Daniel 'Hotcock' Cooper sentenced for sex with a Land Rover

Daniel Cooper has been convicted of indecent exposure after trying to have sex with a Land Rover.

A man with the self-proclaimed nickname "Hotcock" is in hot water after allegedly taking naked sex and conflict with a Land Rover.

A court in Wales, UK recently had sentenced Daniel Cooper, 24, of exhibitionism. He was forbidden to leave 19-7 Friday, the Saturday and Sunday for the next three months.

The order stems from an incident on August 18, where Cooper, who is known by the nickname of "Hotcock" - was captured on video surveillance by undressing and then grinding against Blue 4 x 4 Land Rover Discovery, reported the New York Daily News.

Cooper said the Court was so drunk at the time who did not remember their auto erotica encounter until he saw the video.

Land Rover was not available for comment, but it was not just the inanimate object that caught the attention of Cooper that night, according to the mirror.

Earlier in the afternoon, witnesses saw punches and polished with the counter of a store of kebab and simulation of sex on the floor with his pants at his ankles. Also it was him walking down the street with lowered pants.

Cooper, a father of three children, also urinated on the streets. When he was arrested, he admitted to officers who rarely drank, according to the Telegraph.

In addition to the ban on the night of 3 months, Cooper ordered him to pay fine to $134.

His lawyer, Gary Harvey, told the Court that his client was mortified by his actions and his behavior toward cars and kebab counters was out of the ordinary.

Said that "is a family man responsible who looks after children while his wife went to work", informed the International Business Times.

That may be, but both mirror and Telegraph said that Cooper changed the name on his Facebook page to Daniel Hotcock Cooper only once he was arrested for his 4 X 4-juego.

In addition to the sentence and fine, Cooper can expect to be mocked about his drunken behavior for the rest of his life.

"Daniel will never live this," said an unidentified friend. "It isn't a pretty view to the naked. We all felt pity for the Land Rover and hope that it does not offend".

Also in HuffPost:

Subscribe to window._taboola = window._taboola | []; _taboola.push ({mode: 'autosized-1r-organic', container:'taboola-autosized-1r-organic '}); _taboola.push ({mode: 'autosized-1r-sc', container: 'taboola-autosized-1r-sc'}); window._taboola = window._taboola | []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

Daniel Paille, 3rd Line Push Bruins Past Blackhawks In Game 3 Of Stanley Cup Finals (VIDEO)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Daniel Paille #20 of the Boston Bruins celebrates after scoring a goal in the second period against the Chicago Blackhawks in Game Three of the 2013 NHL Stanley Cup Final at TD Garden on June 17, 2013 in Boston, Massachusetts. (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)

BOSTON — The Bruins' third line was No. 1 in Boston.

The revamped lineup of Daniel Paille, Chris Kelly and Tyler Seguin scored Boston's first goal and drew the penalties that led to another in a 2-0 win over Chicago on Monday night for a 2-1 lead in the Stanley Cup finals.

The line also led Boston's pestering forecheck that forced Chicago into repeated giveaways and penalties as the Bruins controlled play from the start.

Paille, who scored the overtime winner in Game 2 to tie the series, scored the first goal Monday off assists by Kelly and Seguin. The Bruins went up 2-0 when Patrice Bergeron scored a power-play goal set up by the grinding work of Kelly and Paille, who drew the penalties that gave Boston an 11-second 5-on-3 advantage.

Chicago's Dave Bolland, who cross-checked Kelly with 8:00 left in the second, had just gotten out of the penalty box and didn't quite make it back into the play when Bergeron scored with 5:55 left in the second period.

Boston coach Claude Julien bumped Paille up from the fourth line after the first period of Game 2 and the combination with Kelly and Seguin paid off again.

Kelly scored his first goal of the postseason in Game 2 and Paille scored in overtime as the Bruins won 2-1. For the first time in the series, no OT was necessary Monday, thanks much to the Bruins pressure.

Boston outshot Chicago 7-2 in the first five minutes and finished the game with 35 shots to the Blackhawks' 28.

Kelly, who entered the game at minus-7 for the playoffs, also had eight faceoff wins, half of Chicago's team total as the Bruins dominated that category, too, 40-16.

Get Alerts

Bruins Edge Blackhawks 2-1: Daniel Paille's Overtime Goal Wins Stanley Cup Final Game 2 (VIDEO/PHOTOS)

AppId is over the quota
(L-R) Daniel Paille #20 y Andrew Ference #21 de Boston Bruins celebran después de Paille marcó el gol de la victoria en el primer tiempo extra contra los Bruins de Boston en dos juegos de la NHL 2013 Stanley Cup Final en el United Center el 15 de junio de 2013 en Chicago, Illinois.

CHICAGO — Estas los Bruins de Boston son un manojo resistente.

Daniel Paille anotó en 13:48 en tiempo extra y los Bruins golpearon los Blackhawks de Chicago 2-1 en la noche del sábado a incluso las finales de la Copa Stanley en un juego cada uno.

Tres días después de un thriller de tres horas de extras en el primer partido de la serie, Boston y Chicago nuevamente ataron después de regulación. Los Bruins entonces intensificó la presión y finalmente cobraron después de portero Corey Crawford solo mantuvo los Blackhawks en el juego.

Brandon Bollig facturó en el final de Chicago y Paille envió un tiro bajo el guante de Crawford y el poste derecho para su tercer gol de los playoffs, devolver a los Bruins a Boston con el impulso por delante 3 juego el lunes por la noche.

Patrick Sharp anotó para Chicago, que parecía más gaseado a medida que avanzaba la noche. Crawford hizo 26 guarda en otra excelente actuación.

Paille también tuvo una asistencia en meta atar de Chris Kelly en el segundo, y Tuukka Rask tuvo 18 de sus 33 paradas en el primer período.

Los dos primeros juegos de la taza de Stanley del año pasado también fueron a tiempo extra, con Los Ángeles teniendo una ventaja de 2-0 en Nueva Jersey antes de ir a derrotar a los diablos en seis partidos. Antes de la temporada pasada, había sido 61 años desde que los dos primeros juegos de la final es necesario un período extra para decidir el ganador.

En eso taza de Stanley de 1951, cada uno de los cinco juegos fue a tiempo extra, con Toronto en la serie contra Montreal. La manera en que están jugando Chicago y Boston, una repetición es ciertamente posible.

Fue el tercer juego consecutivo de horas extras para los Blackhawks, que eliminó a Los Angeles con una victoria de 4-3 en dos overtimes en 5 juego de la final de la Conferencia Oeste y luego derrotó a Boston 4-3 en Maratón de la noche del miércoles. Chicago cayó a 4-2 en juegos de OT en los playoffs de este año.

Los Bruins perdieron el abridor cuando punta de Dave Bolland fue pierna de Andrew Shaw y más allá de Rask para la puntuación ganadora. También sopló una ventaja de 3-1 tercer período en eso, pero parecía no tener ningún problema en poner la pérdida detrás de ellos esa noche.

Después de todo, el mismo grupo básico de Bruins cayó en los dos primeros juegos de la final de la Stanley Cup de 2011 contra Vancouver y volvió a ganar. Arrastró el 4-1 en el tercer período de juego 7 contra Toronto en esta postemporada y volvió a ganar.

Es un espíritu que va de la mano con su ciudad natal de estos días. A raíz de los atentados de la maratón de Boston, Bruins hablaban de querer hacer algo por la ciudad, y justo ahora están bien en su camino hacia ese objetivo.

Los Bruins hizo un fuerte impulso para el marcador dinámico temprano en el tercero, pero Crawford había cada vez durante otro funcionamiento constante. Dejó de Brad Marchand después Jaromir Jagr hizo un gran movimiento para configurar el delantero molesto. Distancia pateó un tiro de David Krejci y con guantes un tiro largo de bofetada de Dennis Seidenberg cerca de 5 1/2 minutos en el período.

Pero su defensa abandonarle al final y no pudo llegar a tiro de Paille.

El juego no arranca como este, con los Blackhawks mirada fresca durante un primer período de dominante. Los Bruins parecían cansado y lento, excepto Rask, y eso fue suficiente para mantenerlos en el juego. Rask rechazados dos tiros por Patrick Kane durante una fuerte fiebre 8 1/2 minutos en el juego. Michal Rozsival luego la lanzó en la red y el largo rebote salió a Sharp, quien disparó pasado Rask, mientras que el portero sostuvo con un montón de cuerpos frente a la red.

Fue el noveno objetivo playoff de Sharp, rompiendo un empate con Bryan Bickell por el liderato del equipo y el emparejar Krejci mejor total de la NHL. Unos minutos más tarde, Marian Hossa empujó almohadillas de Rask y el duende malicioso justo sobre la línea roja en la meta. Sin embargo, los funcionarios dictaminó que el juego había sido silbado muerto antes de la puntuación.

Cuando terminó el primer período, los Blackhawks tenía 19 disparos a portería, comparado con cuatro para los Bruins. Sharp (seis) y Hossa (cinco) cada uno tenían más tiros que Boston tenía como un equipo.

Pero Chicago tenía sólo un 1-0 de plomo. El tremendo esfuerzo de Rask que mantienen los Bruins en el juego liquidado cuando consiguieron la puntuación que en la segunda.

Paille tenía una para llevar contra Sharp detrás de la red y luego hizo un movimiento agradable para llegar al otro lado de la meta. Crawford le dio vuelta lejos, pero Kelly se fue a meter en el rebote en 14:58.

Primer gol de playoff de Kelly desde el 12 de abril de 2012, contra Washington y Nº 11 de su carrera terminó el tramo sin anotación de Boston de 1 hora, 40 minutos y 57 segundos que datan del tercer período del abrelatas.

Notas: Chicago C Jonathan Toews recibió una ovación cuando fue reconocido en el primer período con un mensaje de videoboard honrando el centro para ganar Premio de Frank J. Selke el que mejor delantero defensivo de la NHL. ... Fue la primera separación de los dos primeros juegos de la final de la Stanley Cup desde 2004, cuando Calgary ganó el primer juego en la carretera y Tampa Bay tuvo juego 2. El rayo ganó la serie en siete juegos.

___

Jay Cohen puede ser contactado en http://www.twitter.com/jcohenap

Recibe alertas

Daniel Pena: The Enigmatic Kawhi Leonard

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Get Sports Alerts: Sign Up

The old adage goes that player's names are made and solidified in the NBA Finals. Such can be seen in the media frenzy surrounding the unlikely rise of Gary Neal and Danny Green whose combined 51 points in Game 3 against the Heat led to a massive 113-77 rout. In the post-game conference, when asked about how he was so capable of containing the league's MVP, LeBron James, and holding him to just fifteen points, the notoriously dry Popovich refused to answer the question and with good reason. If it's true that names can be made in the playoffs, it is also true that names can be broken or at least tarnished. Coach Popovich hinted at as much in fielding questions on LeBron James' lackluster performance against the Spurs in Game 1. When asked to remark on James' performance in Game 3 and what he thought James could do better, Coach Popovich dryly remarked, "He's a grown man. He doesn't you to tell him anything. He knows more than all of you put together." Thus far, the conversation surrounding Miami's performance in the Finals centers on the singular narrative of what LeBron James can do better. Perhaps, the better question to ask is, "What is Kawhi Leonard doing right?"

With only 11 points and 1.7 assists averaged throughout this series, it might seem at first glance that Leonard is a minor role-player, an afterthought, a whistle in the riptide wind that is the Spurs' performance in this series. Indeed, he very well might be to the casual observer, but only because the narrative surrounding LeBron's fall from MVP grace is a much more enticing narrative to follow than the story of a rising small forward's ability to contain the so-called greatest contemporary player in the world. You only need to look as far as Leonard's averages of 12 rebounds, two steals, and myriad of forced turnovers to see that Popovich's control over the Heat relies as much on Kawhi Leonard as it does on the offensive spark of the rest of his team.

Much of Miami's trouble in this series has come from their inability to get to the free-throw line as well as their inability, with the exception of Chris Anderson, to score points inside the paint. Leonard's defense of James has been brilliant, seldom allowing the 75.3% free throw shooter to get to the line while somehow managing to disallow him to score on the post, instead forcing James to kick the ball out, ad nauseum, to players who can't seem to convert on the assist. Mario Chalmers played the entirety of Game 3 without scoring any points. Dwayne Wade went seven for 15 from the field in that same game. Leonard's defense creates a conundrum for LeBron, daring him to shoot from mid-range or beyond the arc in order to score or facilitate as a passer, putting the ball into player's hands who might be willing but unable to score with the same potency as James can, though there's evidence James' potency is waning as well, scoring 7/21 in Game 1, 7/17 in Game 2, and 7/16 in Game 3.

There's another old adage that goes, "defensive players never get their due." Fair enough. Not that Leonard or Danny Green or Gary Neal are griping. Leonard, like Green and Neal, is unassuming, almost forgotten. Gregg Popovich knows this. The rest of the Spurs know this. And it's perhaps because of this, their almost banal presence, that the Heat defense (and in turn offense) have gone soft on these players, opting instead to double up on the likes of Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, and Tiago Splitter. For the Heat, players like Leonard are supposed to be nobodies. The Heat need for them to be nobodies if the stand a chance to win.

It's fair to say that Kawhi Leonard is in the running for Finals MVP should the Spurs win this series. Or at least he should be. He's done what many-a-coach have considered to be the impossible in controlling LeBron James. In turn he controls the Heat and propels the Spurs onward toward their fifth NBA championship. His name too will be forged in these Finals.

Contact me on twitter @danimalpena or via e-mail at dip22@cornell.edu

Follow Daniel Pena on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danimalpena

Get Alerts

Daniel Burrus: Social Media ROI for Business: Facebook versus LinkedIn

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Get Business Alerts: Sign Up

With the multitude of social media sites, it's hard for businesses to determine where they should be allocating their time and resources. And since many are reporting that they're not getting the return they expected from their social media efforts, it's important to know the psychology of social media and the various types of networking that fall under the social media umbrella. When you understand this, you can make smarter social media decisions for your business.

For example, when most people think of social media, they automatically think of Facebook. But Facebook doesn't encompass the whole scope of social media. There's so much more! For example, YouTube is about video sharing, Flicker is about photo sharing, SlideShare is about sharing presentation slides, and Twitter is about micro-blogging.

One of the reasons why Facebook is so large is their focus on social networking--and in their case personal networking. The ability to find old friends and make new ones, as well as share your life experiences with them, has proven to be a winning combination worldwide.

But Facebook is not the only large social networking site. Another powerful form of social networking is professional networking, and that's where LinkedIn comes into play.

There's a big difference between personal networking and professional networking. Let's look at five of the main psychological differences so you can understand the nuances of each and how they may or may not help you reach the social media goals you have for your company or organization.

1.     Focus

When people visit a personal networking site, their focus is different than when they are on a professional networking site. In professional networking, people are focused on doing their job better, on achievement, on success, and on goal attainment. But those same people on a personal networking site are focused on having fun, nostalgia, keeping up with friends and family, and sharing personal information. In short, personal networking sites are good for memories and connecting, while professional networking sites are good for brand building and career building.

2.     Time

How a visitor spends their time on a social media site is also an important distinction. Since personal networking evokes a casual mindset in the user, people can get sucked in and lose track of time. Often, the social media outlet becomes a distraction or a place to kill time. On the other hand, professional networking is more like investing time. People go there with a purpose to improve themselves, their company, or their future. In fact, depending on the types of connections they make while on the professional networking site, they may even find resources that help them save time.

3.     Content

What people post on the various social media outlets is a big differentiator as well. The type of content on a personal networking site is usually about friends, family, or hobby activities, such as sailing, dogs, cars, etc. In contrast, most of the posts on professional networking sites are about careers, brand updates, business insights, and economic news.

4.     Newsworthy

What qualifies as newsworthy differs between the two venues. When on personal networking sites, people are more apt to focus on family updates, interesting vacations, entertainment, and sports news. But when on professional networking sites, the focus changes to current affairs, business, and economic updates. Additionally, on a personal networking site, what a company's brand is doing doesn't matter as much, but it's one of the top things covered and discussed while on professional networking sites.

5.     Emotions

From an emotional standpoint, personal networking sites encourage users to express their emotions freely and also to share in the moment. For example, your friend may post a photo of their new baby or their dog running at the beach or a wedding. In that moment you can reply and express an emotion back to them. So personal networking tends to be focused on things that are fun, entertaining, humorous, and sometimes sad. In professional networking, there are definitely emotions involved, but they aren't expressed freely and instead they are purposeful. Even if they are personal in nature, they have an aspiration component to them. People even carefully craft their status updates and replies before posting them because they are focused on brand building and professional development. People's emotions are a little more reserved because they're trying to establish and maintain their identity for the purpose of achieving their professional goals.

What the Differences Mean for Business

Since each social media outlet has a distinct purpose, it's important for all businesses to evaluate why they are on a particular social media site, what their goals are for it, who they are targeting for their messages, and how they can best use the medium to advance their company. Then, they have to decide which type of networking--personal or professional--will help them achieve their objectives so they can focus the majority of their time there. This does not mean to totally abandon one for the other; it's about knowing what works best in each venue and giving more attention to the one that produces better results.

In other words, for your business, is it better to socialize with customers? Get to know what products or services they like or don't like? Maintain a professional identity? Build rapport? Elicit emotion? Make contacts? Figure out what gives you the best return on your investment, and then craft your social media campaign around that information. When you know your company's purpose for engaging in social media, as well as what each outlet has to offer, you can make your social media initiative both productive and profitable.

Follow Daniel Burrus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DanielBurrus

Get Alerts

Daniel Alan Kennedy: Russia's New Exiles

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Get World Alerts: Sign Up

At first there appears to be little linking these three men. One is a 28-year-old entrepreneur and founder of Russia's most popular social network; the second, a respected economist who has been an advisor to Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev; and the third, a world-renowned former chess grandmaster and outspoken critic of the Kremlin.

What links Pavel Durov, Sergei Guriev and Garry Kasparov together is that all three have fled Russia in the past three months amid fears of politically motivated prosecution. They are, in effect, a new generation of Russian exiles.

Exile was a common fate for dissidents like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov in the 1970s and 1980s. Post-Soviet Russia has, by and large, avoided such heavy-handed tactics. However, the latest string of high-profile emigrants suggests the Kremlin may be turning the screws on previously untouchable figures.

Pavel Durov, occasionally called "Russia's Mark Zuckerberg", is the multimillionaire founder of social network, VKontakte. Durov's troubles began in April of this year when police announced he was suspected in a hit-and-run incident in St. Petersburg, where a traffic cop was injured by a white Mercedes. Video of the incident was broadcast on Russian television. Durov denied he was the driver and stated he didn't even own a car.

On April 17, Russia's feared Investigative Committee raided the company's headquarters. The following day, it was announced that Durov's business partners, Lev Leviev and Vyacheslav Mirilashvili, who owned 48 percent of the company's voting shares, had sold them to United Capital Partners. UPC's President, Ilya Sherbovich, has strong links to the Kremlin and sits on the board of directors of both Rosneft, (Russia's state oil company) and Transneft (Russia's oil pipeline monopoly). Saint Petersburg police announced they wished to speak to Durov as a "witness."

Durov has disappeared, most likely to Italy, where he spent much of his formative years. Durov, who identifies as a libertarian and has refrained from personally criticizing the regime, likely fell foul of the authorities for his refusal to shut down groups on his site and hand over information on users involved in the protests that arose in the wake of December 2011's Duma elections.

Sergei Guriev was Rector of Russia's prestigious New Economic School and a board member of Russia's Sberbank until May 30, when he tendered his resignations and announced that he would not be returning from France, where he was visiting his wife and children. Guriev wrote an article in The New York Times explaining that he had been targeted by the Investigative Committee following recommendations he had made in a report calling for the release of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oligarch imprisoned on charges of tax fraud. Amnesty International considers Khodorkovsky to be a prisoner of conscience.

Guriev claimed he was called (like Durov) as a "witness", but was subjected to interrogations and extensive requests for personal documents about the Khodorkovsky case. He stated that he and his wife were under surveillance and he had concluded his liberty was under threat.

Following Guriev's announcement, on June 6 another high-profile Russian, former chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, announced that he too would not be returning to Russia. Kasparov has been an outspoken critic of Putin for some time and has been arrested before for illegal demonstrations.

On his Facebook page, Kasparov explained (in English) that, "Putin is cracking down harder than ever and is showing he is willing to create a new generation of political prisoners unseen since the days of Stalin. I have already been 'invited' to speak to prosecutors and such invitations have a way, at a minimum, of limiting one's freedom of movement. Adding another victim to the regime's list will not do much good."

The three cases display striking similarities. In each, the individual is questioned by members of the feared Investigative Committee, often as a "witness" to another case. The questioning and requests for personal information both interfere with the individual's day-to-day life and create a pervading sense of unease and fear. The cumulative effect of this questioning is to leave the individual in no doubt that life will be much easier if he or she leaves the country.

This process is much easier than actually putting people on trial. The departure of a high-profile individual creates much less of an impact in the Western press than the highly politicized trials of opposition blogger Alexei Navalny, on trial for alleged fraud, members of feminist art collective Pussy Riot, or Khodorkovsky. The process also gives the Kremlin plausible deniability - Putin's spokesperson Dmitri Peskov claims Guriev's move is solely for personal reasons and he is not wanted for any crime.

The Kremlin has discovered it is better to have troublemakers move abroad than to make potential martyrs of them at home. With Russia currently clamping down on dissent on all fronts, we can expect to see more high-profile Russians packing their bags for good in the future.

Follow Daniel Alan Kennedy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielabkennedy

Get Alerts

Daniel Ellsberg Calls Edward Snoden A 'Hero'

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

By publicly identifying himself as the leaker behind last week's NSA revelations, Edward Snowden has secured his place in media and political history.

ABC News called the leak "one of the greatest national security leaks in recent American history," and in publishing his identity, the Guardian compared Snowden, a 29-year-old contractor with the NSA, to Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the most famous leaker in history. It was almost exactly 42 years earlier, on June 13th, 1971, that the first batch of the Pentagon Papers were published in the New York Times.

Like Ellsberg, Snowden's leaks have led to a public response from the president of the United States. Moreover, he is all but certain to face the same criminal prosecution that Ellsberg faced, and that Bradley Manning, the other candidate for "most famous leaker" status, is currently facing.

Like Snowden, Ellsberg was an insider, a man who worked for the RAND Corporation and the Pentagon before deciding that he could no longer tolerate what he saw as the lies of the American government in Vietnam, and used the media to get his message out.

"I spent years keeping my mouth shut as presidents lied to us and kept these secrets," Ellsberg told "Democracy Now" in 2010. "I shouldn’t have done that. And that’s why I admire someone even who’s accused, like Bradley Manning ... of actually risking their own personal freedom in order to tell the truth. I think they’re being better citizens and showing their patriotism in a better way than when they keep their mouths shut."

Snowden had similar things to say in his interview with the Guardian:

"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

Trevor Timm, a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tweeted Ellsberg's reaction to the news about Snowden on Sunday:

I was just with Dan Ellsberg as he learned out about Edward Snowden. He called Snowden a hero, said he's been waiting for him for 40 years.

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) June 9, 2013

Ellsberg is regarded mostly as a noble figure these days; it remains to be seen how Snowden will be viewed. A BuzzFeed analysis on Sunday found that those calling him a "hero" outnumbered those calling him a "traitor" by 30 to 1 on Twitter, but that is hardly a representative sample of the country at large.

By Monday, several more details had emerged about Snowden's life and his dealings with the media. Most intriguing was a piece by the Washington Post's Barton Gellman, which detailed the contact between himself and Snowden. (Gellman would go on to publish his own story about the PRISM program, which accessed data from Internet companies.)

Snowden, Gellman wrote, called himself "Verax," the Latin word for "truth-teller," in their communications. The two made direct contact on May 16th; Gellman described Snowden as someone who was "capable of melodrama but wrote with some eloquence about his beliefs."

Talks hit a snag when Gellman refused to agree to Snowden's demand that the Post publish the full text of the PowerPoint document that detailed the PRISM plan:

I told him we would not make any guarantee about what we published or when. (The Post broke the story two weeks later, on Thursday. The Post sought the views of government officials about the potential harm to national security prior to publication and decided to reproduce only four of the 41 slides.)

Snowden replied succinctly, “I regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral.” Shortly afterward he made contact with Glenn Greenwald of the British newspaper the Guardian.

Greenwald denied this timeline of events, tweeting on Sunday night:

Bart Gellman's claims about Snowden's interactions with me - when, how and why - are all false.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 10, 2013

However the story unfolded, and however it unfolds, Snowden has in all likelihood added his name to a select group of leakers who became nearly as famous as the secrets they revealed.