4 ms·

>Mr. Snowden has now turned over archives of “thousands” of documents, according to Mr. Greenwald, and “dozens” are newsworthy. And now we all have to wait unt

by chm 13y ago

>Mr. Snowden has now turned over archives of “thousands” of documents, according to Mr. Greenwald, and “dozens” are newsworthy. And now we all have to wait until The Guardian is finished analyzing everything, covering its ass while making sure to take in a maximum amount of profits. That's an issue I haven't heard people complain about yet. Why not make everything public? The information is getting combed... again!

ISL 13y ago
Snowden can make it public at any time too, I suspect. If things aren't going at his pace, he can probably speed it up. It's in his interest, as well as The Guardian/WP's, to make the largest possible impact. This is his only shot.
- soup10 13y ago
  I don't get what else there is to disclose. Snowden confirms that the NSA's has "horrifying capabilities" when it comes to collecting data. It sounds like with enough reason to and time they can bug any network and computer anywhere. Which considering they are the most powerful intelligence agency, seems likely to be true and getting more true.
jckt 13y ago
I'd say a lot of people actually prefer it that way. A lot of people complained that the initial WikiLeaks releases (the cables, specifically) were too "dangerous" -- many names belonging to American servicemen, etc. It was only later when the NYT, Spiegel and Guardian versions, which redacted a lot of information, did the anger subside. IMO it's not so unreasonable, though this case is not identical to the one I cite.
- chm 13y ago
  I for one can't make up my mind if this is a blockbuster or a non-story. As many others, I need more details to get a clearer picture.
lurchpop 13y ago
The approach they might also be taking is to wait for politicians to really start lying about it, then release a new part exposing the lie. sort of like what happend with the slide PPT slide that seems to contradict all the corporate denials.
damian2000 13y ago
Better something than nothing. One of the few papers in the world with enough guts to publish at all, I'm glad The Guardian got it to be honest.
- dlib 13y ago
  Indeed, the Guardian's recent track record is remarkable. It takes a lot of guts to defy the powers that be again and again. All the journalists involved must live under the assumption that their phones are tapped and their travel patterns monitored. The Guardian must be a major target for intelligence agencies.
znowi 13y ago
I'm curious why would he not send the files over to Wikileaks? At least for safe-keeping. If The Guardian suddenly gets a gag order, it's done.
timw6n 13y ago
> while making sure to take in a maximum amount of profits The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, a UK non-profit, so perhaps at least some of your cynicism is unwarranted. Of course they will want to keep this running for a while, releasing everything at once would lead to significant stuff getting buried and would reduce Snowden's overall impact.

by chm 13y ago

ISL 13y ago

Snowden can make it public at any time too, I suspect. If things aren't going at his pace, he can probably speed it up. It's in his interest, as well as The Guardian/WP's, to make the largest possible impact. This is his only shot.

soup10 13y ago
I don't get what else there is to disclose. Snowden confirms that the NSA's has "horrifying capabilities" when it comes to collecting data. It sounds like with enough reason to and time they can bug any network and computer anywhere. Which considering they are the most powerful intelligence agency, seems likely to be true and getting more true.

jckt 13y ago

I'd say a lot of people actually prefer it that way. A lot of people complained that the initial WikiLeaks releases (the cables, specifically) were too "dangerous" -- many names belonging to American servicemen, etc. It was only later when the NYT, Spiegel and Guardian versions, which redacted a lot of information, did the anger subside. IMO it's not so unreasonable, though this case is not identical to the one I cite.

chm 13y ago
I for one can't make up my mind if this is a blockbuster or a non-story. As many others, I need more details to get a clearer picture.

lurchpop 13y ago

The approach they might also be taking is to wait for politicians to really start lying about it, then release a new part exposing the lie. sort of like what happend with the slide PPT slide that seems to contradict all the corporate denials.

damian2000 13y ago

Better something than nothing. One of the few papers in the world with enough guts to publish at all, I'm glad The Guardian got it to be honest.

dlib 13y ago
Indeed, the Guardian's recent track record is remarkable. It takes a lot of guts to defy the powers that be again and again. All the journalists involved must live under the assumption that their phones are tapped and their travel patterns monitored. The Guardian must be a major target for intelligence agencies.

znowi 13y ago

I'm curious why would he not send the files over to Wikileaks? At least for safe-keeping. If The Guardian suddenly gets a gag order, it's done.

timw6n 13y ago

> while making sure to take in a maximum amount of profits The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, a UK non-profit, so perhaps at least some of your cynicism is unwarranted. Of course they will want to keep this running for a while, releasing everything at once would lead to significant stuff getting buried and would reduce Snowden's overall impact.