Transporting encrypted data alongside a written password FOR that encrypted data, while also using someone with whom they(Greenwald) are in a relationship as mule is TERRIBLE tradecraft. It is a fantastic example of their inability to handle the data.
Hahah, you need to read more carefully fella. Miranda was carrying
one password for
one of his fifty-eight
thousand encrypted files. Miranda had to be detained under our draconian anti-terror laws and interrogated for hours - threatened with detention and deportation - before he handed over the passwords for the rest of the material.
Tradecraft? Please stop using such childish terms - this isn't a Tom Clancy (god rest him) novel. We talk in terms of information assurance, hazard and risk.
Risk exists in active programs, HUMINT especially, but releasing this data to incompetent recipients artificially increases that risk for no constructive purpose other than perhaps revenge. Your argument is that risk exists, therefore no methods should be taken to mitigate that risk? Also, it is practically impossible to ward against insider threat. I will admit, the NSA did a spectacularly terrible job compartmentalizing their data. They however are not the ones that were handing it out like candy.
My straw man alarm just exploded. Let's count.
1) "Incompetent recipients"
2) "No constructive purpose"
3) "Your argument is..."
4) "It is practically impossible..."
5) "They...were handing it out like candy"
Five in almost as many sentences. For bonus points you threw in an ad hominem attack implying Snowden's sole motivation was revenge, despite evidence to the contrary. For the jackpot you first attack me for, in your eyes, suggesting that "no methods should be taken to mitigate [inherent] risk", and then suggesting
precisely the same thing by stating (falsely) that "it is practically impossible to ward against insider threat".
If ever there is a brain olympics, you will take the gold in the mental gymnastics. Staggering levels of cognitive dissonance on display there.
You've failed to prove incompetence (failed even to correctly read your own evidence), you've outright rejected any possibility of positive effect or ethical motivation, you've completely misunderstood my argument, you've mis-represented the nature of information assurance and you've mis-represented the actions of the graun and co.
Spectacular.
At the point where it is no longer constructive.
And what is that point? Who is the arbiter of the value of a leak? How would one ascertain that value without, in fact, leaking it? This implies that a zero-impact leak of a zero-impact but outright illegal programme would be unethical - is that really your stance?
