4 ms·
Indeed, but, the profit motive prevented the timely release of the documents they have in they possesion. Are they still sitting on any docs?
by aet 13y ago
Indeed, but, the profit motive prevented the timely release of the documents they have in they possesion. Are they still sitting on any docs?
- dllthomas 13y agoThey have reputedly released roughly 1% of what they received. I think that simply dumping the docs would have had less impact than the steady stream of new revelations, but certainly I could be mistaken...
- icelancer 13y agoThey are releasing documentation based on Snowden's desired timeline, not based on some profit motive you are insinuating.
- aet 13y agoWhy should we care about his desired timeline? The docs are not his property.
- dllthomas 13y agoIf he did not have an expectation that they would follow his timeline, he would be less likely to leak the docs to them, and possibly less likely to leak the docs at all. It's not like Snowden couldn't have just dumped all the docs on us if that was his intent.
- aet 13y agoSo we have to sit around while The Guardian decides which docs are important..
- dllthomas 13y agoAnd don't unwarrantedly put people in harms way, &c. Yes. It's called journalism. It's not perfect, but neither would an unfiltered dump have been. And it's far better than us not getting the docs at all, isn't it? Which is certainly another timeline Mr. Snowden could have chosen, at far greater personal convenience.
- aet 13y agoOk, I see your point.
- mkingston 13y agoI can think of two better questions: 1) Is it better to vet the documents, and remove personal information etc. where appropriate? If yes, then I'd rather they were released as they were prepared. 2) Would we still be discussing this if they had been dumped in one lot? This is maybe much more clever than you think. More importantly; I expect it's more likely these events will eventually seep into broader public consciousness if they don't come and go in a single news cycle.