Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Communications Privacy Government Network Networking Security Social Networks Software The Internet Twitter United States

Snowden Questions WikiLeaks' Methods of Releasing Leaks (pcworld.com) 165

An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld: Former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, has censured WikiLeaks' release of information without proper curation. On Thursday, Snowden, who has embarrassed the U.S. government with revelations of widespread NSA surveillance, said that WikiLeaks was mistaken in not at least modestly curating the information it releases. "Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake," Snowden said in a tweet. WikiLeaks shot back at Snowden that "opportunism won't earn you a pardon from Clinton [and] curation is not censorship of ruling party cash flows." The whistleblowing site appeared to defend itself earlier on Thursday while referring to its "accuracy policy." In a Twitter message it said that it does "not tamper with the evidentiary value of important historical archives." WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 previously unseen DNC emails last week, which suggest that committee officials had favored Clinton over her rival Senator Bernie Sanders. The most recent leak consists of 29 voicemails from DNC officials.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Snowden Questions WikiLeaks' Methods of Releasing Leaks

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think Clinton meddled in Putin's election before. Maybe he's just sending a reply message.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:06PM (#52609859)
    that Wikileaks just wanted to hurt Hilary & the DNC. The timing coupled with their unwillingness to clean out credit card numbers and individual donor names pretty much proves that. The question is why? Is Assange just bitter? I suppose he's got good reason to be (the trumped up rape charges). But if that's his reason he's not after justice, he just wants to see America burn.
    • The same reason a journalist who's an avowed liberal would break a story exposing a scandal for a liberal politician. It's good for his career and profile, and it also happens to be true.

      • Clinton is pretty darn far from being a Liberal. I really don't know if people know what the word means.
        • by JeffAtl ( 1737988 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @10:06PM (#52610107)

          The words Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right have pretty must lost all meaning. They've pretty much fallen into "no true scottsman" territory.

          The main dividing lines now are "open borders" vs "controlled immigration", free trade" vs "fair trade" - essentially Globalist vs Nationalist.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            It's not even globalist vs. nationalist, it's more along the lines of corporatist vs. consumerism. The breaking, sound like the plumbers, leaving a trail? Over to Putin? That sounds fishy. If the Russians are so smart, to break in, they would have left an elephant, or a donkey, but crylic language snippets? Nope. Open servers, sound like a honeypot.

          • "The words Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right have pretty must lost all meaning. They've pretty much fallen into "no true scottsman" territory."

            These terms have not become meaningless, but what they do mean is dependent on national culture. Even when you can establish a correspondence for a term in different cultures, the specific issues being argued will differ. One example: European "liberal" corresponds generally to American "libertarian" but without guns.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

          Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

          It's possible that she's:

          • Not liberal enough for your tastes.

          If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

          But she's supposedly for:

          • by pellik ( 193063 )
            • by Pax681 ( 1002592 )
              you say centralist ...I say centrist.. however she's only that in American terms.. in European terms she's on the right. We have the full political spectrum here.. you guys don't
              • by arth1 ( 260657 )

                True. Bernie Sanders would be a centrist from a European perspective, or even a right-leaning one, by still favouring capitalist ideas like governments relying on private contractors, commercial health care (even if funded by the government) and unconditionally supporting Israel with weapons and security council vetos.

                From a European perspective, Clinton is definitely conservative. She'll work well with Theresa May, even if being even a bit more to the right than May.

                And Trump is a wacko right-wing xenoph

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by Dread_ed ( 260158 )

                  Right now, Europeans think that reason must prevail, and that there's no way the American public can possibly vote in someone like that. But history has a tendency to repeat itself.

                  Are these reason loving Europeans the ones complaining that the people they invited into the EU are bombing, shooting, stabbing, axing, raping, and running over their friends and families? You can't have it both ways I guess. Either you are for unmitigated immigration, or you are racist xenophobe for entertaining the idea that letting in anyone and everyone without oversight or screening might be a bad idea.

                  You are as obtuse as you are transparent. Can't you smell your own filth?

                • by Anonymous Coward

                  You should know by now that the US public really doesn't give a shit about what Europeans or foreigners in general think.

                  While this attitude has quietly existed over the years the constant insults and endless slurs hurled at the US public have brought this attitude into the open and paved the way for someone like Trump to take advantage of.

                  It was once thought that England would never vote to leave the EU. Cameron let the vote happen because he thought he could dispense with those vocal few who supported Eng

              • by HiThere ( 15173 )

                NOBODY has the full political spectrum...in power. Among those out of power the US has everything from Anarchists to Totalitarians, and from Religio-Communists to monopolists. Come up with another axis and we probably have those, too.

                Among those in power I believe that the EU has those further to the "left" (to use a term from the French Revolution) and the US has those further to the "right", with a nearly bell curve spread within the extremes.

                Left and right are, of course, stupid linearizations of the a

                • by Anonymous Coward

                  NOBODY has the full political spectrum...in power. Among those out of power the US has everything from Anarchists to Totalitarians, and from Religio-Communists to monopolists. Come up with another axis and we probably have those, too.

                  Among those in power I believe that the EU has those further to the "left" (to use a term from the French Revolution) and the US has those further to the "right", with a nearly bell curve spread within the extremes.

                  Left and right are, of course, stupid linearizations of the actual political stances, but they are the idiocy on which most political thinking seems to be done. The stupidity is on a par with thinking that Trump represents the "little people", but it makes for quick sound bites and easy snap judgments.

                  OK captain bollocks.. Europe has a FULLER political spectrum .. does that satisfy your pedantic wee heart.... WE do have a far fuller spectrum and pretty much all of them represented in power in one country or another over.. America.. you have no real centre or left parties.. it's kinda like a national hangover/hang up since the McCarthy era.
                  While you might have piddly tiny token elements of other parties.. here we have them in plentiful supply of all flavours.. not just right and not just a token amount o

                  • by Pax681 ( 1002592 )
                    dunno why that posted as anon but it was me.. also.. IN POWER you generally get a SINGLE party of one political flavour from one part of the spectrum. you utterly missed what i meant in an effort to be a twat :) lubs choo!
                  • by HiThere ( 15173 )

                    I was claiming precisely the opposite of "Europe has a FULLER political spectrum.", so no, your response doesn't satisfy me.

                    Now as for your claim that "pretty much all of them represented in power in one country or another", I've got to give you that. I'm not certain that it's true, but it looks a lot truer than a similar claim made about the US. Partially this is because the US really *is* one country, and the EU isn't. But I'm not really sure that's much of an advantage either way.

        • Most people don't. We currently have a conservative democrat and a liberal republican running this term.
          The liberal vs conservative is about trying to intact change vs keeping things as they are. Democrats vs republicans are roughly divided in larger central government vs smaller decentralized governments (both with a set of social goals)
          Trump is trying to change everything into his own image (IMO a scarry world). Vs Clinton will try to conserve the progress we had made without too much drastic progress.

          • The Clinton family are often characterized as being Neocons. Now, there's another tricky term to try to figure out.

          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Hillary appears to be a statist-centralist, i.e. one who believe in increasing the power of the central government (i.e., state meaning nation).
            Trump appears to be an ego maniacal dictator worshiper, who hopes to mold himself into his hero.

            Neither one appears to be a reasonable choice, but were I to choose between them I would pick Hillary, as being less likely to start a mega-war. There is little fainter praise than saying that someone appears to be better than Trump.

            As it is, I live in a blue state, so I

    • The Fifth Estate (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's *how* they help... or hurt that matters, though. Exposing corruption is a benefit to everyone. Polonium tea, not so much.

      One of the interesting leaks that hasn't gotten a lot of press was in the DNC email leak and showed that the Washington Post was having some kind of secret fundraiser with the DNC that their own lawyers said they shouldn't be doing. So it's not like we even have the media to rely upon to do proper investigations any more and, weird as it may seem, we appear to have found a 5th est

    • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <evi AT evcircuits DOT com> on Friday July 29, 2016 @11:12PM (#52610307) Homepage

      What exactly is wrong about publishing everything? The CC should've been reported, cancelled and identity theft insurance provided the minute the DNC knew about the leak. The timing may be convenient but they gave them time to notify their customers, fix their infrastructure etc - had they published immediate, people like you would've been complaining about irresponsibility.

      The fact is, the leaks happened. Nobody will die from it unlike Snowden's leak where full publish would've meant certain death to informants. It's a business hack vs a military intelligence hack. Nobody dies when Target loses CC, nobody dies when Microsoft loses source code.

    • Snowden did what he did because what he saw was wrong. Wiki leaks did what they do just because that want to stick it to the man. As for those trumped charges I feel that may not be so trumped. There is a personality that wants to be aggressive and focused on what he want with little to no value on the consequences. That personality type is ripe for causing other crimes.
      Still with all this stuff I don't see the US other than a few ranting house members really caring much about Assange they got Manning w

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Assflange is a classic narcissist. He pretends it's all about freedom of information and sharing the knowledge with the public but it is all a glory project centred around him. He's an egotistical twat. There are better ways of releasing the information and taking the "there'll always be collateral damage" approach makes you no better than the typical US military warmonger.

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > Assflange is a classic narcissist.

        So what? This just confirms the painfully obvious. NO ONE does anything without getting some benefit out of it. That benefit may not be obvious but it's there. You can't stifle self interest. You have to be able to harness greed in order to accomplish things.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    just telling the truth lacks self gratification? cease fire stand down,, spirit of creation all++++ we have to invent more ways to negate us....

  • by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:07PM (#52609863)

    That the Russians would ever spy on the US. Isn't Putin a constitutional scholar?

    • Our "Consitituional scholar" is rebuked by the judiciary seemingly every week. It seems these scholars are either poorly informed, or overrated.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        You're confusing knowledge with ethics. He's following the rule "If I can do this without penalties exceeding the gain I hope to get...".

        I hate feeling this way about the government I was raised to trust and honor....but it's been downhill ever since Kennedy. (Kennedy was no plaster saint, but he did seem to *try* to run an honorable, if not honest, government.) Well, OK, Carter tried to be honest and honorable too. He was just less successful.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      Spying is expected. Publishing the data is not. If the Kremlin is behind this, it may be because they blame the US administration for recent leaks that have embarrassed Putin and allies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by vtcodger ( 957785 )

        More likely, the Russians desire to get even with the administration for orchestrating the 2014 overthrow of a pro-Russian government in the Ukraine. That has caused the Russians no end of trouble. Did the US actually do that? Hard to tell as everyone looks to be lying non-stop. But very likely it did.

  • Regardless of any imperfect implementation of information dissemination, shouldn't Snowden and Assange essentially be on the same team here? The bickering seems to undermine them both.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Stallman and Torvalds should be on the same team. Witness the bickering controversy of GNU/Linux.

    • Re:Team Players? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Saturday July 30, 2016 @01:17AM (#52610685)
      No, because they have different underlying beliefs and goals.

      There are basically 4 reasons that people leak information/commit espionage/etc - Money, Ideology, Conscience, and/or Ego.

      Snowden (based on his statements) did not release classified information simply to release it, or because he thought 'information should be free', or because he was trying to strike a blow against the Elites/"The Man"/etc, or any of that. He believed that there was lots of activity going on that ranged from questionable to illegal/unconstitutional, that he felt the public was being kept in the dark on, and that it needed to be made public for the good society as a whole. He was very clearly motivated based on his Conscience. He's also stated that he never intended for some of the other information to get out, and he relied on the journalists he gave the files to for help with that. Perhaps it was foolish, and perhaps he's not truthful about that, but it's what he's claimed at least.

      Contrast this with Assange, who has a much more specific stated intent of going after certain governments, corporations, and powerful figures. He believes that they need to be torn down, basically - pretty much an Ideology based motivation. He's stated outright that his intent with the DNC leaks was to hurt Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, based on the timing, I'd even question if his intent isn't just to go after the Democrats more generally, because he has stated he'd had it for some time, and if he'd released the information sooner, it might have helped Sanders win the primaries.

      So they definitely have very different stated set of motivations for what they do, and goals they're pursuing by it - at least according to what they've said.
      • Assange is the kind of guy who would refer to the Clinton Family as neocons.

        Snowden is somebody who adopted his beliefs from within the government bureacracy and is essentially apolitical.

        Those are very different points of view.

      • I'll always found it interesting that Wikileaks\Assange have a fixation on exposing American secrets, but have shown little enthusiasm in doing the same with exposing Russian or Chinese misdeeds: surely there's lots of skeletons to be found in these two countries' records, especially with their dismal human rights records. Maybe Wikileaks should focus of political killings and the murder of journalists, rather than fixate on petty internal disputes within the U.S. Democratic party.
        Same thing vis-à-vi

  • by ndykman ( 659315 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:55PM (#52610071)

    The basics of journalism do help. Just dumping raw data with no concern to how it may affect third parties that are irrelevant to the main story really hurts your overall credibility. Not even showing any attempt to verify the information as valid (because it is easy to tamper with digital information) with additional sources does as well. News matters. Providing a context to a given set of information is important. Asking for comment and/or rebuttal from various parties is important, even if they refuse. Showing judgement as to what is relevant is important.. Not doing so opens them up to a ton of valid criticism. Some editorial prudence would go a long way overall.

    • by JeffAtl ( 1737988 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @10:09PM (#52610115)

      Why would Wikileaks do that when no other modern-day journalist? Journalists today are all about hot takes, sensationalism and activism.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        That's an asinine argument. Other people who should do it don't do it, so I won't do it either.

        Wikileaks won't do it because Assange is a chaos-monger posing as a crusader. Wikileaks should do curate its leaks because when you possess information you act responsibly with it, e.g., don't expose people it is about to identity fraud.

      • What modern-day journalist working for anything resembling a respectable newspaper has published the credit card numbers, home addresses, and private phone numbers of their subjects?

        Snowden didn't state specifics, but the scandal around Wikileaks release of the DNC emails has generally focused on two things - the possibility it came from Russia (nothing to do with Wikileaks themselves or editing, so unlikely to have been Snowden's concern), and that it included private information about individual - ofte

  • by blackfeltfedora ( 2855471 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @10:13PM (#52610123)
    Apparently they have been sitting on these for a couple of months waiting for the right time to cause maximum chaos. There was plenty of time to scrub credit cards, phone numbers, etc. Either Assange doesn't care about what collateral damage he causes or the Russians didn't provide the data until right before release date.
    • Either Assange doesn't care about what collateral damage he causes

      He might not. He probably views the DNC as accessories to the crime.
      If he is a Donald Trump fan though, that would be wildly entertaining.

    • by johanw ( 1001493 )

      Perhaps he sees that "collateral damage" as an extra bonus? BTW, since when did the US government ever care about "collateral damage" in one of their many illegal wars or executions by drone?

  • Shhhh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoelKatz ( 46478 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @10:19PM (#52610141)

    Morpheus is fighting Neo.

  • by quax ( 19371 )

    Assange made Wikileaks a one man show. One that lacks integrity.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is your opinion that WikiLeaks lacks integrity.
      But now,
      the whole world knows the FACT that
      Wasserman Schultz is unethical and tampered with the election process.
      Let's hope Tim Canova can kick her butt.

      • by quax ( 19371 )

        That Wasserman Schultz cannot be trusted was pretty well established before the hack.

        Not really my main concern though.

        The Turkey data dump is what's really odious.

        • I assume Wasserman is German for Waterman, but what the hell is a waterman?

          • Evidently a boatman who carries you over the water, like the gondola guys or the guy who carries you over the River Styx.

          • by quax ( 19371 )

            In mythology it is a water sprite. I recall I used to have a children's book that was called "Der kleine Wassermann".

        • I agree with most of what you say - though hard evidence is not a bad thing, there was a lot of "He said, she said" stuff before the leak proved the DNC was rotten on this issue - but the Turkey data dump was not a Wikileaks thing, despite early reporting suggesting it was. Snowden's almost certainly talking about the release of private information - credit card numbers, private phone numbers and home addresses of donors - that was also in the leak.
    • Integrity: N. Definition: Having the quality of supporting liberal causes. Example: The liberal journalist showed great integrity by not further investigating any of the allegations that Hillary Clinton's private email server was used to cover up damning evidence that charitable donations to her foundation were given for doing favors as Secretary of State.

      Example 2: Although what Snowden released was true, he showed no integrity by releasing information that showed corruption in the DNC.
      • by quax ( 19371 )

        The Turkey data dump is what's really odious.

        Don't really care much about inter-US squabbles, and would care much less if the GOP would have managed to nominate somebody with the qualifications for the job.

        Really don't want Canada to have to build this wall to the South.

  • Wikileaks is about providing raw data so that actual journalists can do there job. To criticize Julian Assange is to misplace blame. It's perfectly valid to say- yes- this might harm innocent people and it's still a good idea to release as is. There are all sorts of risks to life we take every day. Just getting in ones car is a risky proposition. The reason we do it though is because more good comes from it than if we don't.
  • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday July 30, 2016 @03:38AM (#52610961) Journal
    Long term a full release helps historians, authors, bloggers and any interested people fill in the redacted material after 30 years of official gov releases in some nations.
    A limited, self censored release over years by a subset of the press seems useful in the short term to sell content but long term its all the information in its full context that helps.
    A full release also prevents any questions surrounding members of the press who claim to be experts in certain areas and then only publish fragments on what they feel they understand or want write about for domestic consumption. That can be very limiting for any future historians and can result in a very small sub set of diverse material been covered many times.
    Eg a group of journalists only feel comfortable about releasing material about corruption in a few nations... and hold back all the other interesting material as they see it as outside the help they can request from their own gov and mil contacts.
    Members of the press then publish the same story with a few local twists or focus on a name in decades old material on advice of their legal departments.
    A searchable full release is also good for details like format, dates. Names that did not hold a position that year, fonts, jargon that could point to alterations, self censorship, missing material, a limited hang out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The fact that they don't release information when they get it means they are trying to influence people, instead of letting the data influence people, wikileaks is no better than any other organization.

  • He didn't like working with the NSA and keeping all the secrets secret. He doesn't like working with the Wikileaks guys and keeping all the secrets public. There's just no pleasing that guy.

    We're just easing into the world where no secrets can be kept. There will be some discontent as the proles start to see how the sausage is made, but whenever they realize that all the machinery is that dirty, things should settle down a bit. It's pretty much a universal truth that anyone who actively seeks power should

  • Snowden is going to lecture someone about responsible disclosure? Give me a fucking break. This is just Snowden remindering everyone that Snowden still exists, don't forget about me! I'm the REAL leaker! The guy is an absolutely shameless self promoter.
  • I don't honestly know where I stand on this debate, but for Wikileaks to suggest Snowden is just angling for a pardon from Clinton is a comically childish response. Tons of respect lost for that group. I've seen higher levels of discourse in a local newspaper comment section.

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972