
Cryptome’s critique of Snowden Inc. - cmsefton
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354
======
vosper
Genuine question: Do people take Cryptome seriously?

I tried reading one of their publications [1] and found the writing absurd.
Phrases like "few observers were aware that the re-territorialization of
detainees would be undergirded by the courthouse’s archeology of evocative
discursive foundations" or "recisions may condemn immigrant sites as exilic
borderlands of unlitigatable extraterritoriality, a condition of spatial
quarantine that transforms them into the new lazarettos of the metropolitan
system".

I don't want to come off as anti-intellectual, and maybe that all makes
perfect sense to other people, but for me whatever point they were trying to
make was lost in the verbiage.

[1] [https://cryptome.org/cartome/Natsios-Voir-
Dire.pdf](https://cryptome.org/cartome/Natsios-Voir-Dire.pdf)

~~~
putaside
The people at GCHQ do take Cryptome seriously:
[https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-
uploads/sites/1/20...](https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-
uploads/sites/1/2015/09/cryptome.png) (KARMA POLICE)

The writing could be one (or many) of many things: Leveling, acting,
craziness, fooling, making an obscure point, fnords, trolling, an in-joke, a
nod to author identification or woolly self-aggrandizing media reporting,
being brash and adversarial for the hell of it, attention whoring, readership
selection etc.

I don't think it is supposed to make sense, except maybe for a select few of
insiders. We had Cryptome vs. Wikileaks, Cryptome vs. Appelbaum and now
Cryptome vs. Snowden. Something-something about letting the leaks do the
talking, not the money and spin doctors.

~~~
2close4comfort
It is about information needing to be free. That is the point not racking up
speaking fees or self promotion.

~~~
josh2600
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable.
The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other
hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is
getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against
each other." -Stewart Brand

The full quote is much more nuanced than just 'Info want be free!'

~~~
2close4comfort
Yes you are right, but you still have to pick a side and I know that I what
information to be free. All of it. So you can fight to keep it hidden or you
can fight for it to be free. But by trying to hide it you have to know that by
its nature it wants to be free and shared. the government relies on the levers
influence over the individual be it financial, physical or other means to keep
that info out of common knowledge. So you can decide to be part of the
solution or part of the problem . The biggest problem people have with
Cryptome is they see this in very black and white terms.

------
RodericDay
> _Young: Snowden says he gave them to the public; no, he didn’t. He gave them
> to a bunch of self-interested journalists who decided to run a certain story
> with it, i.e., to explain it to people. And their fucking explainers really
> have a problem._

> _Natsios: It’s a serious conflict of interest. They’ve written themselves
> into the story as heroes, co-heroes of the story. It’s a conflict of
> interest. They’re not at a distance from their source. They’ve embedded
> themselves in the narrative, and therefore all decisions are highly suspect
> because they benefit from the outcome of the narrative in every sense._

As far as I'm concerned, "We the People" need heroes. The fact is that the
vast majority of the public grows up looking up to them, whether via History
class or movies. But The Left keeps tearing its own heroes up (usually for
righteous reasons- they're dangerous etc), while The Right is much more likely
to prop theirs up.

So, without going into the rest of the piece, I do kinda like styling people
like Snowden and Manning as heroes. I'm okay with some self-promotion and so
on.

~~~
existencebox
To myself, and I imagine many others with the same views of self sacrifice and
patriotic comittment, there was no need for the reporters to make Snowden out
to be a hero.

Simply the act of putting oneself in such a dangerous situation, risking ones
entire life and livelihood and ability to be with the ones they love to try
and make their nation a better place, is one key part of what it means to be
heroic (As long as the actions themselves do not cross certain lines.) And as
per my initial paragraph, this is speaking as someone who sees this disclosure
as very fair, those lines were not crossed, he truly is a hero on his own
merit to a level of which we have had very few since the founding of this
country.

------
kodablah
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.

~~~
2close4comfort
" financially incentivizing the releasers " I like that plus given the
evidence so far it does show what their motivation really is...

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

~~~
2close4comfort
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.

------
agd
Snowden was clear in his instructions that he didn't want a data dump as some
of the info was legitimately secret.

Cryptome don't seem to accept this position. The question is do we say to
whistleblowers 'it's all or nothing'. Would that really encourage more people
to leak? Or do we work within these parameters?

Of course there are conflicts of interest and mistakes when only a few can
access the material, but I'd much rather have a partial leak than no leak.

~~~
2close4comfort
It is hardly a leak of Glenn/Intercept keep them forever. That would go
directly against what Cryptome has always believed. I would like to know how
Snowden was connected to the people he eventually gave that information to,
that in itself might prove interesting. It was not for their technical ability
which does lead to the question how are they able to judge the suitability of
what they release.

~~~
gherkin0
> I would like to know how Snowden was connected to the people he eventually
> gave that information to

Snowden selected Greenwald and Poitras and reached out to them via email:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-
sno...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Contact_with_E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Contact_with_Edward_Snowden)

~~~
2close4comfort
Do you think these were his 1st choices?

~~~
gherkin0
I have no idea, but the question was about "how he was connected" to the
people he released the info to. The answer was: he wasn't until he made
contact himself.

He must've made a list of journalists he knew of who he thought would be
sympathetic to the message he wanted to send. Maybe Greenwald/Poitras weren't
at the top of the list, but some quick Googling doesn't reveal anything about
anyone else he may have tried to contact before them.

------
bantunes
Down at the moment, here's the Google cached copy
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N8pEP7...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N8pEP72U8h0J:timshorrock.com/%3Fp%3D2354&num=1&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

~~~
acqq
And the interview, around 21st minute is the claim by John that the tax
reports of Tor clearly show who finances it. Do listen:

[https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-
cryptome-2016...](https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-
cryptome-2016-02-06)

------
nabla9
Greenwald got the scoop and he should not benefit from it?

Those documents are released slowly so that journalists who have them can
write stories and put the released information into context. It also serves
the purpose of keeping the government surveillance in the mind of public
longer.

Putting them all just out there would make news for few months but then it
would be all forgotten. People care surprisingly little. Greenwad & Co.
control the media exposure and maximize the impact. Just like Snowden wanted.

> Let me name some names. ACLU, one of the most corrupt organizations in New
> York City and around the world.

Okay.

~~~
EdHominem
Also, this way lets the journalists react to the government's story and make
it clear that they keep lying.

If the leak happened all at once the government would get its story straight.

------
timwaagh
in some obviously 'deeply cynical' meta criticism: that, or they are just
jealous of their competition.

------
DyslexicAtheist
the IMO only strong case that cryptome makes is that sites like the Intercept
get the success and are able to ride the wave as long as possible and hence it
is therefore in their interest to keep the leaks trickling in rather than
releasing the cache like a flash-flood.

While I understand that this creates a conflict of interest consider the
benefits: if all would have been leaked all cards would be on the table. And
Snowden would have been out of the news by autumn 2013. This selective
publishing (in the name of keeping innocent people out of harms way) ensures
the discussion is ongoing. I can live with that as long as what gets published
doesn't get published out of context.

Also Cryptome confuses the Intercept with Wikileaks / Assange when they say
that the Intercept receives massive salaries yet those who do the work go to
jail (I believe this was a jib at how Assange handled the Manning leaks).

------
cmsefton
The interview audio linked to from the article since the site appears to be
down: [https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-
cryptome-2016...](https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-
cryptome-2016-02-06)

------
cagey_vet
the aforementioned lingo/patois was the de facto verbiage of the early days of
the movement, and some don't graduate away from it.

