[cryptography] Snowden sets OPSEC record straight

[grarpamp]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, coderman <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm as frustrated as anyone at the glacial pace of disclosure, and the
> limited scope of disclosure, and the arbitrary censorship in the
> disclosures, and ...
>
> yet still what has been released is far from "negligable"!

> part of me wonder if a full dump would have been less effective,
> serving over to completely overwhelm the ability to discuss and absorb
> the breath and depth of these efforts. (i would still prefer a dump!)

Pace... a dump may not always be useful unless you are certain it would
be a complete broadside resulting in the ship sinking. If there is even a 1%
chance of that not happening, then you've shown and blown your entire wad
and the opponent will take that remaining chance and spin their way out.
Further, memory is short. So sustained pressure over time can at times
work better. Unless of course you're up against risk of not being able to
in fact sustain things. Though I'd agree, once a round is fired off its scope
and transparency should be better than the 'journalistic interpretation', and
passing to the opponent for comment/censure first, and silly redactions later
revealed to be unneeded or face saving, that we've seen to date.
The more general question is: does the instant, unannounced and unrepentant
full disclosure model that is common with single software products today
work with much more complex systems such as governance and politics.
WL initially tried that but seems now for whatever reasons to have shifted
to the model firstly quoted above. Can merely being a bigger rock star than
your opponent result in similar sinking.