Russia and China crack Snowden Cache

Mirimir mirimir at riseup.net
Mon Jun 15 21:20:40 PDT 2015


On 06/15/2015 05:13 PM, zaki at 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 at 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
>>
>>
> 



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list