4 ms·

> Keep the leaks coming world! Seriously. I can't imagine how something like this, or Snowden's docs, could have leaked in the pre-internet days. It's so easy

> Keep the leaks coming world! Seriously. I can't imagine how something like this, or Snowden's docs, could have leaked in the pre-internet days. It's so easy to replicate & distribute information now, and the process by which stories make the "front page" is so democratic.

simoncion 11y ago
I'm not snarking. You've heard about the Pentagon Papers? The NSA domestic surveillance documents were at least as big as the Pentagon Papers. They would have been national news.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
>I can't imagine how something like this, or Snowden's docs, could have leaked in the pre-internet days. No imagination needed. The Pentagon Papers, Deepthroat, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Hutchinson Letters, Mordechai Vanunu, and The Iran–Contra affair all predated the internet. Thats just off the top of my head.
- datashovel 11y ago
  I totally respect all of those examples on their merits, but IMO if these are the best examples out there, they all (even aggregated together as a single leak) pale in comparison to Snowden leaks.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    1) I'm not sure that I agree with your judgement of the significance of those events. 2) Doesn't it stand to reason that papers that are more significant than those that were previously published are almost certain to be published, given that papers of lesser importance were published?
    - datashovel 11y ago
      I wouldn't argue that the events weren't significant. They almost certainly captured just as many headlines as the Snowden leaks have. I'm mostly making a comparison between the information that was leaked. Stakes are higher when there's more significant information to be published, so I would say it's not necessarily obvious to me that more significant information is more likely to be published.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        Perhaps it will bring you clarity to understand that the first place this information was published was The Guardian. [0] It's a British newspaper that circulates physical papers, in addition to its Internet publication. It's possible that in this day and age no US papers would have picked up the story, limiting its impact in the US. However, a story this large and important would have been picked up in the 1970's, just as the Pentagon Papers and other such stories were. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

simoncion 11y ago

I'm not snarking. You've heard about the Pentagon Papers? The NSA domestic surveillance documents were at least as big as the Pentagon Papers. They would have been national news.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

>I can't imagine how something like this, or Snowden's docs, could have leaked in the pre-internet days. No imagination needed. The Pentagon Papers, Deepthroat, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Hutchinson Letters, Mordechai Vanunu, and The Iran–Contra affair all predated the internet. Thats just off the top of my head.

datashovel 11y ago
I totally respect all of those examples on their merits, but IMO if these are the best examples out there, they all (even aggregated together as a single leak) pale in comparison to Snowden leaks.
- simoncion 11y ago
  1) I'm not sure that I agree with your judgement of the significance of those events. 2) Doesn't it stand to reason that papers that are more significant than those that were previously published are almost certain to be published, given that papers of lesser importance were published?
  - datashovel 11y ago
    I wouldn't argue that the events weren't significant. They almost certainly captured just as many headlines as the Snowden leaks have. I'm mostly making a comparison between the information that was leaked. Stakes are higher when there's more significant information to be published, so I would say it's not necessarily obvious to me that more significant information is more likely to be published.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Perhaps it will bring you clarity to understand that the first place this information was published was The Guardian. [0] It's a British newspaper that circulates physical papers, in addition to its Internet publication. It's possible that in this day and age no US papers would have picked up the story, limiting its impact in the US. However, a story this large and important would have been picked up in the 1970's, just as the Pentagon Papers and other such stories were. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian