12 ms·

Nah. Only 6 people have printed the doc and of those only one could be found in phone call metadata making a call to a press related contact. I don't know what

Nah. Only 6 people have printed the doc and of those only one could be found in phone call metadata making a call to a press related contact. I don't know what the leaker was thinking. And in the end even this leak doesn't contain any evidence of anything that would even tie it to Russia, let alone GRU. On the internet no one knows you're a dog. So she will get 10 years in the slammer for nothing.

strictnein 9y ago
The Intercept scanned the document and posted high quality versions of them online. They were of such quality that the embedded dots modern printers add to each page were readily available: http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-realit... It pointed to the exact printer being used and the exact time and date the document was printed. They didn't need her email to figure out it was her, but I'm sure that will help them in her court case. edit: cleaned up some sloppy verbiage
- blackflame7000 9y ago
  Pretty sure she sent the document which means she made the mistake of sending high resolution scans.
  - lovemenot 9y ago
    The article talks about a postmark from Augusta, GA. Presumably, she mailed the printed document.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- cmiles74 9y ago
  In the vast majority of cases, the watermark data wouldn't point anywhere interesting. Maybe the serial number would point to a public library or a warehouse where the printer was stored prior to sale. Certainly The Intercept had no way of knowing that the serial number would correspond to an office printer at the NSA or one of their contractors. I don't think we should expect news outlets to scour every printed document for these watermarks and remove them. Most aren't that technically savvy and this solidly seems like the responsibility of the person doing the leaking. Leaking is dangerous and risky. I don't know the leaker personally but I could understand someone feeling that documents need to be released to the public and, at the same time, feeling like they can't evade the NSA's investigation. At that point any counter-measures probably seem pointless, especially for those who are not technical and can't imagine any bounds to the NSA investigative powers.
  - zerohm 9y ago
    Actually the Intercept should have known. Margaret Thatcher used water marking to find which Ministry was leaking stories in the 80s. It's standard practice to retype documents before sharing, set up well thought out, secure amnesty boxes, etc.
    - notatoad 9y ago
      >It's standard practice to retype documents before sharing My first thought is that even blogs like AndroidPolice protect their sources better than The Intercept does here - they go as far as re-creating screenshots or renders of phone leaks. The Intercept's lack of care is astounding. There wasn't any reason they needed to publish the fact that they received printed copies, let alone the actual scans.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >Certainly The Intercept had no way of knowing that the serial number would correspond to an office printer at the NSA or one of their contractors. They should have assumed it. While I agree they can't be expected to have enough technical savvy to remove watermarks, they should have re-typed it and hid or (better) destroyed the original. What she did was illegal and the government is going to nail her to the wall for it, if for no other reason than as an example to others contemplating the same thing. I'm astounded how little effort they (both the leaker and the Intercept) put into avoiding discovery. If it were me the watermarks would have been gone before the document left my possession. If you depend on other people to keep your secrets you're doomed.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Simply converting the scans to black and white (i.e. not greyscale) would've avoided the problem with the dots, as is pointed out in the Errata Security blog post.
braderhart 9y ago
Nah. I think she was careless on purpose. Imagine if she transferred it using encryption and Russia got ahold of it, and then claimed she gave it to them. I think she wanted people to know so that she could claim that she was doing the right thing.
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing", they'll put her in the slammer all the same. Not even Hillary Clinton would get off scot free after something like this.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing" A jury (with nullification power), in principal, might (as might the electorate who choose Presidents who have pardon and clemency power); if you aren't going to flee to avoid capture and aren't confident of your ability to evade the counterintelligence services in the long term, compromising your ability in the short term to improve the optics of the event may not be completely irrational, even if it is far from guaranteed to pay off.
    - throwaway-1209 9y ago
      You sound like someone who's never been on a jury. Jury gets very exact instructions from the judge before it makes a decision. In these instructions judge interprets the law in a way that the jury will understand. She doesn't tell them how to vote, but in a clear cut case like this one someone who has been selected for impartiality will almost certainly make an accusatory decision. Jury is not a get out of jail free card.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You sound like someone who's never been on a jury I've not only been on juries, but studied them. Nullification is a thing. It's quite rare and unlikely in the specific circumstance at issue, but that's already factored into the discussion in the grandparent post.
hsod 9y ago
In your second paragraph, are you referring to the redactions? The document contains quotes like this: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions." which seem to directly tie it to GRU.
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.
  - hsod 9y ago
    What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.
    - throwaway-1209 9y ago
      No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
      - hsod 9y ago
        It's evidence of what the person who wrote it thought at the time they wrote it. Your epistemology seems self-serving.
    - mladenkovacevic 9y ago
      If somebody leaked internal FSB analysis docs claiming but offering no raw intelligence that Ukrainian government is full of US spies and Euromaidan was financed by Soros, would any mainstream media outlet take this kind of source as "evidence"?
Shivetya 9y ago
go read her social postings, she wasn't thinking clearly as its pretty obvious she was acting irrational hatred of the current administration. people like this are easy to spot, how in the hell do they get clearance? how do they keep it?
- m-j-fox 9y ago
  Seriously, go read her twitter. That's what gets my tinfoil hatting. She sounds like a mid-range bot. Her account runs from Oct 2016 to Feb 2017. She only has one mode and its Trump sucks. I have too many theories, but first we need to figure out if there is such a person: That's right, I'm questioning Reality.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    There is a plausible narrative that she hates the Administration so much that she specifically found a job with access to top secret documents with the aim of disseminating them. Although you would think that when applying for a job that requires security clearance (even though she already had clearance), you would at least try to scrub your history, at the very least, you'd remove your retweets of Edward Fucking Snowden and Iranian politicians. Did anyone do even a cursory check of her social media? I thought that's what most employers did these days before hiring people.
zipwitch 9y ago
Senator Mark Warner publicly commented today that this is not the full extent of Russian attacks. She has succeeded in opening national high-profile public discussion on another aspect of Russian attacks on our election.
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  I also publicly commented on the matter today. Doesn't make any difference, especially if there's no legal repercussions for lying.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    The difference is that a Senator (who is vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) is privy to more information than you are. And lying can have very real consequences for politicians, even when it happens without breaking a law.
    - throwaway-1209 9y ago
      That's debatable if there is no information to be privy to. Even Feinstein and Pelosi stated publicly there was no smoking gun.

strictnein 9y ago

The Intercept scanned the document and posted high quality versions of them online. They were of such quality that the embedded dots modern printers add to each page were readily available: http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-realit... It pointed to the exact printer being used and the exact time and date the document was printed. They didn't need her email to figure out it was her, but I'm sure that will help them in her court case. edit: cleaned up some sloppy verbiage

blackflame7000 9y ago
Pretty sure she sent the document which means she made the mistake of sending high resolution scans.
- lovemenot 9y ago
  The article talks about a postmark from Augusta, GA. Presumably, she mailed the printed document.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
cmiles74 9y ago
In the vast majority of cases, the watermark data wouldn't point anywhere interesting. Maybe the serial number would point to a public library or a warehouse where the printer was stored prior to sale. Certainly The Intercept had no way of knowing that the serial number would correspond to an office printer at the NSA or one of their contractors. I don't think we should expect news outlets to scour every printed document for these watermarks and remove them. Most aren't that technically savvy and this solidly seems like the responsibility of the person doing the leaking. Leaking is dangerous and risky. I don't know the leaker personally but I could understand someone feeling that documents need to be released to the public and, at the same time, feeling like they can't evade the NSA's investigation. At that point any counter-measures probably seem pointless, especially for those who are not technical and can't imagine any bounds to the NSA investigative powers.
- zerohm 9y ago
  Actually the Intercept should have known. Margaret Thatcher used water marking to find which Ministry was leaking stories in the 80s. It's standard practice to retype documents before sharing, set up well thought out, secure amnesty boxes, etc.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    >It's standard practice to retype documents before sharing My first thought is that even blogs like AndroidPolice protect their sources better than The Intercept does here - they go as far as re-creating screenshots or renders of phone leaks. The Intercept's lack of care is astounding. There wasn't any reason they needed to publish the fact that they received printed copies, let alone the actual scans.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >Certainly The Intercept had no way of knowing that the serial number would correspond to an office printer at the NSA or one of their contractors. They should have assumed it. While I agree they can't be expected to have enough technical savvy to remove watermarks, they should have re-typed it and hid or (better) destroyed the original. What she did was illegal and the government is going to nail her to the wall for it, if for no other reason than as an example to others contemplating the same thing. I'm astounded how little effort they (both the leaker and the Intercept) put into avoiding discovery. If it were me the watermarks would have been gone before the document left my possession. If you depend on other people to keep your secrets you're doomed.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Simply converting the scans to black and white (i.e. not greyscale) would've avoided the problem with the dots, as is pointed out in the Errata Security blog post.

braderhart 9y ago

Nah. I think she was careless on purpose. Imagine if she transferred it using encryption and Russia got ahold of it, and then claimed she gave it to them. I think she wanted people to know so that she could claim that she was doing the right thing.

throwaway-1209 9y ago
That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing", they'll put her in the slammer all the same. Not even Hillary Clinton would get off scot free after something like this.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing" A jury (with nullification power), in principal, might (as might the electorate who choose Presidents who have pardon and clemency power); if you aren't going to flee to avoid capture and aren't confident of your ability to evade the counterintelligence services in the long term, compromising your ability in the short term to improve the optics of the event may not be completely irrational, even if it is far from guaranteed to pay off.
  - throwaway-1209 9y ago
    You sound like someone who's never been on a jury. Jury gets very exact instructions from the judge before it makes a decision. In these instructions judge interprets the law in a way that the jury will understand. She doesn't tell them how to vote, but in a clear cut case like this one someone who has been selected for impartiality will almost certainly make an accusatory decision. Jury is not a get out of jail free card.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > You sound like someone who's never been on a jury I've not only been on juries, but studied them. Nullification is a thing. It's quite rare and unlikely in the specific circumstance at issue, but that's already factored into the discussion in the grandparent post.

hsod 9y ago

In your second paragraph, are you referring to the redactions? The document contains quotes like this: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions." which seem to directly tie it to GRU.

throwaway-1209 9y ago
That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.
- hsod 9y ago
  What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.
  - throwaway-1209 9y ago
    No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
    - hsod 9y ago
      It's evidence of what the person who wrote it thought at the time they wrote it. Your epistemology seems self-serving.
  - mladenkovacevic 9y ago
    If somebody leaked internal FSB analysis docs claiming but offering no raw intelligence that Ukrainian government is full of US spies and Euromaidan was financed by Soros, would any mainstream media outlet take this kind of source as "evidence"?

Shivetya 9y ago

go read her social postings, she wasn't thinking clearly as its pretty obvious she was acting irrational hatred of the current administration. people like this are easy to spot, how in the hell do they get clearance? how do they keep it?

m-j-fox 9y ago
Seriously, go read her twitter. That's what gets my tinfoil hatting. She sounds like a mid-range bot. Her account runs from Oct 2016 to Feb 2017. She only has one mode and its Trump sucks. I have too many theories, but first we need to figure out if there is such a person: That's right, I'm questioning Reality.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  There is a plausible narrative that she hates the Administration so much that she specifically found a job with access to top secret documents with the aim of disseminating them. Although you would think that when applying for a job that requires security clearance (even though she already had clearance), you would at least try to scrub your history, at the very least, you'd remove your retweets of Edward Fucking Snowden and Iranian politicians. Did anyone do even a cursory check of her social media? I thought that's what most employers did these days before hiring people.

zipwitch 9y ago

Senator Mark Warner publicly commented today that this is not the full extent of Russian attacks. She has succeeded in opening national high-profile public discussion on another aspect of Russian attacks on our election.

throwaway-1209 9y ago
I also publicly commented on the matter today. Doesn't make any difference, especially if there's no legal repercussions for lying.
- matt4077 9y ago
  The difference is that a Senator (who is vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) is privy to more information than you are. And lying can have very real consequences for politicians, even when it happens without breaking a law.
  - throwaway-1209 9y ago
    That's debatable if there is no information to be privy to. Even Feinstein and Pelosi stated publicly there was no smoking gun.