4 ms·

At least this is an improvement from the “hacker known as 4chan” days. I’m a bit confused by this report though, did they do forensic analysis on the devices of

At least this is an improvement from the “hacker known as 4chan” days. I’m a bit confused by this report though, did they do forensic analysis on the devices of all employees who would’ve had access or only some and rely on interviews for the rest? I imagine if someone leaked it they probably wouldn’t immediately admit to it just when asked.

kube-system 4y ago
> The investigators collected Court-issued laptops and mobile devices from all personnel who had access to the draft opinion.
floxy 4y ago
>I imagine if someone leaked it they probably wouldn’t immediately admit to it just when asked. "At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court, did not disclose to any person not employed by the Supreme Court any information relating to the Dobbs draft opinion not made public through means authorized by the Court, and had provided all of the pertinent information known to him or her relating to the disclosure or publication of the Dobbs draft opinion. Each employee was then asked to swear to the truth of the statements in the affidavit before a Notary Public. Each of these employees signed a sworn affidavit. A few of those interviewed admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count, so they annotated their affidavits to that effect. If investigators later determine any personnel lied to the investigators, those personnel would be subject to prosecution for a false statement in violation of 18 USC § 1001."
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  One of the things that confuses me is that the Justices and the employees are categorizes as two different entities i.e. saying something akin to the people with access are 82 employees and the Justices. But then all the investigation only says the employees. Does that mean all the justices weren't given the same scrutiny?
pcaharrier 4y ago
"all employees who were requested to do so voluntarily provided call and text detail records and billing statements for their personal devices for a defined period to the best of their abilities. The investigators reviewed the call and text logs retrieved but found nothing relevant in the limited logs." All the other references that I can find look like they are limited to the Court's IT systems. That seems like it might yield evidence that someone contacted the press (if they were careless enough to use their personal device), but little else.
- cvwright 4y ago
  Don’t the WaPo and NYT have anonymous submission sites for exactly this kind of thing?
  - pcaharrier 4y ago
    I don't know the specifics of that, but I'd be extremely surprised if the reporters who worked on the story didn't have means at their disposal to protect the anonymity of the source. So there's yet another reason that call/text records would be very unlikely to yield useful evidence/leads.

kube-system 4y ago

> The investigators collected Court-issued laptops and mobile devices from all personnel who had access to the draft opinion.

floxy 4y ago

>I imagine if someone leaked it they probably wouldn’t immediately admit to it just when asked. "At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court, did not disclose to any person not employed by the Supreme Court any information relating to the Dobbs draft opinion not made public through means authorized by the Court, and had provided all of the pertinent information known to him or her relating to the disclosure or publication of the Dobbs draft opinion. Each employee was then asked to swear to the truth of the statements in the affidavit before a Notary Public. Each of these employees signed a sworn affidavit. A few of those interviewed admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count, so they annotated their affidavits to that effect. If investigators later determine any personnel lied to the investigators, those personnel would be subject to prosecution for a false statement in violation of 18 USC § 1001."

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
One of the things that confuses me is that the Justices and the employees are categorizes as two different entities i.e. saying something akin to the people with access are 82 employees and the Justices. But then all the investigation only says the employees. Does that mean all the justices weren't given the same scrutiny?

pcaharrier 4y ago

"all employees who were requested to do so voluntarily provided call and text detail records and billing statements for their personal devices for a defined period to the best of their abilities. The investigators reviewed the call and text logs retrieved but found nothing relevant in the limited logs." All the other references that I can find look like they are limited to the Court's IT systems. That seems like it might yield evidence that someone contacted the press (if they were careless enough to use their personal device), but little else.

cvwright 4y ago
Don’t the WaPo and NYT have anonymous submission sites for exactly this kind of thing?
- pcaharrier 4y ago
  I don't know the specifics of that, but I'd be extremely surprised if the reporters who worked on the story didn't have means at their disposal to protect the anonymity of the source. So there's yet another reason that call/text records would be very unlikely to yield useful evidence/leads.