Ongoing debate on whether its better to hide government
   informers or expose them. They want to be hidden, their victims
   want them exposed. Customarily the victims don't win due to
   superior PR of informers and those who pay them.
   One case of harm has received attention lately. A lot of
   attention, as if an orchestrated campaign in parallel to
   the Snowden affair dominated by massive withholdings,
   redactions and fragments while claiming large numbers
   of files in reserve -- a hoary dissimulation practice of
   those complicit with officials.
   Beyond that, those who get control of sensitive material
   deputize themselves to redact or hide, with appreciation
   of authorities, not understanding they are usually less
   capable of comsec and judgment than official holders.
   They are blinded and corrupted by the bright jewels
   suddenly coming their way.
   It has been seen that the sensitive material from both
   Manning and Snowden was breached rather quickly.
   Literally under the noses of the defenders by Lamo
   and by Miranda, perhaps others not publicized.
   Recipients rush to consult experts as if those experts are
   not cooperating with officials covertly under contract or
   as informants like Sabu, or are themselves less capable
   at comsec and judgment. And also blinded and corrupted
   by being consulted about matters only imagined heretofore.
   Experts are expert at duplicity one and all.
   In the Manning and Snowden cases, recipients were
   quickly shown to be unprepared for handling what came
   to them, compared to say, reporters, researchers, writers
   and scholars who had long experience.
   In both cases, the original leakers had unreasonable
   expectations that amateurs (we believe in amateurs
   over professionals) would rise to the occasion, could
   handle the pressure of acclaim and attacks, could
   protect the leakers, could manage the information
   release, could protect the information, could be
   as good as the leakers with much superior training
   and discipline.
   Not so, under allure of media celebrity the schemes
   fell apart for Manning, maybe for Snowden. For this
   the leakers had no training only the shallowness of
   news reports about who to share the material with.
   Even now, the battle goes on, with accusations of
   harm to those identified in leaked material by WikiLeaks
   shaping the release of Snowden material. Little attention
   is given to what failed in handing material to notorious
   persons without grasping their limitations and the risks
   posed by that.
   At 02:31 PM 12/17/2013, you wrote:

     aka “I’m jealous that you have all the data and don’t care if anyone
     gets hurt by it being dumped unredacted on the net.”
     You realize that there are likely things hidden in the data that can
     get people killed. I know first hand, from a friend who *did* have
     their data in the wikileaks dump, that at least one of their
     informants only escaped being killed after it was unveiled because
     of family connections in the corrupt little nation they were in.
     I hear a lot of sour grapes and jealousy from a few people of “How
     dare Greenwald not give *me* access to all this data?!?!"
       _______________________________________________________________

     From: John Young [1]John Young
     Reply: John Young [2]jya@pipeline.com
     Date: December 17, 2013 at 11:26:05 AM
     To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org [3]cypherpunks@cpunks.org
     Subject:  Re: Fwd: Jacob impervious to "Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis"
     performed by Stewart Baker

     How about an unfettered unredacted disclosure for unlimited
     access free of censorious redaction and withholding?

     --
     Al Billings
     [4]http://makehacklearn.org

References

   1. mailto:jya@pipeline.com
   2. mailto:jya@pipeline.com
   3. mailto:cypherpunks@cpunks.org
   4. http://makehacklearn.org/