[davidholmesnyc]

What a great article. To think this guy had no idea for months he was talking to one of the biggest whistleblowers of our generation. Reading this makes me wonder if there's room for a yellow pages style public key directory for journalists. That would of saved a lot of time and hassle.

[rdl]

Equally awesome is that he DID know for months he had been talking to one of the biggest whistleblowers of our generation, and he maintained enough OPSEC (i.e. "STFU") that this didn't become widely known.

[w8rbt]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Discretion is the better part of valor". It is good to be brave, however it is also good to be discreet. If you are cautious and discreet (keep your mouth shut and don't brag), you will probably not be put into a situation that requires bravery.

[dmd]

> there's room for a yellow pages style public key directory for journalists

There is! Most journalists have a Twitter account or at least some verifiable online identity, so that's exactly what https://keybase.io/ is for.

[davidholmesnyc]

Awesome. Didn't know that existed. I have to check it out for my own personal email communications between my friends.

[na85]

Doesn't keybase require you to upload your private keys to them? I can't think of a worse approach.

[coldpie]

At its core, it's just a keystore with some innovative verification features (face it: key signing parties weren't working). It has some optional sugar on top.

I do think it's a mistake for them to allow uploading your private key. They really shouldn't be encouraging private key promiscuity like that. Otherwise, I really like the service and hope it catches on.

[aendruk]

No, and you also don't have to use its client software. You can (and I do) use the service solely by signing JSON documents locally and uploading the signature.

[mburns]

No, they don't.

There is an option to upload an encrypted version of your private key, but you can simply choose not to.

[NiftyFifty]

Depends on your opinion, and honestly if he _was_ a legitimate whistle blower (as stated by current law, not my personal view), don't we think he'd be protected under the Whistleblower Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794) or any sort of legislation ->currently<- in place? Matters of National Security does not qualify and to be frank, and its pretty clear he is guilty of treason (no matter what my opinion is, again). This most likely isn't a popular view here on YC (I am not judging anyone openly here), but this makes for fascinating reading. Edward Snowden is no better than John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Aaron Burr (VP of the United States!!), and Benedict Arnold. Russia really didn't want him, but they sure didn't exactly push back considering whatever Snowden had on his person (or remotely access to) and surely has been taken and shared with the Chinese as well. I'm simply trying to provide the deep (on occasion conflicting) loyalties that underlie many security professionals in this country that are married to the ultimate goal of protecting interests domestic and abroad of the United States. They are the best and brightest, and the leadership generally above them are FROM the ranks of trusted/vetted/experienced individuals.

[pyre]

Your post is interesting, so I'm not downvoting, but at the same time it comes across as a shill post.

> Russia really didn't want him, but they sure didn't exactly push back considering whatever Snowden had on his person (or remotely access to) and surely has been taken and shared with the Chinese as well.

To be frank, if security (at the NSA) was/is as lax as Snowden claims, then none of the information is probably news to Russia or China. That said, I was under the impression that Russia and China aren't exactly bed-fellows, yet you claim that 'surely' the information has been shared. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion (assuming that there is any new information to share).

> I'm simply trying to provide the deep (on occasion conflicting) loyalties that underlie many security professionals in this country that are married to the ultimate goal of protecting interests domestic and abroad of the United States.

The problem is that protecting US interests isn't some cut-and-dry thing. The CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden to 'protect US interests' (in repelling the USSR from Afghanistan). How did that work out? The US went into Iraq because "WMDs" existed that Saddam Hussein was going to launch against our allies. How did that work out? The US intelligence community has been pushing for revolution in the Middle East... now we have a bunch of countries in turmoil, and ISIS running rampant. How did that work out?

I remember top US officials claiming that the Iraqis would "welcome us as liberators" as if everyone would just abandon Saddam and start cheering "USA! USA!" as soon as troops cross the border.

I question the qualifications of the people making these decisions.

> They are the best and brightest, and the leadership generally above them are FROM the ranks of trusted/vetted/experienced individuals.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything. How does this relate to Snowden? How does this related to NSA whistleblowers? How does this relate to treason even?