9 ms·

Have we learned nothing about the NSA's tactics? The Intercept publishes reporting that they would rather not have been printed, and the very day the DOJ unseal

Have we learned nothing about the NSA's tactics? The Intercept publishes reporting that they would rather not have been printed, and the very day the DOJ unseals charges where they try to say they learned about the leak from a paper crease from what can be reasonably inferred to be The Intercept. Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept (in contradiction with their recommended best practices). It has all the appearances of the government trying to smear a news outlet and ensure no one leaks to them again. Do we still really trust the NSA? It was disappointing yet expected from the WaPo that they took as fact everything the DOJ alleged about how the case proceeded.

user982 9y ago
> It has all the appearances of the government trying to smear a news outlet and ensure no one leaks to them again. A scheme that would be less effective if not for The Intercept's demonstrably deficient opsec in protecting its source in this affair.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  If you trust that what the NSA/DOJ says is true, sure.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  There's no evidence that it was The Intercept's actions that caused her to be found. I agree that they should be more careful (they should _always_ be more careful), but there are many ways the source could have been found independent of the newspaper. Regardless, the government has many incentives to claim that it was The Intercept's deficient opsec that caused them to find the leaker. There really isn't much you can reasonably conclude about this. Is the government lying? Is The Intercept incompetent? The only thing you should remember is that if you are going to leak documents you need to do as much as possible while they are still in your control to hide your involvement. Once you send them off, your fate is in the hands of others.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - CogitoCogito 9y ago
      Yes it certainly is. The Intercept should have taken such precautions, but it's not very smart to assume that they always will take those precautions. If you want to be safe as the leaker, you'll have to either do that sort of thing yourself or communicate with The Intercept to make sure they will. Point is that you cannot really control how much caution third parties will take with your documents. But like I said, the government has every incentive to make us question The Intercept's competence in these matters even though there are many ways the government could have found the leakers. Leakers _should_ be worried about these sorts of things, but we as the general populace should realize that this is perfect opportunity to make The Intercept look bad and to deter future leaks.
      - amazingman 9y ago
        Blaming the leaker is failing the argument.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I'm not really sure what argument is failing. I'm certainly blaming the leaker for using bad opsec (sent emails to The Intercept using a work computer). I'm also certainly blaming The Intercept for using bad opsec. I'm also pointing out that the government has every incentive to act like it was The Intercept's bad opsec that allowed them to find the leaker even if they, for example, found who it was by just looking at access logs for the document.
    - riskable 9y ago
      For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this? For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printed they watermark the text. How? They can also sprinkle typos: For NSA documents clasified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this? Another option: They'll include meaningless "extra" information after the text such as a glossary or word definitions or even just something that looks like background info copied from Wikipedia. Of course, it all depends on how the document was obtained. The systems that modify texts in this way aren't used everywhere.
- deanCommie 9y ago
  In a situation like this, you as the leaker have a lot more to lose than whoever you're leaking to. In that situation, I'm sorry, but the responsibility for protecting your identity is on you. Anonymize the data. Do not leak something that only you would have access to. etc, etc. Because unless you're leaking to Infowars, you have to expect that a legitimate journalist will present your data to the organization from which you leaked it to, and request comment. Snoweden did everything right, and it still wasn't good enough.
  - lotso 9y ago
    I think everyone would agree the leaker should be more cautious, but The Intercept should also know best practices too around printed materials too.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      I think everyone would agree with that. The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? Once again, there is no evidence and any "yes" answer relies on trusting the NSA/DOJ.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        > The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? If removing well-known, uniquely identifying printer microdots isn't a best practice, it should be.
        tanderson92 9y ago
        > > The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? > If removing well-known, uniquely identifying printer microdots isn't a best practice, it should be. Very true; where is the evidence that they did not do so?
        yunyu 9y ago
- revelation 9y ago
  The leaker first contacted them through her work email. It was game over at that point. Nothing they could do would have fixed that.
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    Exactaly right. You should assume, especially in an environment like the NSA, that your internet browsing and email correspondence is being monitored and certain hosts and suspicious DNS will trigger something. I've worked at far less security concerned companies that monitored all network traffic going and out and logged it and continually were looking not only for internal nefarious behavior but for possibly viruses, worms, etc.
  - sfashset 9y ago
    No she didn't. Please stop repeating this claim. She signed up for an email subscription from her personal gmail, on her work computer. That would certainly have been enough to raise her superiors' hackles when discovered, but the result would have been her getting fired, not indicted. The bottom line is having a personal subscription to the Intercept was not ever going to be enough to build a case against her. You repeating that claim is victim blaming, and more importantly, wrong.
    - slantyyz 9y ago
      >> You repeating that claim is victim blaming, and more importantly, wrong. I think that really depends on whether you perceive the leaker as a perpetrator or a victim. Valid arguments can be made for either side.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  I don't think The Intercept has much responsibility here at all. In my opinion, in their role as receivers of leaked information, they should verify the information provided to them and decide if it should be released to the public. Sure, they shouldn't reveal their source and The Intercept met that requirement by insuring that they themselves did not know the leaker's identity. Anyone who is thinking about leaking anything classified only needs to spend thirty seconds typing "Snowden" into Google to find out what happens when the federal government identifies the leaker. They then decide if it's worth the risk and how much time they will spend on covering their tracks. In this case (if true) it sounds like Reality Winner decided that they simply couldn't cover up their leaking and threw in the towel. Much has been made of the watermarks on laser printers, we've known about those for a long time. Not everyone is aware but it's the sort of thing you can find out about if you put in time to do the research. After doing my own research, it doesn't seem like these watermarks really came into play; the NSA simply looked up everyone who had accessed the document and inspected their workstations for clues.
  - shorodei 9y ago
    I'm not doubting that the NSA would have figured out the source eventually, yellow dots or not, but I think it's a fair criticism to say the Intercept did not have to publish a picture of the document in full, instead of transcribing the contents.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      It could still make a major difference when it comes to the question of what they can prove in court.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I disagree, if the Intercept values leaking things the public deserves to know (their whole raison d'être), they need to do better. Bear in mind, The Intercept is likely more aware of anti-leaker strategies than most of the people they are hoping will leak them data. If they're going to encourage the act, they should do everything possible to help their sources protect themselves, and do diligence on anonymizing everything they get even further.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
eli 9y ago
To be clear, she contacted The Intercept from her work computer for something entirely unrelated. (Which is still not smart, but not as bad as people are implying)
- elif 9y ago
  That's an important distinction that gets lost in the vaguery of the sensational journalistic rhetoric. To me, the evidence trail presented sounds like one of those post-facto explanations the FBI concocts in order to preserve their true secret methodologies.
nostromo 9y ago
People shouldn't necessarily trust the Washington Post either, who is beholden to their sources in the NSA. The Washington Post covered Snowden's leaks of unconstitutional actions by the NSA, won a Pulitzer Prize for the coverage, only to then stab him in the back and call for his prosecution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...
- pcnix 9y ago
  You can use the leaks and still be critical of the way it was done.
- rayiner 9y ago
  WaPo is the WSJ of D.C. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The Washington Post covered Snowden's leaks of unconstitutional actions by the NSA, won a Pulitzer Prize for the coverage, only to then stab him in the back and call for his prosecution. I've heard speculation that the change in attitude was tied to regime change at the Post in the wake of the Bezos acquisition.
braderhart 9y ago
Seriously seems like this was a whistleblower with a legitimate concern for the American people. Maybe she was careless on purpose. If you know you are going to get caught, might as well make your trail obvious so that you can claim that you are a whistleblower.
- mowenz 9y ago
  ...and use a pseudonym?
- dangoor 9y ago
  How is that she was a whistleblower? The US government wasn't breaking any laws and, for all we know, the evidence she had may be part of the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.
braderhart 9y ago
Seriously seems like this was a whistleblower with a legitimate concern for the American people. Maybe she was careless on purpose. If you know you are going to get caught, might as well make your trail obvious so that you can claim that you are a whistleblower.
cwkoss 9y ago
Also, article is on the Washington Post, possibly the most propagandist of mainstream media outlets.
tptacek 9y ago
And so the top comment on this HN thread is more or less a content-free distilled expression of rooting interest. NSA bad, Intercept good, what more do you need to know?
- tanderson92 9y ago
  Excuse me? Your characterization is far off the mark, and your snark unappreciated. I was simply remembering that the government can and does lie, and that there we should remember the interests of the parties involved. It's not content free to observe this fact and to stress what we do and do not know. If I had to change anything it would be the fact that they only signed up for an intercept mailing list using work email, not direct contact. I regret the error, I was going off what I read yesterday.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    There's nothing snarky about my comment; I meant exactly what I said.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      One can be snarky while very serious. I didn't even realize until looking it up that "snark" is a portmanteau of "snide" and "remark". One can be seriously snide. Anyway I'll take the lack of substantive criticism of my point and critique of form as a point of pride.
tibarun 9y ago
WaPo is a CIA mouthpiece. So it's to be expected if they portray "The Intercept" as an unsafe place to leak to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80irdQiHKPVLeGXbgo4Eizd-3Qyt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80ird...
- tibarun 9y ago
  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-cia-cloud-washington-post https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-...
- rory096 9y ago
  This sort of conspiracy mongering is below the HN standard of discourse. Amazon doesn't own WaPo, Jeff Bezos does. A $600 million 10 year contract for a private cloud is a tiny fraction of AWS revenue (some $15 billion per year), let alone overall Amazon revenue. It is in no way a sweetheart deal that would require Bezos bend over backwards, let alone undermine the integrity of the news organization for which he paid $250 million out of his own pocket.
  - tibarun 9y ago
    Oh really? Am I being singled out? Or are you ready to call conspiracy mongers to everybody in this thread who "cast doubt" over WaPo allegiances?
florean 9y ago
We're talking about the FBI, not the NSA, and court documents. > Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept. This really should be ignored. The FBI included it as probable cause for their search and arrest warrants, but she had e-mailed them asking for a podcast transcript months earlier. As far as leaking, she mailed the document to them and had no electronic communication at all. The Intercept blabbed that it was postmarked Augusta, GA and was printed, which is what gave her away. They screwed up and if they want anyone to feel safe leaking to them again, they need to own up to it and describe how they are going to fix their procedures to protect their sources in the future.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  > We're talking about the FBI, not the NSA, and court documents. It's called parallel construction; it has happened before and it will happen again. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130...
  - florean 9y ago
    Why do they need parallel construction when The Intercept narrowed it to a single person (printed and lives in Augusta, GA)? I'm going to restrict my conversation on this topic to the reporting and sworn testimony.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      I'm not shielding The Intercept from criticism. But the reporting is based on what the DOJ wanted released and I do not share your trust in what they say.
      - florean 9y ago
        You are shielding The Intercept from criticism. The Intercept has not countered the DOJ testimony or any of the other reporting on this. The FBI has sworn that these things happened. So let us think through the counterfactual that you're proposing: The Intercept didn't burn their source and the FBI lied to a federal judge on a warrant application. In that reality, the Intercept would immediately publish a story about how the FBI lies to federal judges. Not only would it be a huge blockbuster, but that search warrant would be fucked and the search (during which she confessed) would be inadmissible. Not only do they have a huge story, they got their source off! Instead, they released this chickenshit statement that tries to cast doubt on the testimony without actually disputing any of it: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-department-allegations/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-dep... So, it looks like we live in the reality where the FBI didn't lie on a warrant application and The Intercept burned a source.
ajross 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand. There's a woman actually in jail awaiting charges over this. You're saying the NSA has a sacrificial agent to take the fall? That they're faking the whole judicial process? That they somehow induced a contractor to steal a real document and leak it to the paper they wanted it leaked to? I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but you're going to have to spell this one out better.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Not that I have any idea what actually happened but hiring someone at a low level, who seems kind of unreliable, allowing them access to something who's leakage you might not care about, letting everything play out the way it did, seems like something a spy agency would be reasonably adept it. The women was a contractor, not an agent, so they aren't sacrificing someone they've invested in. etc Again, what actually happened, who knows?
  - ajross 9y ago
    > Again, what actually happened, who knows? So given the choice between "News Site Messed Up Protecting a Source" and "The Whole Thing Was Orchestrated By The Spymasters", you're refusing to make a call because... "who knows?" I mean, if that's the level of detachment and rationality you're going to apply here... why stop at a mere egg-on-face moment for The Intercept? Surely the NSA could be applying those powers for something more juicy.
- yohui 9y ago
  I think tanderson92 is claiming that the source was actually identified via other methods, so the material provided by the Intercept played no role in identifying the source. Hence the Intercept did not accidentally reveal their source but is being portrayed as such in order to discourage people from leaking to them. Personally, while that scenario doesn't sound impossible I think the likelihood is being overstated due to motivated cognition: if you like the Intercept you would like to believe they did nothing wrong, but in reality people do make mistakes.
  - 9y ago
ouid 9y ago
I don't trust any organization that has a thorough understanding of trust.

user982 9y ago

> It has all the appearances of the government trying to smear a news outlet and ensure no one leaks to them again. A scheme that would be less effective if not for The Intercept's demonstrably deficient opsec in protecting its source in this affair.

tanderson92 9y ago
If you trust that what the NSA/DOJ says is true, sure.
CogitoCogito 9y ago
There's no evidence that it was The Intercept's actions that caused her to be found. I agree that they should be more careful (they should _always_ be more careful), but there are many ways the source could have been found independent of the newspaper. Regardless, the government has many incentives to claim that it was The Intercept's deficient opsec that caused them to find the leaker. There really isn't much you can reasonably conclude about this. Is the government lying? Is The Intercept incompetent? The only thing you should remember is that if you are going to leak documents you need to do as much as possible while they are still in your control to hide your involvement. Once you send them off, your fate is in the hands of others.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    Yes it certainly is. The Intercept should have taken such precautions, but it's not very smart to assume that they always will take those precautions. If you want to be safe as the leaker, you'll have to either do that sort of thing yourself or communicate with The Intercept to make sure they will. Point is that you cannot really control how much caution third parties will take with your documents. But like I said, the government has every incentive to make us question The Intercept's competence in these matters even though there are many ways the government could have found the leakers. Leakers _should_ be worried about these sorts of things, but we as the general populace should realize that this is perfect opportunity to make The Intercept look bad and to deter future leaks.
    - amazingman 9y ago
      Blaming the leaker is failing the argument.
      - CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I'm not really sure what argument is failing. I'm certainly blaming the leaker for using bad opsec (sent emails to The Intercept using a work computer). I'm also certainly blaming The Intercept for using bad opsec. I'm also pointing out that the government has every incentive to act like it was The Intercept's bad opsec that allowed them to find the leaker even if they, for example, found who it was by just looking at access logs for the document.
  - riskable 9y ago
    For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this? For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printed they watermark the text. How? They can also sprinkle typos: For NSA documents clasified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this? Another option: They'll include meaningless "extra" information after the text such as a glossary or word definitions or even just something that looks like background info copied from Wikipedia. Of course, it all depends on how the document was obtained. The systems that modify texts in this way aren't used everywhere.
deanCommie 9y ago
In a situation like this, you as the leaker have a lot more to lose than whoever you're leaking to. In that situation, I'm sorry, but the responsibility for protecting your identity is on you. Anonymize the data. Do not leak something that only you would have access to. etc, etc. Because unless you're leaking to Infowars, you have to expect that a legitimate journalist will present your data to the organization from which you leaked it to, and request comment. Snoweden did everything right, and it still wasn't good enough.
- lotso 9y ago
  I think everyone would agree the leaker should be more cautious, but The Intercept should also know best practices too around printed materials too.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    I think everyone would agree with that. The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? Once again, there is no evidence and any "yes" answer relies on trusting the NSA/DOJ.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      > The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? If removing well-known, uniquely identifying printer microdots isn't a best practice, it should be.
      - tanderson92 9y ago
        > > The question then becomes: did The Intercept not follow best practices here? > If removing well-known, uniquely identifying printer microdots isn't a best practice, it should be. Very true; where is the evidence that they did not do so?
        yunyu 9y ago
revelation 9y ago
The leaker first contacted them through her work email. It was game over at that point. Nothing they could do would have fixed that.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  Exactaly right. You should assume, especially in an environment like the NSA, that your internet browsing and email correspondence is being monitored and certain hosts and suspicious DNS will trigger something. I've worked at far less security concerned companies that monitored all network traffic going and out and logged it and continually were looking not only for internal nefarious behavior but for possibly viruses, worms, etc.
- sfashset 9y ago
  No she didn't. Please stop repeating this claim. She signed up for an email subscription from her personal gmail, on her work computer. That would certainly have been enough to raise her superiors' hackles when discovered, but the result would have been her getting fired, not indicted. The bottom line is having a personal subscription to the Intercept was not ever going to be enough to build a case against her. You repeating that claim is victim blaming, and more importantly, wrong.
  - slantyyz 9y ago
    >> You repeating that claim is victim blaming, and more importantly, wrong. I think that really depends on whether you perceive the leaker as a perpetrator or a victim. Valid arguments can be made for either side.
cmiles74 9y ago
I don't think The Intercept has much responsibility here at all. In my opinion, in their role as receivers of leaked information, they should verify the information provided to them and decide if it should be released to the public. Sure, they shouldn't reveal their source and The Intercept met that requirement by insuring that they themselves did not know the leaker's identity. Anyone who is thinking about leaking anything classified only needs to spend thirty seconds typing "Snowden" into Google to find out what happens when the federal government identifies the leaker. They then decide if it's worth the risk and how much time they will spend on covering their tracks. In this case (if true) it sounds like Reality Winner decided that they simply couldn't cover up their leaking and threw in the towel. Much has been made of the watermarks on laser printers, we've known about those for a long time. Not everyone is aware but it's the sort of thing you can find out about if you put in time to do the research. After doing my own research, it doesn't seem like these watermarks really came into play; the NSA simply looked up everyone who had accessed the document and inspected their workstations for clues.
- shorodei 9y ago
  I'm not doubting that the NSA would have figured out the source eventually, yellow dots or not, but I think it's a fair criticism to say the Intercept did not have to publish a picture of the document in full, instead of transcribing the contents.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It could still make a major difference when it comes to the question of what they can prove in court.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I disagree, if the Intercept values leaking things the public deserves to know (their whole raison d'être), they need to do better. Bear in mind, The Intercept is likely more aware of anti-leaker strategies than most of the people they are hoping will leak them data. If they're going to encourage the act, they should do everything possible to help their sources protect themselves, and do diligence on anonymizing everything they get even further.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

eli 9y ago

To be clear, she contacted The Intercept from her work computer for something entirely unrelated. (Which is still not smart, but not as bad as people are implying)

elif 9y ago
That's an important distinction that gets lost in the vaguery of the sensational journalistic rhetoric. To me, the evidence trail presented sounds like one of those post-facto explanations the FBI concocts in order to preserve their true secret methodologies.

nostromo 9y ago

People shouldn't necessarily trust the Washington Post either, who is beholden to their sources in the NSA. The Washington Post covered Snowden's leaks of unconstitutional actions by the NSA, won a Pulitzer Prize for the coverage, only to then stab him in the back and call for his prosecution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...

pcnix 9y ago
You can use the leaks and still be critical of the way it was done.
rayiner 9y ago
WaPo is the WSJ of D.C. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Washington Post covered Snowden's leaks of unconstitutional actions by the NSA, won a Pulitzer Prize for the coverage, only to then stab him in the back and call for his prosecution. I've heard speculation that the change in attitude was tied to regime change at the Post in the wake of the Bezos acquisition.

braderhart 9y ago

Seriously seems like this was a whistleblower with a legitimate concern for the American people. Maybe she was careless on purpose. If you know you are going to get caught, might as well make your trail obvious so that you can claim that you are a whistleblower.

mowenz 9y ago
...and use a pseudonym?
dangoor 9y ago
How is that she was a whistleblower? The US government wasn't breaking any laws and, for all we know, the evidence she had may be part of the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.

braderhart 9y ago

cwkoss 9y ago

Also, article is on the Washington Post, possibly the most propagandist of mainstream media outlets.

tptacek 9y ago

And so the top comment on this HN thread is more or less a content-free distilled expression of rooting interest. NSA bad, Intercept good, what more do you need to know?

tanderson92 9y ago
Excuse me? Your characterization is far off the mark, and your snark unappreciated. I was simply remembering that the government can and does lie, and that there we should remember the interests of the parties involved. It's not content free to observe this fact and to stress what we do and do not know. If I had to change anything it would be the fact that they only signed up for an intercept mailing list using work email, not direct contact. I regret the error, I was going off what I read yesterday.
- tptacek 9y ago
  There's nothing snarky about my comment; I meant exactly what I said.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    One can be snarky while very serious. I didn't even realize until looking it up that "snark" is a portmanteau of "snide" and "remark". One can be seriously snide. Anyway I'll take the lack of substantive criticism of my point and critique of form as a point of pride.

tibarun 9y ago

WaPo is a CIA mouthpiece. So it's to be expected if they portray "The Intercept" as an unsafe place to leak to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80irdQiHKPVLeGXbgo4Eizd-3Qyt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80ird...

tibarun 9y ago
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-cia-cloud-washington-post https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-...
rory096 9y ago
This sort of conspiracy mongering is below the HN standard of discourse. Amazon doesn't own WaPo, Jeff Bezos does. A $600 million 10 year contract for a private cloud is a tiny fraction of AWS revenue (some $15 billion per year), let alone overall Amazon revenue. It is in no way a sweetheart deal that would require Bezos bend over backwards, let alone undermine the integrity of the news organization for which he paid $250 million out of his own pocket.
- tibarun 9y ago
  Oh really? Am I being singled out? Or are you ready to call conspiracy mongers to everybody in this thread who "cast doubt" over WaPo allegiances?

florean 9y ago

We're talking about the FBI, not the NSA, and court documents. > Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept. This really should be ignored. The FBI included it as probable cause for their search and arrest warrants, but she had e-mailed them asking for a podcast transcript months earlier. As far as leaking, she mailed the document to them and had no electronic communication at all. The Intercept blabbed that it was postmarked Augusta, GA and was printed, which is what gave her away. They screwed up and if they want anyone to feel safe leaking to them again, they need to own up to it and describe how they are going to fix their procedures to protect their sources in the future.

tanderson92 9y ago
> We're talking about the FBI, not the NSA, and court documents. It's called parallel construction; it has happened before and it will happen again. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130...
- florean 9y ago
  Why do they need parallel construction when The Intercept narrowed it to a single person (printed and lives in Augusta, GA)? I'm going to restrict my conversation on this topic to the reporting and sworn testimony.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    I'm not shielding The Intercept from criticism. But the reporting is based on what the DOJ wanted released and I do not share your trust in what they say.
    - florean 9y ago
      You are shielding The Intercept from criticism. The Intercept has not countered the DOJ testimony or any of the other reporting on this. The FBI has sworn that these things happened. So let us think through the counterfactual that you're proposing: The Intercept didn't burn their source and the FBI lied to a federal judge on a warrant application. In that reality, the Intercept would immediately publish a story about how the FBI lies to federal judges. Not only would it be a huge blockbuster, but that search warrant would be fucked and the search (during which she confessed) would be inadmissible. Not only do they have a huge story, they got their source off! Instead, they released this chickenshit statement that tries to cast doubt on the testimony without actually disputing any of it: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-department-allegations/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-dep... So, it looks like we live in the reality where the FBI didn't lie on a warrant application and The Intercept burned a source.

ajross 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand. There's a woman actually in jail awaiting charges over this. You're saying the NSA has a sacrificial agent to take the fall? That they're faking the whole judicial process? That they somehow induced a contractor to steal a real document and leak it to the paper they wanted it leaked to? I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but you're going to have to spell this one out better.

joe_the_user 9y ago
Not that I have any idea what actually happened but hiring someone at a low level, who seems kind of unreliable, allowing them access to something who's leakage you might not care about, letting everything play out the way it did, seems like something a spy agency would be reasonably adept it. The women was a contractor, not an agent, so they aren't sacrificing someone they've invested in. etc Again, what actually happened, who knows?
- ajross 9y ago
  > Again, what actually happened, who knows? So given the choice between "News Site Messed Up Protecting a Source" and "The Whole Thing Was Orchestrated By The Spymasters", you're refusing to make a call because... "who knows?" I mean, if that's the level of detachment and rationality you're going to apply here... why stop at a mere egg-on-face moment for The Intercept? Surely the NSA could be applying those powers for something more juicy.
yohui 9y ago
I think tanderson92 is claiming that the source was actually identified via other methods, so the material provided by the Intercept played no role in identifying the source. Hence the Intercept did not accidentally reveal their source but is being portrayed as such in order to discourage people from leaking to them. Personally, while that scenario doesn't sound impossible I think the likelihood is being overstated due to motivated cognition: if you like the Intercept you would like to believe they did nothing wrong, but in reality people do make mistakes.
- 9y ago

ouid 9y ago

I don't trust any organization that has a thorough understanding of trust.