Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 16 2015, @08:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the following-orders dept.

Techdirt has already written about the massive problems with the Sunday Times' big report claiming that the Russians and Chinese had "cracked" the encryption on the Snowden files (or possibly just been handed those files by Snowden) and that he had "blood on his hands" even though no one has come to any harm. It also argued that David Miranda was detained after he got documents from Snowden in Moscow, despite the fact that he was neither in Moscow, nor had met Snowden (a claim the article quietly deleted). That same report also claimed that UK intelligence agency MI6 had to remove "agents" from Moscow because of this leak, despite the fact that they're not called "agents" and there's no evidence of any actual risk. So far, the only official response from News Corp. the publisher of The Sunday Times (through a variety of subsidiaries) was to try to censor the criticism of the story with a DMCA takedown request.

Either way, one of the journalists who wrote the story, Tom Harper, gave an interview to CNN which is quite incredible to watch. Harper just keeps repeating that he doesn't know what's actually true, and that he was just saying what the government told him -- more or less admitting that his role here was not as a reporter, but as a propagandist or a stenographer.

[Video]: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/14/tom-harper-nsa-files-snowden-howell-intv-nr.cnn/video/playlists/intl-latest-world-videos/

[Also Covered By]: The Intercept


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:20PM

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:20PM (#196891)

    I trust the Sunday Times more or less as much as I trust the Intercept and Greenwald. Both are propagandist, just on different sides.

    After reading the Techdirt article one can only conclude that their critique of the Sunday Times article also seemed filled with unknown source information, innuendo and guesswork. They are clearly not better in any way, shape or form.

    Lets just assume that the original story was true for the sake of argument. Nobody would come out and admit that, no analyst or employee within the British intelligence community would go out with name and confirm the story, unless instructed to do so. So the source would be anonymous. Even if it was false they wouldn't go out and say that. It's just so much better having the outsiders believe whatever they want to believe. That way they'll never be sure what is true.

    If they had evidence of it being true they would just save it until they can get their hands on Snowden. That evidence plus the stealing and spreading of documents is more or less a slam dunk case for an eternity behind bars.

    If Russia and China have or had cracked it they wouldn't say anything either. They would just use the information in the best way they could. But they would not share that with the Sunday Times or CNN or whomever.

    The smear campaign is nothing new. That started as soon as they found out whom he was. Landing in Moscow just made it so much worse, for him. Now he is literally sitting in the lap of the enemy. If you don't believe he has been repeatedly interrogated by some Russian intelligence agency you are extremely naive. He is completely dependent on their good will. They could just come and grab him one night, or day, and expel him from the country if they wished.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:41PM (#196893)

    >hat evidence plus the stealing and spreading of documents is more or less a slam dunk case for an eternity behind bars.

    Everything is. They can put you away for 5, 10, 20, for anything.
    Your only recourse is to shoot them dead.
    Which is why they've been taking away the guns.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @09:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @09:54PM (#197049)

      In that case, to prove your point, I'll get a platoon from the local National Guard to come after you, and you can fight them off by yourself, with one firearm (you get to choose, but it must be one that you legally and presently own). Then we'll see how keeping your firearms is going to stop the government from stamping all over your face. Protip: it won't.

      • (Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:21AM

        by arslan (3462) on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:21AM (#197106)

        uhhh... isn't there numerous accounts of when you can still fight a fairly realistic war even if one side is way under equipped in firepower. Its called a guerrilla warfare..

        Of course if you just stand there trying to match firepower.. then yea face stamping, but then its a well deserved Darwin award.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @04:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @04:20PM (#196916)

    Both are propagandist, just on different sides.

    And are far different in severity. A reporter making propaganda pieces for the government is far worse than someone making ones that go against the government; governments are powerful and can easily ruin your life, so they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have enough power as it is and don't need more.

    That evidence plus the stealing and spreading of documents is more or less a slam dunk case for an eternity behind bars.

    Copying, not stealing.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @04:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @04:24PM (#196918)

    What has The Intercept got wrong?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:09PM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:09PM (#196937) Journal

      What has The Intercept got wrong?

      No one knows what they have wrong. You have a mixture of anonymous sources and expert opinion which different reporters assign different levels of credibility which either align with or differ from your personal assessments of credibility.

      Look back at the Cold War. The right was correct in that Soviet documents have corroborated the assertion that Soviet espionage and influence in western left wing politics were extensive. The left was correct that the case for an aggressive stance against the USSR was substantially overstated since they were as afraid of direct conflict as we were. Russian communism collapsed and Chinese communism mutated and ultimately being right about either of these things had little impact on world events.

      The same clash along polarized responses to a threat has migrated to other fronts. Everyone thinks history is on their side and that their opponents are completely deluded. The truth is, everyone is partially deluded.

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:27PM (#196947)

        The truth is, everyone is partially deluded.

        What scientific evidence of this do you have? Are you claiming it is logically impossible for someone to be correct?

        • (Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:24AM

          by arslan (3462) on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:24AM (#197107)

          I read it as it is logically impossible for someone to be entirely correct. Which kind of makes sense. It is hard to trivialize complicated matters down to a binary right vs. wrong. It is often various shades and depending on which viewpoint you're standing in it changes as well.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:29PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:29PM (#196949) Journal

        No one knows what they have wrong.
         
        The articles point out a few specifics that are wrong. It's just a coincidence that every independently verifiable fact included in the story is false, I'm sure.

        • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:39AM

          by Non Sequor (1005) on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:39AM (#197128) Journal

          What makes disassembling a narrative a more reliable procedure than assembling a narrative? You have a mass of assertions from different parties. One group of journalists sorts through the pile and puts the ones that sort of fit together in a row and says "there, this shows what happened" while other journalists line up the ones that don't fit together and says "that can't be right".

          You can't uncover the truth or reveal lies through these kinds of processes. Consistency isn't a proof of truth and inconsistency isn't a proof of lying. Witnesses are unreliable. Experts have personal allegiances. Stories shift over time organically or are deliberately massaged to be more consistent with an emerging narrative. The news isn't a logic puzzle where you win if you use deductive reasoning to construct a consistent set of axioms. Contradictions can coexist due to incomplete explanations and consistency may be an illusory byproduct of artificially filling in incomplete explanations.

          --
          Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @06:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @06:16PM (#196972)

        The right was correct in that Soviet documents have corroborated the assertion that Soviet espionage and influence in western left wing politics were extensive.

        What? I will agree that they tried but hell no did they succeed on any significant level.

        That's like saying the CIA funding of much modern art contributed to the downfall of the USSR when all it really did was pay for a bunch of artsy-fartsy types to enjoy a bohemian life-style.

  • (Score: 1) by andersjm on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:05PM

    by andersjm (3931) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @05:05PM (#196935)

    Lets just assume that the original story was true for the sake of argument. Nobody would come out and admit that, no analyst or employee within the British intelligence community would go out with name and confirm the story, unless instructed to do so.

    And why wouldn't they be instructed thusly? The agents are already exposed, and the "enemies" already know that we know, so there's really nothing more to hide. Given how eager the UK and US governments are to paint Snowden a traitor, there must be immense political pressure to present whatever damning evidence can be found; so even if it does go against the grain of how the intelligence agencies like to work, the information would find a way out, leaked if necessary.

    At the very least, if any of this were true, high-ranking officials would say so off the record to their news media contacts, and other media would jump at the story.