7 ms·

> 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 dip

> 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. There are also documents that relate to operational matters. Snowden said from the start he wanted us to report on issues related to mass surveillance, not operational matters. So we stuck to that.” Ignoring the operational limitation requirement (of which there is no way it's 99% vs 1%), a capable public can make this determination; we do not need journalists doing it for us. I am uninterested in the journalistic value of these documents; I am interested in the public value of potentially knowing the content of those documents and how the government is surveilling us and/or abusing their authority. >“The bottom line is that Snowden is facing charges under the Espionage Act. If he was ever to return to the US and face trial, the documents could be used against him. Snowden knew this when he leaked the documents and he now resides, ironically, in one of the most surveilled countries in the world. He believed he was acting in the best interests on the public and is it NOT the job of journalists to protect a known source entity; they are to protect unknown sources. Release MORE of the files, your profits and/or biased concerns for the journalistic value of the information shared be dammed. There is WAY more at stake.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Yes, wouldn't the document still be used against him even if he just leaked to journalists.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  Exactly, the reasons given are simply not logical.
saulpw 3y ago
> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.
- believecty 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    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.
    - criddell 3y ago
      I think they probably agree with saulpw and referencing the COVID stuff is a funny way to make that point.
      - entropicdrifter 3y ago
        I'd love to believe that, but they made a new account just to make that comment. I'm guessing it's unironic.
        believecty 3y ago
        On HN, you have to frequently make a new account. Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned.
        entropicdrifter 3y ago
        >Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned. Have you considered the possibility that you're being ignored because you're unpopular and the algorithms just make that more convenient? Nah, you're right, everyone's out to get you
    - ForOldHack 3y ago
      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 full of references, as there are a few hundred, but ... just do not waste your time.
criddell 3y ago
They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.
- garciasn 3y ago
  The reasoning in the article is primarily about how the journalists felt there was fatigue/reduced demand/lack of ability to understand/etc, aside from the comment about censoring the operational pieces, there was little mention of Snowden's wishes. So, based on the article, we shouldn't be blindly trustful of the journalists' thoughts on this matter; they are clearly biased toward the information published as well as the value it brings their brand (individual or employer).
  - schoen 3y ago
    I'm surprised that they didn't bring up their agreement with Snowden in this context. Maybe the interviewer somehow didn't ask them about that aspect?
- schoen 3y ago
  Yeah, if journalists simply bypassed the agreement, a future source might say "OK, I want to expose this bad thing that a government agency is doing, but if I do, the journalists will probably be careless about it and people will get killed" (or whatever the case may be). If Snowden himself had had to redact everything ahead of time, or study everything in fine detail beforehand to determine all the implications of publishing it, he wouldn't have been able to leak nearly as much material.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  Yep a huge reason (some) people don’t like Snowden is because he leaked extremely classified information. I’m sure he himself only wanted to give away information that exposed the NSA’s surveillance network and only actually distributing the documents he leaked that are relevant to that point is his goal
giantg2 3y ago
"of which there is no way it's 99% vs 1%" It very well could be. People with a background jnnsocial engineering know there are many small and seemingly innocuous pieces of information that could be useful to an attacker.
darkclouds 3y ago
[dead]
cheschire 3y ago
I agree this comes off as patronizing and profit driven. Only 1% of the documents are relevant today. They're holding the 99% until they feel they're relevant to current events so they can break the story. I wonder what motivated this story to be published.
logifail 3y ago
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
RobertRoberts 3y ago
Snowden was _trapped_ in Russia. He was on his way to a country with no extradition and his passport was revoked, it's worth looking up to know that he didn't chose Russia.
- garciasn 3y ago
  I said he resides there and it’s ironic; I didn’t say he chose it.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

Yes, wouldn't the document still be used against him even if he just leaked to journalists.

kylebenzle 3y ago
Exactly, the reasons given are simply not logical.

saulpw 3y ago

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

believecty 3y ago
[flagged]
- deanCommie 3y ago
  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.
  - criddell 3y ago
    I think they probably agree with saulpw and referencing the COVID stuff is a funny way to make that point.
    - entropicdrifter 3y ago
      I'd love to believe that, but they made a new account just to make that comment. I'm guessing it's unironic.
      - believecty 3y ago
        On HN, you have to frequently make a new account. Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned.
        entropicdrifter 3y ago
        >Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned. Have you considered the possibility that you're being ignored because you're unpopular and the algorithms just make that more convenient? Nah, you're right, everyone's out to get you
  - ForOldHack 3y ago
    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 full of references, as there are a few hundred, but ... just do not waste your time.

criddell 3y ago

They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.

garciasn 3y ago
The reasoning in the article is primarily about how the journalists felt there was fatigue/reduced demand/lack of ability to understand/etc, aside from the comment about censoring the operational pieces, there was little mention of Snowden's wishes. So, based on the article, we shouldn't be blindly trustful of the journalists' thoughts on this matter; they are clearly biased toward the information published as well as the value it brings their brand (individual or employer).
- schoen 3y ago
  I'm surprised that they didn't bring up their agreement with Snowden in this context. Maybe the interviewer somehow didn't ask them about that aspect?
schoen 3y ago
Yeah, if journalists simply bypassed the agreement, a future source might say "OK, I want to expose this bad thing that a government agency is doing, but if I do, the journalists will probably be careless about it and people will get killed" (or whatever the case may be). If Snowden himself had had to redact everything ahead of time, or study everything in fine detail beforehand to determine all the implications of publishing it, he wouldn't have been able to leak nearly as much material.
Shawnj2 3y ago
Yep a huge reason (some) people don’t like Snowden is because he leaked extremely classified information. I’m sure he himself only wanted to give away information that exposed the NSA’s surveillance network and only actually distributing the documents he leaked that are relevant to that point is his goal

giantg2 3y ago

"of which there is no way it's 99% vs 1%" It very well could be. People with a background jnnsocial engineering know there are many small and seemingly innocuous pieces of information that could be useful to an attacker.

darkclouds 3y ago

[dead]

cheschire 3y ago

I agree this comes off as patronizing and profit driven. Only 1% of the documents are relevant today. They're holding the 99% until they feel they're relevant to current events so they can break the story. I wonder what motivated this story to be published.

logifail 3y ago

> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

RobertRoberts 3y ago

Snowden was _trapped_ in Russia. He was on his way to a country with no extradition and his passport was revoked, it's worth looking up to know that he didn't chose Russia.

garciasn 3y ago
I said he resides there and it’s ironic; I didn’t say he chose it.