xeni at August 30th, 2013 17:12 — #1
boundegar at August 30th, 2013 18:37 — #2
I am shocked to find gambling in this casino.
imb at August 30th, 2013 21:20 — #3
ygret at August 30th, 2013 23:13 — #4
Fuck the authoritarian UK government. If ANYONE is going to be destroying journalistic source material its going to be the FBI. How DARE they think they can come over here, and tell OUR government mouthpiece (with occasional reporting) what to do!
l_mariachi at August 31st, 2013 01:51 — #5
Are they really that oblivious as to how information works now? The cat’s out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, Slimer is out of the containment unit…
retepslluerb at August 31st, 2013 03:11 — #6
Again, it's not about “destroying” the leaked information.
It's about preventing publishing said information, especially in media which are still considered to be somewhat respectable.
jerwin at August 31st, 2013 03:42 — #7
The recent budget was labeled ""Access to the information in this document is restricted to US citizens with active SCI accesses for SPECIAL INTELLIGENCE andTALENT-KEYHOLE information." Only a few pages were published. The Post chose to redact the rest,possibly out of concern that unredacted publication would be more reckless than useful.
We know that hackers from China had free reign over the New York Times network--conceivably they had access to information that wasn't "fit to print". Is it too much of a stretch to thing that the Guardian network contained information that was useful for the pursuit of journalism, but not necessarily appropriate for full disclosure? Could hostile intelligence agencies gain access to the complete files and thwart the Guardian's attempts to redact, edit, and engage in responsible journalism?
xeni at September 4th, 2013 17:12 — #8
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.