major sponsorships. None of this changes the principle argument that the driving calculus for major news organizations is profit driven instead of driven by public interest.
Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was extremely careful in the docs he permitted to be released. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.
He also should have had some help from the news agency in them asking him for his opinion and using some of their own judgment about which parts of it to publishin case he accidentally shared anything in such a large group of documents. That probably also happened. I think it's telling that multiple administrations have failed to come forward and promise him a fair trial, let alone any sort of deal, commutation, or p…
Everybody is guaranteed a fair trial. Why should anybody pardon somebody who hasn't been sentenced?