3 ms·

If you are aware of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to respond by talking about how you believe the leaks were actually genuine data. I don't expect that

by LLWM 12y ago

If you are aware of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to respond by talking about how you believe the leaks were actually genuine data. I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here. As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead.

jacquesm 12y ago
> If you are aware of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to respond by talking about how you believe the leaks were actually genuine data. It actually makes perfect sense, if the data was not genuine we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, so we use what data is publicly available and hope for more. Think about the alternative, if Snowden would have released all of it then it would be argued that releasing all of the data was irresponsible (see previous leaks). That's one you can't win as a leaker and so I don't blame Snowden for that (though personally I'd have preferred if he leaked all of the data without any intermediaries). > I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here. I'm pretty sure very few people expected the leaks in the first place, and yet, they happened. > As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead. Yes, so the guilty are beyond reach of the law and safely forgotten. And so we are trying as hard as we can to stave off meaningful progress. If it can't stand the light of day it is probably nothing good. Sunlight is the best des-infectant and Snowden provided quite a bit of it.
- LLWM 12y ago
  It's a bit hard to tell who the "we" is referring to there, but if you mean that privacy advocates are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean that government classification programs are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I don't think it's an intentional effort, just a natural consequence of being run by a large committee of competing interests.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > It's a bit hard to tell who the "we" is referring to there Just put on your 'ethics' cap for a bit and you'll get it.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      Why would I have something like that?

by LLWM 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> If you are aware of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to respond by talking about how you believe the leaks were actually genuine data. It actually makes perfect sense, if the data was not genuine we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, so we use what data is publicly available and hope for more. Think about the alternative, if Snowden would have released all of it then it would be argued that releasing all of the data was irresponsible (see previous leaks). That's one you can't win as a leaker and so I don't blame Snowden for that (though personally I'd have preferred if he leaked all of the data without any intermediaries). > I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here. I'm pretty sure very few people expected the leaks in the first place, and yet, they happened. > As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead. Yes, so the guilty are beyond reach of the law and safely forgotten. And so we are trying as hard as we can to stave off meaningful progress. If it can't stand the light of day it is probably nothing good. Sunlight is the best des-infectant and Snowden provided quite a bit of it.

LLWM 12y ago
It's a bit hard to tell who the "we" is referring to there, but if you mean that privacy advocates are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean that government classification programs are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I don't think it's an intentional effort, just a natural consequence of being run by a large committee of competing interests.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > It's a bit hard to tell who the "we" is referring to there Just put on your 'ethics' cap for a bit and you'll get it.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Why would I have something like that?