Snowden did the right thing, as he said, released the whole wad to the public. Just released it to the wrong few people with no technical capabilities but with desire for personal recognition and profit-taking. Heading to Hong Kong "Greenwald and Poitras danced in the aircraft's aisle upon reading sample documents," according to one account by Luke Harding (Greenwald denied this). Both full release and profit-taking could have been done, and maybe both were done, that is, the full release has been placed where more technically capable persons have access. A few technical persons have had limited access according to news reports, to advise the cache withholders, but not many which is highly regrettable. As we said in the interview there are a host of parties with greater skills and experience publishing classified documents, National Security Archive and Federation of American Scientists, among them. Granted that these orgs are quite cautious about publishing unauthorized disclosures due to their boards having close ties to authorities and dutiful legal obedience. No question the methodology employed by favored journalists has been effective for engaging (entertaining) the public. The comsec and credibility problem is that the small number of documents released (~11%) and large number of narratives (>100/1 of document pages) has skewed and dramatized the disclosures such that it is impossible to know how accurate the fragments are without access to the full wad. Now there are rumors that the bulk of the documents may be returned for Snowden's exculpation, which would be a great loss for the public but swell for Snowden and his PR team. Short shrifting the public by the media where leaks are concerned has become, maybe always was, the norm. Direct to the public disclosure, un-mediated, is what is needed, no secretmaking privilege to anyone. Journalists bristle at this, claim the public must be told what to think, and in this journalists are just like govs. Moreover, that Snowden allegedly requires the cache holders to check with USG before release is pernicious, maybe false. Quite a few of Snowden's comments appear to be scripted by those who have him over a barrel. At 04:48 AM 2/22/2016, you wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_
What would you do?