3 ms·
Who in their right mind would communicate confidential info to a reporter via email and what kind of reporter would allow their sources to do that? The minimum
by huy-nguyen 8y ago
Who in their right mind would communicate confidential info to a reporter via email and what kind of reporter would allow their sources to do that? The minimum acceptable way to do this is end-to-end encrypted messages via Signal or GPG-encrypted emails via a service in a jurisdiction beyond the FBI’s reach (e.g ProtonMail).
- olliej 8y agohere’s the problem with saying things like “use proton mail” it deflects from the problem (warrantless search of email for 7 years) and instead attacks the use of email. Note that what was used shouldn’t matter from the POV warrant vs no warrant. Follow on with: there is no claim that there was anything found in those emails. All we have is an acknowledgement that the government is undertaking warrantless surveillance of a reporter,. It doesn’t have to find anything, it just needs to be threatening enough to ensure that no one talks again. Hence “chilling effect on journalism”
- olliej 8y agoApologies for terrible editing in the above message. Typing on my phone with beta software. There are some issues :)
- uabstraction 8y agoThe Times provides the information necessary to do just this right on their tips page, including instructions for PGP, WhatsApp, Signal, and SecureDrop. One would hope that serious whistleblowers would heed these instructions.
- zer00eyz 8y agoEveryone needs these directions, they need to be clear and followable to the letter with ease. It doesn't matter how competent you are, if your blowing the whistle then you not want the slightest chance of making a mistake - got to be a high stress situation, someone holding your hand through a critical portion makes sense to me.
- jasonlotito 8y agoThe reporter wasn't working for NYTimes at the time, but rather Buzzfeed.
- geofft 8y agoThe reporter's pinned tweet has her Signal number. The feds seized her emails anyway, because they can / if they're going to be thorough, why wouldn't they. (The replies to the reporter's pinned tweet, meanwhile, are people gleeful about her messages being seized. I don't recommend reading them, except perhaps as a way of pondering whether a society where literally everyone feels encouraged to send sentence-long invective to literally everyone else has really done good things with communication.)