Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc.

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by kodablah on Thursday February 25, 2016 @09:52AM (#11174758)

There is a stark difference between contextless, abject whistleblowing and marketed whistleblowing. The latter, which they argue against, is unfortunately required to reach the masses. They mention that Snowden should not have gone to a [semi] major media outlet but instead to others who have exposed similar issues. Doesn't the fact that most don't know who those others are refute their exact point?

More importantly, does the benefit of mass consumption of the narrative outweigh the cost of not releasing everything and financially incentivizing the releasers? I say yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by uxp on Thursday February 25, 2016 @01:29PM (#11176531)

Whenever I hear of Cryptome complaining, semi-regularly, about the cache of Snowden documents being trickled into public existence, all I can think of is how they published a ripped copy of Citizenfour because of the stupid lawsuit a former naval officer brought against Snowden which put the DVD in evidence, of which they thought that it was now "public" material.

I'm fine with Cryptome wanting the full cache, but I'm not fine with anyone wanting to blindly publish the entire archive without vetting any of it. Cryptome doesn't seem to have the history of wanting to vet and possibly redact information, which will do nothing except provide fodder for those who argue against the idea of the leaked documents without providing critique against the contents of the documents.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by crossdiver on Thursday February 25, 2016 @01:18PM (#11176418)

My 2¢.

1) "Reaching the masses" is patronizing. "The masses" don't really care that they are being spied upon. Patronizing them will not change that.

2) The real change comes from hackers, companies, and activists' direct action. These shakers don't act based on major media, but on real people digging up actionable shit. Actionable shit has been dug up by lots of people who are otherwise unknown.

3) Motive is always clouded by capitalism. Financially incentivizing releasers directly calls motive into question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by 2close4comfort on Thursday February 25, 2016 @10:38AM (#11175099)

" financially incentivizing the releasers " I like that plus given the evidence so far it does show what their motivation really is...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by Consultant32452 on Thursday February 25, 2016 @01:41PM (#11176622)

The problem is that if you're a rational thinker you have to make sure you're able to make a living after doing something that is likely to ruin your career. For example, how many companies would hire Snowden to do the same type of IT work he was doing before? I wonder how many incredibly important leaks never happened because there wasn't enough "financial incentive."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by EdHominem on Thursday February 25, 2016 @01:41PM (#11176621)

All the government anti-whistleblower types are financially incentivized to hold their opinions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. by 2close4comfort on Thursday February 25, 2016 @01:53PM (#11176744)

I think the government counts on this to dissuade most from whistle-blowing. That is why it takes someone who is willing to take that risk.

[ Parent | on HN ]