4 ms·
This seems like incredibly bad OPSEC from The Intercept. It's obvious that the leaker fucked up big time here and would most likely been caught just based on h
by ryanlol 9y ago
This seems like incredibly bad OPSEC from The Intercept.
It's obvious that the leaker fucked up big time here and would most likely been caught just based on her own mistakes, but you'd hope that a publication with such a track record of publishing high profile leaks would make a better effort to protect its sources than sending watermarked documents directly to other government employees to confirm.
Really not sure if they'll be able to recover from this.
- PietdeVries 9y agoSo I've been strugling a bit with how this went... She downloaded/retrieved a document, then printed it, then scanned it again and mailed it to The Intercept? Some stories claim she was caught because access to the document was logged, others point to the dots and printer logging. But printing a document and then scanning it again would not make sense, would it?
- ryanlol 9y ago>She downloaded/retrieved a document, then printed it, then scanned it again and mailed it to The Intercept? I think that's just people misunderstanding the "mailed", it really means physical mail here. >Some stories claim she was caught because access to the document was logged, others point to the dots and printer logging. The legal paperwork claims that she was caught due to the audit logs and her previous unrelated communications with The Intercept. I don't believe there's any reason to doubt that, the dots probably didn't play a part there. >But printing a document and then scanning it again would not make sense, would it? The document was probably just printed and mailed.