3 ms·

The New York Times actually broke the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html http://www.nytimes.com/20

• herbig 12y ago
  The first words of the EFF article are "The New York Times". This article, as the title suggests, goes more into the "dangers of unchecked surveillance" in a digital age.
• Mithrandir 12y ago
  Here's the letter: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/16/magazine/16Lede2/mag-16Lede-t_CA0-superJumbo.jpg http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/16/magazine/16Lede2/m...
  • Curmudgel 12y ago
    If you read that document carefully, you can see that the EFF edited one of passages that they quoted and did not mention their edit, which is a big no-no. The original letter says: (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significant. which the EFF quoted as (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance).
    • dllthomas 12y ago
      I expect that was accidental, but I agree it should be fixed (either corrected in brackets, or the original with a [sic]).
• dang 12y ago
  Yes. We changed the url to that from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr... as the "original" source.
  • rooster8 12y ago
    I understand that it's policy to change the URLs to the original source, but in this case I feel the EFF article was a better discussion piece.
    • dang 12y ago
      Yes, it's not always the case that a single URL is better in every respect. We're working on a design for associating multiple URLs with a story. Even with that, though, there still needs to be a primary URL, because the title on the front page has to link somewhere. One thing we were stuck on for a while is how to let users vote on what the primary URL should be, but (fingers crossed) I now think we may have hit on a way to do it.
      • rooster8 12y ago
        Glad to hear about these improvements in development! The original article was submitted yesterday but got almost no traction, and the inertia of this post seemed to die off around the time it was switched to the NY Times link. Seems like the EFF one really is a better discussion piece. Would you consider changing the URL back so that the majority of the discussion reflects the original source that sparked it in posterity?
        • dang 12y ago
          I'm not really seeing that big of a context switch.