25 ms·

Update (x2): The link in the title is to the uncompressed version which is password protected. The correct link is http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-

by casca 12y ago

Update (x2): The link in the title is to the uncompressed version which is password protected. The correct link is http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compre.... Or the link to the uncompressed version from the CDN: http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Uncompressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl... Original comment, now redundant: Glenn has chosen to password protect this, yet it is accessible via Scribd. It would be ethical to have it removed from Scribd until Glenn decides to release this to the public.

TheCoreh 12y ago
It's a PDF of leaked documents though... If you consider leaking it from the original source to be fine, why do you consider leaking it from Greenwald to be somehow unethical?
- spacefight 12y ago
  It's not leaked at all. They just mooved the PDF off-site to a CDN. No issue.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  I'm not going to speak for the parent poster, but on one hand you have: leaking details of controversial secret actions from a powerful government organization to a journalist. On the other hand you have leaking from a journalist "his" scoop that was already in the pipeline to get published without any indication there is an immediate time pressure justifying it. These two immediately strike me as very qualitatively different, and if we assume that the parent poster is actually talking about ethics it would follow that they do not have an absolutist view on leaking and that the context matters.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mpyne 12y ago
> It would be ethical to have it removed from Scribd until Glenn decides to release this to the public. Is this sarcasm? Has Poe's Law struck me again?
watwut 12y ago
He claimed he wants to release them right after the book goes public. The book went public.

by casca 12y ago

TheCoreh 12y ago

It's a PDF of leaked documents though... If you consider leaking it from the original source to be fine, why do you consider leaking it from Greenwald to be somehow unethical?

spacefight 12y ago
It's not leaked at all. They just mooved the PDF off-site to a CDN. No issue.
forgottenpass 12y ago
I'm not going to speak for the parent poster, but on one hand you have: leaking details of controversial secret actions from a powerful government organization to a journalist. On the other hand you have leaking from a journalist "his" scoop that was already in the pipeline to get published without any indication there is an immediate time pressure justifying it. These two immediately strike me as very qualitatively different, and if we assume that the parent poster is actually talking about ethics it would follow that they do not have an absolutist view on leaking and that the context matters.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mpyne 12y ago

> It would be ethical to have it removed from Scribd until Glenn decides to release this to the public. Is this sarcasm? Has Poe's Law struck me again?

watwut 12y ago

He claimed he wants to release them right after the book goes public. The book went public.