3 ms·

I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - w

I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did." I also found another tweet by him that says (in reply to someone) " There are all sorts of secrets I have I'm not publishing - it's public interest v. harm analysis at the heart of journalism." [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v [2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v I hope he's making a good judgement call on not releasing the technical information. A lot of people are already writing this presentation off as fake and meaningless.

cromwellian 13y ago
Right, so now there's no way to verify his claims. Accuse the Tech companies of not being truthful when they say that don't allow the NSA arbitrary access, but then offer no details that would actually substantiate the interpretation you made of the slides. How very convenient. And how would divulging the NSA's program not harm their collection, but divulging the details would? If I'm the Germans and using Enigma, knowing that it was cracked, but not how it was cracked, would still get me to change my behavior. If I'm Bin Laden, I don't have to know the technical details of how my satellite phone was tracked, just that they were doing it. The harm has already been done, and now the harm to these tech companies is being continued with daily innuendo and no hard evidence. How much longer can this go on? Can the Guardian just keep going on for months making allegations without hard evidence?