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

81–90 of 141 posts

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

#81

Post by throw0101c »

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.

> Remember, the purpose of journalism is to make money - news is a product like any other.

To make money is the purpose of journalism as much as eating or breathing are the purpose of your life, i.e. they are not.

They're just the bare necessity that needs to be done to continue to exist so that you can do more 'important' things (see Maslow hierarchy).

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

#82

Post by feoren »

riversflow wrote: post #62
schoen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is very hard to justify on national security grounds I think the people doing this have a completely different notion of national security than the general public, one that includes a supposed right to know about surprises in general and big events in general , not just about bad guys plotting to attack you. For example, they might believe that details of economic activity, prices, religious movements, relati…

Huh. I completely agree with this justification for spying, to the point I would be upset if they weren’t spying in this way. To me spy craft is where personal ethics become less important than realpolitik. The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook. That’s the governments job. On what grounds does Petrobras have any right to privacy…

Please see my sibling comment to yours for three reasons why this is a terrible justification for spying.

> The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook

We can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in important markets with publicly available information. Why is this the job of a spy agency and not its economics departments? I would like the U.S. to have a strong understanding of upcoming weather patterns, but that doesn't mean we ask the CIA to spy on everyone who's using aerosol sprays.

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

#83

Post by saalweachter »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #77
riversflow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. I completely agree with this justification for spying, to the point I would be upset if they weren’t spying in this way. To me spy craft is where personal ethics become less important than realpolitik. The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook. That’s the governments job. On what grounds does Petrobras have any right to privacy…

Presumably the same grounds that the US DoE has a right privacy, a right not to be spied on by Brazil.

Do organizations and governments have rights?

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

#84

Post by logifail »

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…

> Snowden knew this when he leaked the documents and he now resides, ironically, in one of the most surveilled countries in the world

Just to put the end of that sentence in context:

"Privacy International's 2007 survey, covering 47 countries, indicated that there had been an increase in surveillance and a decline in the performance of privacy safeguards, compared to the previous year. Balancing these factors, eight countries were rated as being 'endemic surveillance societies'. Of these eight, China, Malaysia and Russia scored lowest, followed jointly by Singapore and the United Kingdom, then jointly by Taiwan, Thailand and the United States."[0]

There are many, many reasons to criticize Russia - now more than ever - but those of us in the West should reflect on why we rate so poorly on this, too.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance

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

#86

Post by wubrr »

Zigurd wrote: post #65
believecty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In a total of three comments, this guy (and it IS a guy, for sure) accumulated -9 karma and provided another data point that crackpottery is always interdisciplinary: 2 on vaccines, and one on FEMA conspiracy theories. Bravo. Take a bow.

Your only point is that people disagree/downvote his point? Literally just a textbook example of ad populum and nothing else?

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by shwaj »

ForOldHack wrote: post #54
antoinebalaine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Valarie Plame.

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

#89

Post by pphysch »

dadrian wrote: post #51
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.

Come on, let's not be naive. If the USG wanted to persecute Greenwald, they would have come up with something.

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

#90

Post by wubrr »

ForOldHack wrote: post #53
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.

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…

You shouldn't insult people just because you disagree with their point.

Your anecdotal experience isn't exactly meaningful here, especially when that's the only 'evidence' you include instead of the 'few hundred references' you supposedly have (read?).

I got 2 mRNA vaccines, and I got non-asymptomatic covid twice after getting the vaccines.

I'd like to see more discussion on this topic in an open, respectful manner. Your comment is the opposite of that.

Post reply on HN