2014-04-15 21:11 GMT+02:00 Cypher <[1]cypher@cpunk.us>:

   This is why I've long been an advocate of total disclosure. I think
   the document holders should publish everything they have. After they
   do that, they could continue to 'leak release' documents with detailed
   explanations for those who are too lazy or too confused by the
   documents to sift through them and read them but having a document
   dump out there would make the process of disclosure /much/ faster.

   The problem is that the general public is very slow to learn. Every
   step along the way even the wise said things like "OH! The NSA said A,
   but they'll never say B!". Then two weeks later the docs show that B
   has not just been said, it'd been SCREAMED. Then the word is "But
   they'll never say C!". Etc. Maybe at some point people will pick it up
   differently.
   It also fits the media format better to drip info. A new news article
   every new drip. That makes for a lot more exposure.
   It's sad but true. I would LOVE instant full disclosure. But it just
   wouldn't have the same effect. Maybe you could do selective full
   disclosure, but who'd be allowed access? And who'd prevent the store of
   data from being leaked again?
   Additionally there's the rewriting and securing. Often documents have
   person-specific typo's or sentence changes that can identify a specific
   instance of a document. There was this company that wanted to use it on
   e-books, rewriting "good" to "not bad", etc.
   Anyway, mixed bag regarding full disclosure. I think this is easier,
   safer and reaches the general public better and as such it's the right
   choice. It's a damn shame that it is, sensationalism isn't fun.

References

   1. mailto:cypher@cpunk.us