On 06/15/2015 05:13 PM, zaki@manian.org 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, <dan@geer.org> 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