> > Mr. Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had > > obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, > > and did not keep any copies for himself. He did not take the files to > > Russia “because it wouldn’t serve the public interest,” he said. > > Very likely he still had a copy while in Hong Kong but destroyed them > before leaving for Moscow.
While I agree that these are the journalist's words, not quotes from Snowden, you are here directly contradicting what the story says in order to make your version come out, and suggesting we disbelieve what Risen actually wrote. That still makes it impossible to take the actual words at face value, and I don't like that strategy as way of understanding what's reported. We have reason to believe Snowden trusts Risen and Risen is trying to be accurate. Interpretations that require us to discount what is written take us down a rabbit hole. Further, as we all know, "destroying" copies of any digital files, let alone a huge number of files like these, is a significant project in and of itself. Snowden and Risen never mention "destroying" files. If we are concerned about possible intelligence agency access to files, would you be comfortable with any method of destruction that did not include physical destruction of the drives containing the information? Do we assume Snowden had access to strong means of physical destruction *and reliable disposal of the destroyed drives* in a hotel in Hong Kong? This is supported by the fragmentary actual > quote that NYT printed: > > > “What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of > > the materials onward?” he added. > I'm not sure how this actual quote supports anything. It's perfectly compatible with the simplest understanding of what Risen wrote, in which he gave all the copies he had to Poitras and Greenwald. > > So once Greenwald and Poitras left, he should not > > have had any documents of this sort. > > I don't see any particular reason to assume that. Except that it's specifically and exactly what Risen reported Snowden said, even though you are right that those remarks are not in quotations. You don't see "any reason" to believe what Risen wrote, and if you see no reason to believe his reporting, we are already down the rabbit hole of picking and choosing what to believe. Further, you've not included the second part of my message, where we have Greenwald directly stating (and not just quoted, but you can literally hear him saying it on the video) that Snowden "has" the documents on July 14, including the "complete blueprints of the NSA," which giving the very close parsing of this stories you're doing and filling in quite a bit of information that's not in them, now seems hard to fit in. > When Glen and Laura > left, Ed apparently thought he was going to stay in Hong Kong for a > while; it wasn't until the HK government started applying pressure that > he decided to leave. None of which is mentioned in the story. My point is that, as printed/spoken, the stories do not quite add up. Maybe there will be some clarification. -- David Golumbia [email protected]
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
