Carding 4 Carders
Professional
Why do we know only 1% of the truth, and the rest of the secrets are still gathering dust on the shelves?
After 10 years of meeting Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, Even MacAskill, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former employee of The Guardian, gave an interview to Computer Weekly about Snowden's secret files.
According to MacAskill, only 1% of all classified information related to mass surveillance of citizens was published by journalists from the archive of the infamous former CIA employee. Meanwhile, the full archive of the documents is still held at The New York Times office, although The Guardian is responsible for them.
When asked why this data has not been published in the past 10 years, MacAskill said that this is a difficult question. The journalist argues that this is mostly due to the fading interest on the part of the public. After all, with the publication of more recent, but no less resonant materials, Snowden's information is no longer so interesting to the mass reader. Although this is definitely not the only reason.
In his opinion, there are some other weighty arguments in favor of keeping the information from the archive secret. So, if Snowden, who has Russian citizenship and currently lives in Russia, decides to return to the United States someday and face trial, these documents can be used against him.
Snowden himself, according to MacAskill, also did not want the documents to be published in full. In addition, the journalist believes that for future historians, such an archive of secret documents can be of considerable value.
However, since "1% of published documents" feels like a drop in the bucket, a reasonable question arises — did the journalists do everything possible to disclose this threat in detail? After all, even under a democratic regime, people can be elected to power who could use such unprecedented Orwellian control, described by journalists, to crush any opposition.
"Looking back, we could have done some things better. But these stories have already reverberated around the world and continue to reverberate to this day. Snowden wanted to warn the world about the scale of mass surveillance, and he succeeded, " MacAskill said.
"While the NSA and GCHQ have certainly developed better tools since then, and surveillance has become more intrusive, Snowden has raised public awareness of the threat posed by the loss of privacy," the journalist added.
MacAskill left The Guardian's staff in 2018 and does not know if there were any discussions about the Snowden archive between The Guardian and The New York Times after his departure.
The Snowden case has become a kind of litmus test that tests the strength of the ethical principles of journalism. On the one hand, the public has the right to know the truth about the extent of government surveillance of citizens. On the other hand, the fate of the person whose revelations triggered this process is at stake.
The fate of the unpublished part of the archive is still questionable, although it is unlikely that something shocking and fundamentally new will be learned from it. Harsh modern realities have long prepared us all for the fact that there is no escape from surveillance, but you can certainly reduce its presence in your life with the help of specialized software tools.
After 10 years of meeting Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, Even MacAskill, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former employee of The Guardian, gave an interview to Computer Weekly about Snowden's secret files.
According to MacAskill, only 1% of all classified information related to mass surveillance of citizens was published by journalists from the archive of the infamous former CIA employee. Meanwhile, the full archive of the documents is still held at The New York Times office, although The Guardian is responsible for them.
When asked why this data has not been published in the past 10 years, MacAskill said that this is a difficult question. The journalist argues that this is mostly due to the fading interest on the part of the public. After all, with the publication of more recent, but no less resonant materials, Snowden's information is no longer so interesting to the mass reader. Although this is definitely not the only reason.
In his opinion, there are some other weighty arguments in favor of keeping the information from the archive secret. So, if Snowden, who has Russian citizenship and currently lives in Russia, decides to return to the United States someday and face trial, these documents can be used against him.
Snowden himself, according to MacAskill, also did not want the documents to be published in full. In addition, the journalist believes that for future historians, such an archive of secret documents can be of considerable value.
However, since "1% of published documents" feels like a drop in the bucket, a reasonable question arises — did the journalists do everything possible to disclose this threat in detail? After all, even under a democratic regime, people can be elected to power who could use such unprecedented Orwellian control, described by journalists, to crush any opposition.
"Looking back, we could have done some things better. But these stories have already reverberated around the world and continue to reverberate to this day. Snowden wanted to warn the world about the scale of mass surveillance, and he succeeded, " MacAskill said.
"While the NSA and GCHQ have certainly developed better tools since then, and surveillance has become more intrusive, Snowden has raised public awareness of the threat posed by the loss of privacy," the journalist added.
MacAskill left The Guardian's staff in 2018 and does not know if there were any discussions about the Snowden archive between The Guardian and The New York Times after his departure.
The Snowden case has become a kind of litmus test that tests the strength of the ethical principles of journalism. On the one hand, the public has the right to know the truth about the extent of government surveillance of citizens. On the other hand, the fate of the person whose revelations triggered this process is at stake.
The fate of the unpublished part of the archive is still questionable, although it is unlikely that something shocking and fundamentally new will be learned from it. Harsh modern realities have long prepared us all for the fact that there is no escape from surveillance, but you can certainly reduce its presence in your life with the help of specialized software tools.
