13 ms·

> It says that once they saw it was printed This was a significant clue that The Intercept did not have to give up. The warrant says they looked at all people

> It says that once they saw it was printed This was a significant clue that The Intercept did not have to give up. The warrant says they looked at all people who had accessed the report, and because the document appeared to have been printed, then at those 6 who printed it. The yellow dots might have not been a factor, but it's nevertheless the same type of carelessness which might have exposed a whistleblower otherwise. (But yes, this whistleblower would have been discovered by other means as well).

qb45 9y ago
1. The actual reason she was arrested is because she admitted leaking it. 2. The story about only six printouts and e-mail correspondence is the official cover to draw public attention away from the yellow dots. 3. The yellow dots is how they actually found her and why she had no reasonable choice but to admit leaking, which allowed 1 to happen without drawing attention to the yellow dots.
- us0r 9y ago
  > why she had no reasonable choice but to admit leaking While I didn't make my first year of law school I feel like nearly every criminal defense attorney in this country would disagree with this statement.
- banku_brougham 9y ago
  this is an interesting angle, i assume because there are no references this is merely speculation? actually, since the dots are not at all a secret, #3 cant be right. #2 is a bold claim, obviously pure speculation. So #1, is this true? please link source.
  - mi100hael 9y ago
    > The complaint says she admitted to printing out the document and mailing it to the news outlet. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-in-leak-of-top-secret-russia-document.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-in... I read another article that stated her admission came while the feds were raiding her home.
- otterley 9y ago
  Do you have a reference for this claim?
  - qb45 9y ago
    It's merely speculation but I think it's plausible: If some random journalist was able to decode the dots, the NSA probably decoded them too because why not. The fact that they know how many people printed this document shows that they keep detailed printing logs so they shouldn't have trouble finding out who exactly used this specific printer at this specific time. And if you think about it, this is exactly what they should be doing instead of relying solely on weaker evidence. Then they searched her work computer and got some more evidence (the e-mail contact, maybe more they aren't sharing). They presented whatever evidence was sufficient to convince her and the public that they know it was her, she doesn't seem very tech-savvy, freaked out, told everything and now it's done.
- nerpderp83 9y ago
  I for one would like a class action lawsuits against printer companies and the government for wasting my money on yellow toner.
  - caliagent 9y ago
    Maybe it's already been accounted for in the forced waste? My cartridges always say they're empty when there is clearly plenty usable ink left inside.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
>This was a significant clue that The Intercept did not have to give up. I have no idea why people are leaking to rinky-dink operations like the Intercept. If you want to leak, then leak to the Washington Post or New York Times. I can't imagine the Intercept having the expertise to handle such documents. This was a fairly obvious screw up. I also question their methods of receiving and storing such documents and if they aren't compromised by one or more nation state intelligence services. Are these documents being stored through a third party email or web server? Is there end-to-end encryption? The copier explanation may be a believable fiction as not to reveal other sources.
- ohthehugemanate 9y ago
  You know who the intercept is, right? It was started by Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, specifically for safely handling, processing, and releasing the Snowden documents and others like it. Personally I would trust them MUCH more than the New York Times. Well, unless the documents were specifically only damaging to Trump.
  - ckastner 9y ago
    Here's how Greenwald initially handled Snowden's leak [1]: Snowden anonymously sent him an e-mail saying he had documents he wanted to share, and followed that up with a step-by-step guide on how to encrypt communications, which Greenwald ignored. Snowden then sent a link to an encryption video, also to no avail. “It’s really annoying and complicated, the encryption software,” Greenwald said as we sat on his porch during a tropical drizzle. “He kept harassing me, but at some point he just got frustrated, so he went to Laura.” From another source [2] I cited in another comment: "it took Greenwald several more months and help from experts before he could learn relatively basic tools like PGP encryption." That's not exactly trust-inspiring, I'd say. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno... [2] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/edward-snowden-gpg-for-journalists-video-nsa-glenn-greenwald/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/edward-snowden-gpg-for-journ...
dmix 9y ago
I don't know why everyone is blaming The Intercept for publishing a document leaked to them anonymously for that exact purpose. They always publish the source document. So does NYTimes and WaPo and other news orgs. It's common practice. Assuming The Intercept detected the printer dot, how could they possibly know the printer dot wasn't some random one from a printer a library vs her work computer? If I was The Intercept receiving a document from someone claiming to be an intelligence officer I would assume they used some very basic OPSEC - such as not printing the document out on a MONITORED WORK COMPUTER. This is basic stuff. I don't see what more The Intercept could have done here to protect her. She messed up, not them.
- DanBC 9y ago
  The Intercept claims it's a safe place for people to leak to. It isn't if they make blunders like this.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Are you sure this is something NYTimes/WaPo/WSJ/etc would have detected and removed? I'm not familiar with the established practices for news orgs handling leaked documents arriving the mail from intel officers. It seems a lot of people are, so I'm curious to hear more about it...
    - rndgermandude 9y ago
      It's not just some dots, although that's a massive failure too, of course. TheIntercept reporter contacted some random govt contractor to see if they could verify the documents. Ok so far. But the reporter also revealed the mail was sent from Augusta, Georgia, which is a major breach of confidentiality.[0] [0] https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f473l3r/show_temp%20%2866%29.pdf https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f47... PDF page 12, paragraph 19
    - DanBC 9y ago
      > Are you sure this is something NYTimes/WaPo/WSJ/etc would have detected and removed? No, I'm not sure about that, and if they'd made the mistake after having claimed to be safe for whistleblowers I'd be gently complaining about them on an Internet message board too.

qb45 9y ago

1. The actual reason she was arrested is because she admitted leaking it. 2. The story about only six printouts and e-mail correspondence is the official cover to draw public attention away from the yellow dots. 3. The yellow dots is how they actually found her and why she had no reasonable choice but to admit leaking, which allowed 1 to happen without drawing attention to the yellow dots.

us0r 9y ago
> why she had no reasonable choice but to admit leaking While I didn't make my first year of law school I feel like nearly every criminal defense attorney in this country would disagree with this statement.
banku_brougham 9y ago
this is an interesting angle, i assume because there are no references this is merely speculation? actually, since the dots are not at all a secret, #3 cant be right. #2 is a bold claim, obviously pure speculation. So #1, is this true? please link source.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  > The complaint says she admitted to printing out the document and mailing it to the news outlet. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-in-leak-of-top-secret-russia-document.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-in... I read another article that stated her admission came while the feds were raiding her home.
otterley 9y ago
Do you have a reference for this claim?
- qb45 9y ago
  It's merely speculation but I think it's plausible: If some random journalist was able to decode the dots, the NSA probably decoded them too because why not. The fact that they know how many people printed this document shows that they keep detailed printing logs so they shouldn't have trouble finding out who exactly used this specific printer at this specific time. And if you think about it, this is exactly what they should be doing instead of relying solely on weaker evidence. Then they searched her work computer and got some more evidence (the e-mail contact, maybe more they aren't sharing). They presented whatever evidence was sufficient to convince her and the public that they know it was her, she doesn't seem very tech-savvy, freaked out, told everything and now it's done.
nerpderp83 9y ago
I for one would like a class action lawsuits against printer companies and the government for wasting my money on yellow toner.
- caliagent 9y ago
  Maybe it's already been accounted for in the forced waste? My cartridges always say they're empty when there is clearly plenty usable ink left inside.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

>This was a significant clue that The Intercept did not have to give up. I have no idea why people are leaking to rinky-dink operations like the Intercept. If you want to leak, then leak to the Washington Post or New York Times. I can't imagine the Intercept having the expertise to handle such documents. This was a fairly obvious screw up. I also question their methods of receiving and storing such documents and if they aren't compromised by one or more nation state intelligence services. Are these documents being stored through a third party email or web server? Is there end-to-end encryption? The copier explanation may be a believable fiction as not to reveal other sources.

ohthehugemanate 9y ago
You know who the intercept is, right? It was started by Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, specifically for safely handling, processing, and releasing the Snowden documents and others like it. Personally I would trust them MUCH more than the New York Times. Well, unless the documents were specifically only damaging to Trump.
- ckastner 9y ago
  Here's how Greenwald initially handled Snowden's leak [1]: Snowden anonymously sent him an e-mail saying he had documents he wanted to share, and followed that up with a step-by-step guide on how to encrypt communications, which Greenwald ignored. Snowden then sent a link to an encryption video, also to no avail. “It’s really annoying and complicated, the encryption software,” Greenwald said as we sat on his porch during a tropical drizzle. “He kept harassing me, but at some point he just got frustrated, so he went to Laura.” From another source [2] I cited in another comment: "it took Greenwald several more months and help from experts before he could learn relatively basic tools like PGP encryption." That's not exactly trust-inspiring, I'd say. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno... [2] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/edward-snowden-gpg-for-journalists-video-nsa-glenn-greenwald/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/edward-snowden-gpg-for-journ...

dmix 9y ago

I don't know why everyone is blaming The Intercept for publishing a document leaked to them anonymously for that exact purpose. They always publish the source document. So does NYTimes and WaPo and other news orgs. It's common practice. Assuming The Intercept detected the printer dot, how could they possibly know the printer dot wasn't some random one from a printer a library vs her work computer? If I was The Intercept receiving a document from someone claiming to be an intelligence officer I would assume they used some very basic OPSEC - such as not printing the document out on a MONITORED WORK COMPUTER. This is basic stuff. I don't see what more The Intercept could have done here to protect her. She messed up, not them.

DanBC 9y ago
The Intercept claims it's a safe place for people to leak to. It isn't if they make blunders like this.
- dmix 9y ago
  Are you sure this is something NYTimes/WaPo/WSJ/etc would have detected and removed? I'm not familiar with the established practices for news orgs handling leaked documents arriving the mail from intel officers. It seems a lot of people are, so I'm curious to hear more about it...
  - rndgermandude 9y ago
    It's not just some dots, although that's a massive failure too, of course. TheIntercept reporter contacted some random govt contractor to see if they could verify the documents. Ok so far. But the reporter also revealed the mail was sent from Augusta, Georgia, which is a major breach of confidentiality.[0] [0] https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f473l3r/show_temp%20%2866%29.pdf https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f47... PDF page 12, paragraph 19
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > Are you sure this is something NYTimes/WaPo/WSJ/etc would have detected and removed? No, I'm not sure about that, and if they'd made the mistake after having claimed to be safe for whistleblowers I'd be gently complaining about them on an Internet message board too.