You've shot down the approaches of Snowden and Assange before. I feel like I mostly understand your argument, but I'm not sure I know what you would have them do differently.
Is there anything in particular you think they should have done differently to accomplish their goals? Or do you think their goals were misguided? If so, what should their goal been, and what should they have done to accomplish it? I know this seems I'm just trying to encourage counter factual arguments against history. But there will be more leaks, and more folks who are in a position to distribute them. What should they do? -- http://josephholsten.com > On Oct 18, 2013, at 13:37, John Young <j...@pipeline.com> wrote: > > We still don't know, and likely will never know, what is in the > Snowden collection. Admirable as his courage may be, he > erred in handing it over to media incapable of assessing the > whole wad, which has led to the teasing and hyperbolized > accounts valorizing crypto to armor info-warriors. > > Perhaps more capable assessment is being done and will > be made public in a credible fashion instead of the goofy > call for debate before much is known beyond rhetoric and > hype. The heavy-handed redactions suggest official advice > threats and culling, and do not augur well for seeing the rest. > > Stupid claims of hiding the collection, insurance as stupid as > that of WikiLeaks, stupidly sending some or all of it to other > parties, come across as patent dissimulation of the comsec > advertising type. > > Comsec is now a fat mark-up of junk, espoused by stupid > comsec advisers to journalists as if a saintly medallion to > stop a bullet. > >
