4 ms·

You wrote: Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come

You wrote: Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come the United States is still in the dark about what exactly was taken (which they've admitted they do not know) and that they implicitly claim to have a full copy of the archive in readable form as well (otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making here). I'm merely pointing out that the UK retrieved a subset of the archive when they detained Miranda. Therefore, the US/UK don't necessarily need "a full copy of the archive in readable form" to be able to come to the conclusion that the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations. If the 58,000 documents they got from Miranda contain any such information, it inevitably follows that the full archive must too.

jacquesm 11y ago
And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. But who needs proof when anonymous quotes are all that's needed anyway. For all you know the 'journalist' (for want of a better word) could have sucked this whole story out of his left thumb and you still wouldn't know the difference.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  > And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. That what is the case? That the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations? We already know that the archive includes operational details. For example, the IP addresses of NSA targets in Hong Kong and China that Snowden released[1] in order to (as Greenwald put it) "ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[2]. Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? I seem to recall that the stated reason for releasing it through newspapers was so that they could redact any such information before publishing it. 1: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-sn... 2: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? Because then all the NSA apologists would be harping on their favourite theme of irresponsible disclosure, see also: wikileaks, Manning.

jacquesm 11y ago

And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. But who needs proof when anonymous quotes are all that's needed anyway. For all you know the 'journalist' (for want of a better word) could have sucked this whole story out of his left thumb and you still wouldn't know the difference.

jackgavigan 11y ago
> And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. That what is the case? That the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations? We already know that the archive includes operational details. For example, the IP addresses of NSA targets in Hong Kong and China that Snowden released[1] in order to (as Greenwald put it) "ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[2]. Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? I seem to recall that the stated reason for releasing it through newspapers was so that they could redact any such information before publishing it. 1: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-sn... 2: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? Because then all the NSA apologists would be harping on their favourite theme of irresponsible disclosure, see also: wikileaks, Manning.