> The Intercept was widely criticized when computer security experts discovered that the document included nearly invisible yellow “printer dots” that track exa

> The Intercept was widely criticized when computer security experts discovered that the document included nearly invisible yellow “printer dots” that track exactly when and where it was printed, which most modern printers add to every document that gets printed. While there’s no evidence that these printer dots contributed to Winner becoming a suspect (the FBI’s affidavit says she was one of only six people who had printed this document, and the only one of those who had email contact with The Intercept), they could have aided an investigation, and The Intercept, as its editor-in-chief acknowledged, should have taken greater care to remove this metadata before publishing the document. > That is because it is not only common but ethically required for a journalist to do everything possible to protect a source from detection. I feel like my eyes just rolled out of their sockets. everything possible? sure -- how about not even running the story at all? in this same article they quote snowden on how a real journalist would have thought about reality winner: “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.” imagine what the intercept could have learned by establishing a relationship with reality winner instead of rushing out a big nothing of a story for clicks, assisting a young person in ruining her life in the process. making it seem like the yellow dots were somehow the problem with how the intercept handled reality winner is nothing but a gaslight campaign.