BoringCode

Yes, there is more to life than the cult of Snowden. No reason to run around with our heads cut off just because the man gave an interview.

Don't bother, this poster is just trolling and moving the goal posts is one method to do so. You could bring up how spirited and competitive the World Baseball Classic was. How it featured teams from all over the world and was watched and understood by fans all over the world.

Or how there are multiple professional leagues on multiple continents. Each with their own followings and eccentricities.

You could also point out that baseball is in fact back in the Olympics. Precisely because it now has an international following.

But none of that matters. Because this poster is in a race to prove how they are more euro-centric than Americans are USA-centric.

Baseball is played around the world. This comment is slightly insulting and pointless.

I am concurring with you. The point I'm making is that it's a matter of resources and trust, not literal "open source" that matters.

If I trust an organization to put the resources towards properly auditing their software, that's often far more important then whether or not I can personally do an audit. The majority of people and organizations do not have the time or technical skills to properly evaluate software. Whether the software they use is open-source won't ultimately matter.

The "many eyes" argument often falls apart because most of the time there simply aren't that many eyes dedicated to a project. What is the practical difference between Microsoft hiring 100 people to perform security audits and an open-source project that has 100 volunteers? Resources and trust. If you trust the open-source project to dedicate resources to security, and their software fits in your threat model, then use it. Or the inverse, if you don't trust MS and their software doesn't fit: avoid it. The vast majority of the time open-source vs closed-source should not be the main differentiator, but rather a smaller element of an informed decision.

Many open-source projects simply don't have the resources to adequately test their products or provide support. Contrast this with a large company which has the resources and the willpower to provide support for their software. Often the best of both worlds is a large company/organization that dedicates its resources to an open-source product, but that's not always the case.

But this issue is never as black and white as "open-source is more secure." There are many other factors that go into the security of a product beyond its source code being readable. Deciding which factors matter largely depends upon your unique threat model.

> A better strategy would be to determine which ISP serves Congress, and pay them for the data of IPs originating from Congress.

Except that would be illegal (and no ISP is going to sell raw data, even if they could)

Not conclusively, no.

I'm not sure speculation changes the central premise of the question. Assume that the document was up to date with the latest techniques. Would you still that consider it to be a document worth leaking for the public good?

edit: I will acknowledge that the age of the document does change its impact. But 2013 is pretty recent.

I suspected I'd see a variation of this answer in this thread. While on some level it makes sense for some cases (the information is so benign that it doesn't matter if it is leaked), in this case I don't think it quite adds up.

First, while much of the information might be common-sense, it might not be to potential adversaries and I see no reason to provide further aide.

Second, revealing documents like this helps prove what FBI isn't doing. When trying to plan an effective counter to surveillance, it can be just as important to know what isn't be tracked as well as what is. Again, I don't see a public good here.

I simply don't think there is an overriding good that outweighs potential downsides (even if small). Revealing this document does not show moral or legal problems. All it does is fulfill curiosity. Which isn't a good reason for leaking information related to national security.

If your analogy was true, there would be a stronger moral argument for revealing such information. But it isn't. I'm talking about this very specific case.

Honest question: is this the type of material that should be leaked? Is there an overriding good to revealing this document to the public?

I lean towards no, but I'd be interested in discussion on this.