This comes to mind: https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/485504337968246784 (Your e-mail was featured on Cryptome twitter)
See also: https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/483353469789556739 Supposedly Cryptome will do a July dump, but not clear as to what exactly is to be released. > (fwd. from the nettime mailinglist /geert) > > from: Krystian Woznicki <[email protected]> > > the snowden files are of public interest. but only a small circle of > people is able to access, read, analyze, interpret and publish them. and > only a very small percentage of those files has been made available to > the public. > > those who belong to the small circle of people, tend to argue that this > has to do with security reasons. so one could say, that the leaked files > have been "secured" in order to prevent bigger harm. yet, in the very > sense that "data is the oil of the 21 century" one can also say, that > the snowden files have been privatised by people who try to exploit them > according to their own interests. > > what can be done about this situation? are we able to find a way to > "open" this data? and in the course of this create a modell for future > leaks? > > many researchers, activistis and technology experts (not to speak of > other journalists than the "few luckey ones") have a great interest to > work with those files. imagine the historical impact on sciences, social > movements and it-infrastructures, if those files would serve as material > to study and learn from in the respective areas. > > the snowden story has been a great, exceptional media narrative -- if > only for its unusual duration (unfolding over the course of more than a > year and stimulating a variety of debates). but the fact, that material, > that one brave whistleblower considered to be worth of public interest, > has been "secured" or "privatised", rendering again unaccessible what > previously has been unaccessible -- doesn't this fact add a very > unsettling layer to the narrative, turning the success story into > somewhat of a tragedy? > > yesterday at the netzwerk recherche conference in hamburg (the great > gathering of the investigative community) i confronted luke harding > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Harding) with this question. > > prior to my intervention harding had already hinted at some very obvious > limitations of the ongoing investigation, alluding to various reasons > why those "few lucky ones" are incapable to deal with the investigation > challenge in an approriate manner: "we are not technical experts" or > "after two hours your eyes pop out". inspite of this, harding seemed > unprepared to refelect the possibility to open the small circle of > analysts dealing with the snowden files. > > to paraphrasie his response: yes, it is a dilemma, that only few people > can look at the snowden files and draw their own conclusions. however > this limitation is a natural result of their very precarious nature > (files containing state secrets) and a consequence of the massive > pressure by the government. nonetheless, 'if you have a special > project' you could contact alan rusbridger and probably get him to > provide you with the requested material... > > a request for files -- such a request is usually directed towards > somewhat obscure organistions and corporations and it is usually > articulated by the press (deploying the freedom of information law or > other legal instruments); such a request is usually denied at first. and > as the histrory of investigative journalism shows: one must fight for > one's right to access for information including going to court. > > such a request for files is an important, if not the most important, > instrument *for the press*. but now it is the press itself (respectively > some of its representatives) towards which such a request needs to be > articulated. this is absurd and prompts many questions, including: > > to whom are organisations like the guardian accountable? > > a couple of things one could do about it: > > * such requests may seem futile, but they are an instrument and as the > experience shows, one can win the fight. > > * one can consider to complain at e.g. the press complaints commission > with regard to media corporations exercising exclusive control over the > files -- in germany for example this sort of (quasi-monopolistic) > control violates the so called presserat-kodex. > > * last but not least: one should work out a concept/model for > transferring those files into the public domain -- taking also into > account the obvious problems of "security" and "government pressure". > > it would be great of we could start a debate about in order to build a > case for the future of handling big data leaks in a more democratic and > sustainable manner. > > i will also write a german version of this post for berlinergazette.de > and i am more than happy to include some of your responses into that > version. > > best wishes, > > krystian > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > >
