How Edward J. Snowden Orchestrated a Blockbuster Story | Hacker News Reader

How Edward J. Snowden Orchestrated a Blockbuster Story

nytimes.com

64 pointsshill18 comments

Between the lines it seems the NYT is somewhat jealous Snowden did not come to it with his materials (when the news broke they quoted "a British newspaper" instead of mentioning The Guardian by name!).

But they do make a good point: the scope and reach of the post 9/11 intelligence apparatus does not only mean it tends to overreach, it also means it employs too many people, some of them potential whistle-blowers.

I don't get it. If it he can do this, why can't someone else do the same thing? Why can't people register _that_ part of the story?

Anyone who has ever seen the show 24 can see that for every amazing tool we have to spy on Americans, there is some double-spy working within the agency using the very same tool against the government's own interest. This is exactly what is happening.

We built something we can't control. That's the story.

Jurassic Park (1993)

John Hammond: When we have control again...

Dr. Ellie Sattler: You never had control, that's the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. But I made a mistake, too, I didn't have enough respect for that power and it's out now. The only thing that matters now are the people we love. Alan and Lex and Tim. John, they're out there where people are dying.

Proof by fictional evidence? ;)

There are plenty of real-world examples of moles and double-agents as well. Fiction can often be a useful tool to distill the essence of an argument and/or present it in a recognizable or popular dress.

Something Eric Arthur Blair demonstrated ably in his famous novel 1948. Excuse me, George Orwell, 1984.

>Mr. Snowden has now turned over archives of “thousands” of documents, according to Mr. Greenwald, and “dozens” are newsworthy.

And now we all have to wait until The Guardian is finished analyzing everything, covering its ass while making sure to take in a maximum amount of profits.

That's an issue I haven't heard people complain about yet. Why not make everything public? The information is getting combed... again!

Snowden can make it public at any time too, I suspect. If things aren't going at his pace, he can probably speed it up. It's in his interest, as well as The Guardian/WP's, to make the largest possible impact. This is his only shot.

I don't get what else there is to disclose. Snowden confirms that the NSA's has "horrifying capabilities" when it comes to collecting data. It sounds like with enough reason to and time they can bug any network and computer anywhere. Which considering they are the most powerful intelligence agency, seems likely to be true and getting more true.

I'd say a lot of people actually prefer it that way. A lot of people complained that the initial WikiLeaks releases (the cables, specifically) were too "dangerous" -- many names belonging to American servicemen, etc. It was only later when the NYT, Spiegel and Guardian versions, which redacted a lot of information, did the anger subside. IMO it's not so unreasonable, though this case is not identical to the one I cite.

I for one can't make up my mind if this is a blockbuster or a non-story. As many others, I need more details to get a clearer picture.

The approach they might also be taking is to wait for politicians to really start lying about it, then release a new part exposing the lie. sort of like what happend with the slide PPT slide that seems to contradict all the corporate denials.

Better something than nothing. One of the few papers in the world with enough guts to publish at all, I'm glad The Guardian got it to be honest.

Indeed, the Guardian's recent track record is remarkable. It takes a lot of guts to defy the powers that be again and again. All the journalists involved must live under the assumption that their phones are tapped and their travel patterns monitored. The Guardian must be a major target for intelligence agencies.

I'm curious why would he not send the files over to Wikileaks? At least for safe-keeping. If The Guardian suddenly gets a gag order, it's done.

> while making sure to take in a maximum amount of profits

The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, a UK non-profit, so perhaps at least some of your cynicism is unwarranted.

Of course they will want to keep this running for a while, releasing everything at once would lead to significant stuff getting buried and would reduce Snowden's overall impact.

> … Mr. Snowden later sent him a homemade video with step-by-step instructions for installing [encryption software], which Mr. Greenwald watched but never completed… In late April or early May, he and Mr. Snowden began to talk over an encrypted chat program.

What "encrypted chat program" they could possibly use?

Kopete with OTR? :)

The Rubik's Cube was a nice touch. I remember when I was inseparable from mine. (Averaged 50 seconds. Not world-class, I know, but not terrible for a 12-year-old.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com