News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned? by comte7092 on Thursday June 08, 2023 @11:52AM (#36243966)
So basically, “Snowden took a lot of stuff” and there are vague references to “the stuff he took is risky, but not in any tangible way that we can describe, but you’ll have to trust us”.

It’s not like I don’t believe that Snowden likely took things that endanger elements of national security. However, I’m going to need a bit more evidence to believe a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens, and equates “risks to national security” with “things that make us look bad”.

Re:10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned? by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on Thursday June 08, 2023 @12:11PM (#36244279)
How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information? Are you claiming that the bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying? Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.

> a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens

You are biased.

Re:10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned? by comte7092 on Thursday June 08, 2023 @12:33PM (#36244636)
> Are you claiming that the bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying?

I’m claiming they are being vague.

Something can be technically true, and while it is given a framing that is far out of proportion with the supporting evidence.

> > a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens You are biased.

Snowden’s leaks demonstrated that what I said is a fact, and no one in the government even disputes the content of those leaks!

> How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information?

I don’t know, but that does mean you just get to exclaim “it’s classified!!!” And I magically just have to believe everything you say.

> Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.

The report provided no evidence to dispute. Again, the national security apparatus has shown itself time and again to not be trustworthy: gulf of Tonkin, wmd in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, spying on its own citizens and lying about it to congress under oath (and getting away with it with no consequences). Flagrantly violating the law (Iran contra), etc etc.

I’d rather be “biased” than a rube.

Re:10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned? by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on Thursday June 08, 2023 @04:09PM (#36248102)
What part of the report is vague? If he revealed intelligence sources do you expect them to not redact the source's name?
Re:10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned? by comte7092 on Thursday June 08, 2023 @04:23PM (#36248365)
The citations you gave were textbook examples of vague statements.

They said there were 13 risks and that 8 would be bad/endanger troops if China and or Russia were aware. That’s it. How many troops? Endanger them how? What kind of information are talking about? Sources and methods? Weapons systems? Other technology? Literally any detail???

I understand your position is that “they’re in a bind”. Well, there shouldn’t have squandered their reputation by lying about major issues facing the American people like war making, mass surveillance, illegal activities, etc.

Finally, the sheer number of documents he extracted was a red herring/immaterial to nation security. All that matters is content.

Edit: a move careful reading of the report demonstrates that the 1.5 million number appears to only refer to the number of non blank documents that were downloaded, it is not at all clear that the is any way for the government to get a precise measurement of what Snowden actually took with him to Hong Kong and disclosed. Anything that hasn’t been disclosed in public would therefore be purely speculative on the part of the US government.