Russia and China crack Snowden Cache

John Young jya at pipeline.com
Tue Jun 16 04:13:16 PDT 2015


WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been
declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M.
Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02%
of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M.

This affirms the Snowden-idolizing MSM are hardly better journalism
than Sunday Times at customary citizen-subject-consumer
hoodwinking relying on rhetorical exaggeration with minimal
substantiation, that is, following the model of royalty, official spies
and commercial public relations (bestow on Apple's CEO for
lying about iSpookery), why even, pardon the ad disruption,
cryptosecurity everywhere floggers, nay, nay, hordes of educators
indenturing wage slaves, religious hustlers token-sucking the poorest
tax-avoiding the richest, and not worth slathering horse-dookie on
Lady Gaga Godiva, bloated governments wielding the armaments
of utter obedience for most none for a few.

Which, clang cymbol, why demand only NSA stop it, stop
stomping invented civlib, why not demand all the world's spies
close shop, defuse the PALs of the WMD terrorists. Spies beget
world's worst spies, govs beget world's worst govs, biz begets
world's worst biz, secperts beget, so on, to wit, shit methane.

Tis a damn lie, verily a rigged stat, a TED yip, that some official
secrecy is okay (Schneier, most secperts) just not too much, that is,
my secrecy, my NSA protection racket sold to world spies and
clueless public as costly and methaney, is perfume, yours is
RU and CN bowel gas -- as mirrored by RU and CN.

At 12:20 AM 6/16/2015, you wrote:
>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