But that does not mean that a subset of true information can't be informative either. It can be misleading, it does not have to be. And if it is misleading then there are plenty of people in a position to correct that perception, it's only a matter of time before that will happen.
I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here. As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead.
It actually makes perfect sense, if the data was not genuine we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, so we use what data is publicly available and hope for more.
Think about the alternative, if Snowden would have released all of it then it would be argued that releasing all of the data was irresponsible (see previous leaks).
That's one you can't win as a leaker and so I don't blame Snowden for that (though personally I'd have preferred if he leaked all of the data without any intermediaries).
> I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here.
I'm pretty sure very few people expected the leaks in the first place, and yet, they happened.
> As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead.
Yes, so the guilty are beyond reach of the law and safely forgotten. And so we are trying as hard as we can to stave off meaningful progress.
If it can't stand the light of day it is probably nothing good.
Sunlight is the best des-infectant and Snowden provided quite a bit of it.
Just put on your 'ethics' cap for a bit and you'll get it.