4 ms·

Yup, the FBI arrest affidavit didn't mention the dots. There could have been some parallel construction to avoid testifying about secret printer dots in court,

Yup, the FBI arrest affidavit didn't mention the dots. There could have been some parallel construction to avoid testifying about secret printer dots in court, but on the face of it it appears that the government found out who it was in more conventional ways: >The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. WINNER was one of these six individuals. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. >On June 3, 2017, your affiant spoke to WINNER at her home in Augusta, Georgia. During that conversation, WINNER admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue [...] WINNER further admitted removing the classified intelligence reporting from her office space, retaining it, and mailing it [...] WINNER further acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/971331/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/971331/downlo...

vxNsr 5y ago
Their way sounds much easier than using dots on a page to try to trace it back to a specific printer... especially because they already knew it came out of the NSA... the question was which person who had access to the doc and a printer in the org did it.
not2b 5y ago
Printer dots aren't secret, the EFF has been drawing attention to them for years.
- hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
  I'm aware of that. I'm not saying it's not known by the public; I'm saying it's not officially acknowledged by the US government as being part of their own mass-spying programs. In other words, it's still officially a government secret, even though everyone knows about it. Prosecuting someone for a crime based on yellow-dot evidence could force the government to testify under oath about the yellow dots and what they mean... which could force them to answer some uncomfortable questions about how the dots got there... maybe officially admit ownership of the program... and I imagine that could open a whole legal can of worms they'd rather avoid.

vxNsr 5y ago

Their way sounds much easier than using dots on a page to try to trace it back to a specific printer... especially because they already knew it came out of the NSA... the question was which person who had access to the doc and a printer in the org did it.

not2b 5y ago

Printer dots aren't secret, the EFF has been drawing attention to them for years.

hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
I'm aware of that. I'm not saying it's not known by the public; I'm saying it's not officially acknowledged by the US government as being part of their own mass-spying programs. In other words, it's still officially a government secret, even though everyone knows about it. Prosecuting someone for a crime based on yellow-dot evidence could force the government to testify under oath about the yellow dots and what they mean... which could force them to answer some uncomfortable questions about how the dots got there... maybe officially admit ownership of the program... and I imagine that could open a whole legal can of worms they'd rather avoid.