3 ms·

There is a stark difference between contextless, abject whistleblowing and marketed whistleblowing. The latter, which they argue against, is unfortunately requi

There is a stark difference between contextless, abject whistleblowing and marketed whistleblowing. The latter, which they argue against, is unfortunately required to reach the masses. They mention that Snowden should not have gone to a [semi] major media outlet but instead to others who have exposed similar issues. Doesn't the fact that most don't know who those others are refute their exact point? More importantly, does the benefit of mass consumption of the narrative outweigh the cost of not releasing everything and financially incentivizing the releasers? I say yes.

uxp 11y ago
Whenever I hear of Cryptome complaining, semi-regularly, about the cache of Snowden documents being trickled into public existence, all I can think of is how they published a ripped copy of Citizenfour because of the stupid lawsuit a former naval officer brought against Snowden which put the DVD in evidence, of which they thought that it was now "public" material. I'm fine with Cryptome wanting the full cache, but I'm not fine with anyone wanting to blindly publish the entire archive without vetting any of it. Cryptome doesn't seem to have the history of wanting to vet and possibly redact information, which will do nothing except provide fodder for those who argue against the idea of the leaked documents without providing critique against the contents of the documents.
2close4comfort 11y ago
" financially incentivizing the releasers " I like that plus given the evidence so far it does show what their motivation really is...
- EdHominem 11y ago
  All the government anti-whistleblower types are financially incentivized to hold their opinions.
  - 2close4comfort 11y ago
    I think the government counts on this to dissuade most from whistle-blowing. That is why it takes someone who is willing to take that risk.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  The problem is that if you're a rational thinker you have to make sure you're able to make a living after doing something that is likely to ruin your career. For example, how many companies would hire Snowden to do the same type of IT work he was doing before? I wonder how many incredibly important leaks never happened because there wasn't enough "financial incentive."
crossdiver 11y ago
My 2¢. 1) "Reaching the masses" is patronizing. "The masses" don't really care that they are being spied upon. Patronizing them will not change that. 2) The real change comes from hackers, companies, and activists' direct action. These shakers don't act based on major media, but on real people digging up actionable shit. Actionable shit has been dug up by lots of people who are otherwise unknown. 3) Motive is always clouded by capitalism. Financially incentivizing releasers directly calls motive into question.

uxp 11y ago

Whenever I hear of Cryptome complaining, semi-regularly, about the cache of Snowden documents being trickled into public existence, all I can think of is how they published a ripped copy of Citizenfour because of the stupid lawsuit a former naval officer brought against Snowden which put the DVD in evidence, of which they thought that it was now "public" material. I'm fine with Cryptome wanting the full cache, but I'm not fine with anyone wanting to blindly publish the entire archive without vetting any of it. Cryptome doesn't seem to have the history of wanting to vet and possibly redact information, which will do nothing except provide fodder for those who argue against the idea of the leaked documents without providing critique against the contents of the documents.

2close4comfort 11y ago

" financially incentivizing the releasers " I like that plus given the evidence so far it does show what their motivation really is...

EdHominem 11y ago
All the government anti-whistleblower types are financially incentivized to hold their opinions.
- 2close4comfort 11y ago
  I think the government counts on this to dissuade most from whistle-blowing. That is why it takes someone who is willing to take that risk.
Consultant32452 11y ago
The problem is that if you're a rational thinker you have to make sure you're able to make a living after doing something that is likely to ruin your career. For example, how many companies would hire Snowden to do the same type of IT work he was doing before? I wonder how many incredibly important leaks never happened because there wasn't enough "financial incentive."

crossdiver 11y ago

My 2¢. 1) "Reaching the masses" is patronizing. "The masses" don't really care that they are being spied upon. Patronizing them will not change that. 2) The real change comes from hackers, companies, and activists' direct action. These shakers don't act based on major media, but on real people digging up actionable shit. Actionable shit has been dug up by lots of people who are otherwise unknown. 3) Motive is always clouded by capitalism. Financially incentivizing releasers directly calls motive into question.