logoalt Hacker News

What happened to the Snowden archive

152 pointsby EXHadesyesterday at 10:35 PM60 commentsview on HN

Comments

motionlessveloctoday at 1:34 AM

So where's Snowden in all this? The article talks at great length about everybody he gave copies to and how they've all gone silent, but obviously he holds copies as well and is not beholden to the US on what he does with them. (Although he is surely on a short leash with his Russian masters as well.)

show 1 reply
rtpgtoday at 12:08 AM

This article linked back to the intercept's snowden archive articles [0], and while this article paints the Intercept in a bad light it lead me to reading a couple of these.

While I heard many of the headlines the reporting is very in depth, including a bunch of smaller details worth poking into. I'd recommend people who are interested and who haven't done so yet to just read a couple of these.

[0]: https://theintercept.com/series/snowden-archive/

firesteelraintoday at 1:10 AM

People became ambivalent. Snowden fled eventually to Russia. Some people viewed him less relevant over time as the archive merely trickled out. When he fled to Russia, he looked less like a martyr and more like a national security information leaker or spy like Robert

A lot of what sounded extraordinary in 2013 is now baked into everyday discussion like metadata and mass surveillance. He is also available less for interviews because he is in Russia.

Basically bigger fish to fry

show 1 reply
anotherhueyesterday at 11:11 PM

I think the real answer is the Overton window shifted to accommodate what was previously scandalous,

show 1 reply
regnulltoday at 1:04 AM

Let me guess. He disclosed everything to expose the US, but when it came to exposing others (like Russia, where he found the refuge), he balked. The fearless journalists were contacted by some guys who explained would happen if they were to leak the docs (not American court, and not Guantanamo). So they decided, quite wisely, to stay mum.

show 2 replies
BLKNSLVRyesterday at 11:40 PM

The term "responsible disclosure" may no longer have any meaning.

"Irresponsible disclosure" for the short term may be equivalent to "responsible disclosure" for the long term.

There must be some pretty dark stuff yet to be disclosed, and/or some pretty overt threats for those relatively fearless journalists to close ranks. The "Assange example" may have done its job perfectly.

show 2 replies
ericydyesterday at 11:13 PM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
cocodillyesterday at 11:10 PM

If you leak it, leak it everywhere!

show 1 reply
WarOnPrivacytoday at 1:12 AM

Besides the undisclosed portions of the Snowden archives, I was also disappointed that the Assange/Wikileaks insurance files were never decrypted.

ref: https://kagi.com/search?q=wikileaks+insurance+torrent

Coeurtoday at 12:17 AM

Snowden got into action because he believed that the US was fundamentally good and needed to get back on track. Over the past 12 years, in the US and around the world, this belief completely vanished. Whatever remains in the archive no longer holds any valuable news.

show 1 reply
plucyesterday at 11:31 PM

Eh, the outrage never really materialized into anything worth continuing the leaks. Look at the Epstein files. "They" can just wait it out.

show 3 replies
bfleschyesterday at 11:26 PM

In 2026 these kind of articles must be a bait to receive the latest pegasus-style payload on your honeypot devices.

No matter how many internals are being leaked about five eyes, it's important to realize that there is always someone who benefits from the turmoil and the loss of faith into democratically-supervised institutions.

With technical agencies I'd guess that at least they promoted people based on technical merit and not by how much land ownership their families had 500 yrs ago.

show 2 replies
yeah879846yesterday at 11:22 PM

[dead]

AlexCoventryyesterday at 11:30 PM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
Arodexyesterday at 11:34 PM

[flagged]

johnnyApplePRNGyesterday at 11:49 PM

[flagged]

show 2 replies