3 ms·

According to the org website the report will be delivered late 2018 http://www.globalchange.gov/nca4 http://www.globalchange.gov/nca4

anigbrowl 9y ago
Yes, but why wouldn't NPR publish what they have? I'm sick of news organizations hoarding documents so they can report on the contents. Redact any information that might identify the source and release it, otherwise the news value (and by proxy, the credibility of the investigating outlet) diminishes substantially. Downvoters: the NPR article says they have obtained a copy. It's in the second sentence. So not publishing is a matter of choice on NPR's part.
- fishcolorbrick 9y ago
  What if you can't be sure what level of redaction is safe? What if your source is compromised by some watermark or steganographic content you missed? The Intercept had contacted the NSA on May 30 and sent copies of the documents to the agency, in order to confirm their veracity. The NSA notified the FBI about the situation on June 1. The FBI realized the documents had been printed out because the PDF copies sent by The Intercept "appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space".[22] Next, the NSA did an internal audit, confirming that Winner was one of six workers who had accessed the particular documents on its classified system [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner#Intelligence_report_leak_and_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner#Intelligence_re...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Print it out and scan it again. OCR it and change the fonts, say you're doing it to protect your sources. It's easy to obfuscate stuff, and sometimes you should be willing to take risks, especially when the stakes are sufficiently high. Someone was willing to take the risk of leaking it to NPR to start with.
    - fishcolorbrick 9y ago
      Someone was willing to take the risk of leaking it to NPR to start with. You're right, but when you say that one "should be willing to take risks" do you mean that the journalist should make that decision? If so I disagree; risk tolerance should be up to the source, as frustrating as it is to get news third-hand.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        I see your point, but let's also acknowledge that NPR and many other established media outlets often report on things without linking to the source material even if its freely available, so that they can maintain their audience rather than having them bounce off. Few of their science articles link back to the journal of original publication, for example, or arxiv preprints. Now as for risk tolerance, I think that should be a two-way conversation. I do think that failing to give people access to the material massively compromises public engagement.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Yes, but why wouldn't NPR publish what they have? I'm sick of news organizations hoarding documents so they can report on the contents. Redact any information that might identify the source and release it, otherwise the news value (and by proxy, the credibility of the investigating outlet) diminishes substantially. Downvoters: the NPR article says they have obtained a copy. It's in the second sentence. So not publishing is a matter of choice on NPR's part.

fishcolorbrick 9y ago
What if you can't be sure what level of redaction is safe? What if your source is compromised by some watermark or steganographic content you missed? The Intercept had contacted the NSA on May 30 and sent copies of the documents to the agency, in order to confirm their veracity. The NSA notified the FBI about the situation on June 1. The FBI realized the documents had been printed out because the PDF copies sent by The Intercept "appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space".[22] Next, the NSA did an internal audit, confirming that Winner was one of six workers who had accessed the particular documents on its classified system [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner#Intelligence_report_leak_and_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner#Intelligence_re...
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Print it out and scan it again. OCR it and change the fonts, say you're doing it to protect your sources. It's easy to obfuscate stuff, and sometimes you should be willing to take risks, especially when the stakes are sufficiently high. Someone was willing to take the risk of leaking it to NPR to start with.
  - fishcolorbrick 9y ago
    Someone was willing to take the risk of leaking it to NPR to start with. You're right, but when you say that one "should be willing to take risks" do you mean that the journalist should make that decision? If so I disagree; risk tolerance should be up to the source, as frustrating as it is to get news third-hand.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I see your point, but let's also acknowledge that NPR and many other established media outlets often report on things without linking to the source material even if its freely available, so that they can maintain their audience rather than having them bounce off. Few of their science articles link back to the journal of original publication, for example, or arxiv preprints. Now as for risk tolerance, I think that should be a two-way conversation. I do think that failing to give people access to the material massively compromises public engagement.