3 ms·

I don't know, maybe because an anonymous user is casting dispersions on the authenticity of someone who has very much put themselves forward as a real identity?

by panacea 13y ago

aroch 13y ago
So because we "know" Snowden leaked the documents we should automatically "know" that he's the one responding? There's no web of trust or verification that we know of; we're taking the Guardian at its word. How do we know its not just some intern who has a list of answers given to probable questions?
- panacea 13y ago
  The Guardian (a newspaper cum hyperblog) is inventing and impersonating a whistleblower for it's nefarious, I mean, link bait purposes now?
  - aroch 13y ago
    Wow, that's not at all what I said. I like how you're deliberately taking things out of context. We, the public, have no way of knowing if indeed its Snowden answering. It could be any number of persons, we just know that The Guardian says it's Snowden (probably). I'm all for calling the USG out on this matter, but I'd like if we could get some public verification of who is answering.
    - ealexhudson 13y ago
      Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Requiring not only a named source, but a way of verifying that statements / correspondence were provably from that source, seems an impossibly high standard to meet (eg., he could sign each comment with a PGP key. But then, "How do we know it's his PGP key?". Etcetera etcetera, ad infinitum)
      - aroch 13y ago
        > Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Except this isn't the WSJ reporting on a new iPhone "rumor", this is a very public release of important information. He's already outed himself, so this isn't about protection of anonymity. It really isn't hard for the Guardian and Snowden to setup a CoT including PGP. They can verify it using a key pair they have ultimate trust in and then include that verification in their posts. It isn't asking a whole lot for them to say why or how they have trust in the responses they're getting. I trust the Guardian, what I don't trust is whether or not we're actually getting answers from Snowden that aren't being manipulated en route or otherwise not "live" and intact.
        michaelt 13y ago
        Most means of verifying his identity are at least somewhat suspect. What sort of verification would satisfy you?
        aroch 13y ago
        Something more than "oh, yeah, that's him". I'm well aware its hard to be 100% certain, but surely they can offer something beyond "because we said it is".
        michaelt 13y ago
        Well, what would you propose? I mean, pretty much every photo and video I've seen of the guy comes from the guardian - they could easily just be of a Guardian intern. So a photo of him holding a sign is out. A GPG key which is reputedly his is of extremely questionable provenance so a signature from that would be meaningless. He could leak some new top secret data to establish that he has access to it - but we know guardian journalists have had access to such data already and surely they have some stuff on file for future reports. I'm curious as to what sort of proof you'd like?

I don't know, maybe because an anonymous user is casting dispersions on the authenticity of someone who has very much put themselves forward as a real identity?

by panacea 13y ago

I don't know, maybe because an anonymous user is casting dispersions on the authenticity of someone who has very much put themselves forward as a real identity?

aroch 13y ago

So because we "know" Snowden leaked the documents we should automatically "know" that he's the one responding? There's no web of trust or verification that we know of; we're taking the Guardian at its word. How do we know its not just some intern who has a list of answers given to probable questions?

panacea 13y ago
The Guardian (a newspaper cum hyperblog) is inventing and impersonating a whistleblower for it's nefarious, I mean, link bait purposes now?
- aroch 13y ago
  Wow, that's not at all what I said. I like how you're deliberately taking things out of context. We, the public, have no way of knowing if indeed its Snowden answering. It could be any number of persons, we just know that The Guardian says it's Snowden (probably). I'm all for calling the USG out on this matter, but I'd like if we could get some public verification of who is answering.
  - ealexhudson 13y ago
    Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Requiring not only a named source, but a way of verifying that statements / correspondence were provably from that source, seems an impossibly high standard to meet (eg., he could sign each comment with a PGP key. But then, "How do we know it's his PGP key?". Etcetera etcetera, ad infinitum)
    - aroch 13y ago
      > Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Except this isn't the WSJ reporting on a new iPhone "rumor", this is a very public release of important information. He's already outed himself, so this isn't about protection of anonymity. It really isn't hard for the Guardian and Snowden to setup a CoT including PGP. They can verify it using a key pair they have ultimate trust in and then include that verification in their posts. It isn't asking a whole lot for them to say why or how they have trust in the responses they're getting. I trust the Guardian, what I don't trust is whether or not we're actually getting answers from Snowden that aren't being manipulated en route or otherwise not "live" and intact.
      - michaelt 13y ago
        Most means of verifying his identity are at least somewhat suspect. What sort of verification would satisfy you?
        aroch 13y ago
        Something more than "oh, yeah, that's him". I'm well aware its hard to be 100% certain, but surely they can offer something beyond "because we said it is".
        michaelt 13y ago
        Well, what would you propose? I mean, pretty much every photo and video I've seen of the guy comes from the guardian - they could easily just be of a Guardian intern. So a photo of him holding a sign is out. A GPG key which is reputedly his is of extremely questionable provenance so a signature from that would be meaningless. He could leak some new top secret data to establish that he has access to it - but we know guardian journalists have had access to such data already and surely they have some stuff on file for future reports. I'm curious as to what sort of proof you'd like?