3 ms·

>I don't understand this article. Blog post. > they can't possibly draw conclusions about exactly what Snowden did. Anyone can draw a conclusion from an even

>I don't understand this article. Blog post. > they can't possibly draw conclusions about exactly what Snowden did. Anyone can draw a conclusion from an event they have observed. They can't draw conclusions about the future conclusions of others (ie: what side 'history' will be on.) >Snowden himself has made it clear that he took documents from NSA en masse, far more documents than have ever been disclosed in the media. So? >In Greenwald's case, that's because it was decided that a titrating drip of stories would keep the narrative alive in the media... Don't you imagine that it is a non-trivial task to vett these documents, so in addition to having the practical benefit of prolonging the time that the material spends at the "front of peoples' minds;" it is a necessary condition of the situation. >There are places those documents can go that will alter history's judgement on Snowden. Be careful, you can't possibly draw conclusions... >(Barton Gellman is not in hiding in the US, for what it's worth) Barrett Brown isn't exactly having a great time in the Homeland. >Unfortunately, the author of this blog post ... It's an opinion piece. I'm not even sure there is anything to argue here.

tptacek 13y ago
Barrett Brown was implicated in helping publish a dump of credit card numbers on behalf of the people who stole them. Barrett Brown is not Barton Gellman, and of the two, it's Gellman that poses a real problem for the USG, not the crazy heroin addict.
- intslack 13y ago
  If by 'helping publish' you mean 'linking to and talking about what was already published,'[1] sure. What's the difference between Brown (the "crazy heroin addict" journalist, your words) and Gellman, who helped publish a dump of secret documents on behalf of the person who stole them? [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Stratfor http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Stratfor
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I see a pretty clear distinction between publishing documents that are clearly in the public interest and publishing credit card numbers in an effort to trouble and shame people whose politics don't comport with my own.
    - intslack 13y ago
      Snowden's motives are political, and they could also be construed as an effort to trouble and shame the people who didn't agree with his interpretations. And whether any of it is in the public interest is also debatable in some circles. Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate. In my view there's a pretty clear distinction between simply linking to an e-mail dump containing credit card numbers and publishing an e-mail dump containing credit card numbers. Brown was interested in those e-mails because he actually had a journalistic endeavor in Project PM, an "actionable data set regarding the intelligence contracting industry, the PR industry's interface with totalitarian regimes, the mushrooming infosec/"cybersecurity" industry." You can keep calling him a "crazy heroin addict" if it makes you feel better, there's bias on your part for obvious reasons, but it only makes you look silly.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm comfortable with what my reaction to Barrett Brown's case says about me and my beliefs, far more than I am comfortable with what my beliefs about the Snowden case might connote.

tptacek 13y ago

Barrett Brown was implicated in helping publish a dump of credit card numbers on behalf of the people who stole them. Barrett Brown is not Barton Gellman, and of the two, it's Gellman that poses a real problem for the USG, not the crazy heroin addict.

intslack 13y ago
If by 'helping publish' you mean 'linking to and talking about what was already published,'[1] sure. What's the difference between Brown (the "crazy heroin addict" journalist, your words) and Gellman, who helped publish a dump of secret documents on behalf of the person who stole them? [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Stratfor http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Stratfor
- tptacek 13y ago
  I see a pretty clear distinction between publishing documents that are clearly in the public interest and publishing credit card numbers in an effort to trouble and shame people whose politics don't comport with my own.
  - intslack 13y ago
    Snowden's motives are political, and they could also be construed as an effort to trouble and shame the people who didn't agree with his interpretations. And whether any of it is in the public interest is also debatable in some circles. Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate. In my view there's a pretty clear distinction between simply linking to an e-mail dump containing credit card numbers and publishing an e-mail dump containing credit card numbers. Brown was interested in those e-mails because he actually had a journalistic endeavor in Project PM, an "actionable data set regarding the intelligence contracting industry, the PR industry's interface with totalitarian regimes, the mushrooming infosec/"cybersecurity" industry." You can keep calling him a "crazy heroin addict" if it makes you feel better, there's bias on your part for obvious reasons, but it only makes you look silly.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm comfortable with what my reaction to Barrett Brown's case says about me and my beliefs, far more than I am comfortable with what my beliefs about the Snowden case might connote.