6 ms·

I know many love to consider Snowden and Assange "heroes", but I think these two are people we should think outside the box on. Are they acting in the interest

I know many love to consider Snowden and Assange "heroes", but I think these two are people we should think outside the box on. Are they acting in the interest of everyone, themselves, or another party? The releases, interviews, and otherwise that get released seem very scripted and controlled. The propaganda machine is skilled and there may be unseen benefits to these leaks.

vasco 12y ago
You realize that you sound like propaganda yourself?
XorNot 12y ago
Like Julian Assange repurposing wikileaks donations into the Julian Assange sexual assault defense fund? Whatever you may think of the allegations, it has become extremely blurry as what the money donated to wikileaks' operation is actually used for, seeing as how Julian Assange wasn't supposed to be wikileaks.
- throwaway876876 12y ago
  Since his "sexual assault" allegations were, in essence, an orchestrated smear campaign to discredit him and by extension Wikileaks, and the health of the former depends on the latter, I see absolutely no problem here. Why do you?
  - ikt 12y ago
    > Since his "sexual assault" allegations were, in essence, an orchestrated smear campaign to discredit him and by extension Wikileaks Is what he wants you to believe. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-... By Saturday morning, 21 August, journalists were asking Assange for a reaction. At 9.15am, he tweeted: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." The following day, he tweeted: "Reminder: US intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks as far back as 2008."
DanBC 12y ago
The releases are outside Snowden's control now. He carefully gave a dump of information to two newspapers. Those newspapers control the flow of the information now, and they obviously want to maximise the benefit to themselves by releasing the information in controlled manner.
- ogijaoijfawje 12y ago
  Snowden is milking the attention as well. Look at the livestream going on right now, he's discussing the information live.
  - throwaway876876 12y ago
    You're deliberately trying to discredit a person who made available proof that the surveillance machine is out of control. While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger. Why?
    - ogijaoijfawje 12y ago
      I do not follow what you mean by discretize, could you elaborate? I'm merely trying to explain it's worthwhile to consider Snowden isn't acting in our best interest. Imagine Snowden's supervisor comes to him and says: "You're going on an extended special mission abroad. Leak these documents to some journalists. Act like you're trying to shed light on what's going on by playing the victim card. The goal is...."? Per the leaks, solutions to the surveillance problem are limited and likely won't become something proliferated through the masses due to cost, availability, usability, or some combination of the three. We're talking about eliminating hardware-level vulnerabilities, not patching software. And even when and if we do fix these vulnerabilities, what's to stop them from doing it again? All it takes is threatening the life of the company or individuals involved in the development process.
      - throwaway876876 12y ago
Dylan16807 12y ago
Who cares if they're working for someone? Benefit to who?
sarciszewski 12y ago
Nice try, GCHQ!

vasco 12y ago

You realize that you sound like propaganda yourself?

XorNot 12y ago

Like Julian Assange repurposing wikileaks donations into the Julian Assange sexual assault defense fund? Whatever you may think of the allegations, it has become extremely blurry as what the money donated to wikileaks' operation is actually used for, seeing as how Julian Assange wasn't supposed to be wikileaks.

throwaway876876 12y ago
Since his "sexual assault" allegations were, in essence, an orchestrated smear campaign to discredit him and by extension Wikileaks, and the health of the former depends on the latter, I see absolutely no problem here. Why do you?
- ikt 12y ago
  > Since his "sexual assault" allegations were, in essence, an orchestrated smear campaign to discredit him and by extension Wikileaks Is what he wants you to believe. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-... By Saturday morning, 21 August, journalists were asking Assange for a reaction. At 9.15am, he tweeted: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." The following day, he tweeted: "Reminder: US intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks as far back as 2008."

DanBC 12y ago

The releases are outside Snowden's control now. He carefully gave a dump of information to two newspapers. Those newspapers control the flow of the information now, and they obviously want to maximise the benefit to themselves by releasing the information in controlled manner.

ogijaoijfawje 12y ago
Snowden is milking the attention as well. Look at the livestream going on right now, he's discussing the information live.
- throwaway876876 12y ago
  You're deliberately trying to discredit a person who made available proof that the surveillance machine is out of control. While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger. Why?
  - ogijaoijfawje 12y ago
    I do not follow what you mean by discretize, could you elaborate? I'm merely trying to explain it's worthwhile to consider Snowden isn't acting in our best interest. Imagine Snowden's supervisor comes to him and says: "You're going on an extended special mission abroad. Leak these documents to some journalists. Act like you're trying to shed light on what's going on by playing the victim card. The goal is...."? Per the leaks, solutions to the surveillance problem are limited and likely won't become something proliferated through the masses due to cost, availability, usability, or some combination of the three. We're talking about eliminating hardware-level vulnerabilities, not patching software. And even when and if we do fix these vulnerabilities, what's to stop them from doing it again? All it takes is threatening the life of the company or individuals involved in the development process.
    - throwaway876876 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y ago

Who cares if they're working for someone? Benefit to who?

sarciszewski 12y ago

Nice try, GCHQ!