On 06/15/2015 05:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: <SNIP>
> 2. There was a period of time when the Snowden cache was controlled > primarily by journalists with limited organizational support. Many bad > things could have happened. It is still mysterious if they did. Indeed. > 3.It also seems likely that competing services had access to many of the > same documents as Snowden did. It seems reasonable to assume there were > more people exfiltrating docs for private benefit than for public benefit > on the top secret network. Well damn, they could have been decent enough to post them on Cryptome or WikiLeaks ;) Even a hidden service site with a paywall would have been cool ;) > 4. What standard should organizations who handle secret information be held > to? The Intercept has hired some of top practitioners in the field. Is that > good enough? Less well funded institutions? What does "be held to" mean? By whom? > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> | Glenn Greenwald at The//Intercept on The Sunday Times birdcage liner >> | 'reporting' that brought the story to press. >> | >> | >> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden= >> | -files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/ >> >> >> If Snowden had zero copies and Greenwald/Poitras had the originals, >> then any Russo-Chinese fiddling with those originals was the result >> of having stolen them from Greenwald/Poitras, not Snowden. >> >> As the world turns, >> >> --dan >> >> >
