<story><title>A CIA hacker’s revenge</title><url>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>the_af</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;I still have no idea if he&amp;#x27;s an adversarial plant by some government&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that&amp;#x27;s all that matters.</text></item><item><author>antiverse</author><text>&amp;gt;Snowden&lt;p&gt;Looking back at everything that transpired with Snowden boggles the mind. I still have no idea if he&amp;#x27;s an adversarial plant by some government (meant to sow distrust, etc) or if he was genuine from the get-go. It is incredibly hard to get to the truths of these things, and the media outlets spinning it in their own ways (based on who donates to them and who owns them) makes it even harder.</text></item><item><author>boomboomsubban</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not surprising that the cause of the leaks was petty and personal. &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; Mark Felt&amp;#x27;s reason for exposing Nixon seems to be that he was upset he didn&amp;#x27;t get the director job, a similarly petty reason.&lt;p&gt;Ideological cases like Ellsberg, Snowden, and Manning are the exception.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>at-fates-hands</author><text>From what he reportedly took and what&amp;#x27;s been released, I&amp;#x27;m still so confused.&lt;p&gt;It was a hot mess in the media for a few months about how the reporters he fed stuff to was going to release it all. Then, once the story died down, you didn&amp;#x27;t hear anything and there were no more releases. At least none that were so groundbreaking, they hit the media. You could say the media was culpable and simply ignored subsequent releases though.&lt;p&gt;Is there somewhere you can go to see what&amp;#x27;s been released? I&amp;#x27;m still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released.</text></comment>
<story><title>A CIA hacker’s revenge</title><url>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>the_af</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;I still have no idea if he&amp;#x27;s an adversarial plant by some government&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that&amp;#x27;s all that matters.</text></item><item><author>antiverse</author><text>&amp;gt;Snowden&lt;p&gt;Looking back at everything that transpired with Snowden boggles the mind. I still have no idea if he&amp;#x27;s an adversarial plant by some government (meant to sow distrust, etc) or if he was genuine from the get-go. It is incredibly hard to get to the truths of these things, and the media outlets spinning it in their own ways (based on who donates to them and who owns them) makes it even harder.</text></item><item><author>boomboomsubban</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not surprising that the cause of the leaks was petty and personal. &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; Mark Felt&amp;#x27;s reason for exposing Nixon seems to be that he was upset he didn&amp;#x27;t get the director job, a similarly petty reason.&lt;p&gt;Ideological cases like Ellsberg, Snowden, and Manning are the exception.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sky-kedge0749</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know. If a ton of news came out about shady stuff happening at the Coca-Cola company, I&amp;#x27;d want to know if it was all coming from corporate espionage paid for by Pepsi.&lt;p&gt;We assume an impartial news organization will investigate Coke and Pepsi equally, so if the org comes out with a bunch of stuff about Coke acting badly, we figure that Coke really is bad, otherwise the org would have gone after Pepsi too, or both. On the other hand if a less scrupulous news org one day receives a mysterious package with a ton of bad stuff about Coke and just verifies and prints it, then Pepsi could be good or bad or anything, but most people will think they&amp;#x27;re good because of all the bad stuff only coming out about Coke.</text></comment>