5 ms·

Maybe it was a case where "practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves” as in the events recounted in [1]. 1: https://www.rollingstone.com

Maybe it was a case where "practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves” as in the events recounted in [1]. 1: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/reality-winner-interview-prison-nsa-1261844/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/real...

remarkEon 4y ago
Full quote: >The Intercept was widely criticized for its handling of the document Winner leaked—in particular, the decision to show the leaked document to the U.S. government. While attempting to verify its authenticity with the NSA, an Intercept reporter inadvertently revealed its provenance. According to an FBI affidavit, the document had a telltale crease in it, indicating it had been printed and folded. An FBI agent assigned to the case would later testify that a total of six people had printed the document. The pool of potential leakers was further narrowed to one — Winner — when investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. The Intercept would go on to conduct an internal review, which found that, in Winner’s case, its “practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves” when it came to protecting sources. Ouch. That said this case seems quite different. The Intercept didn't do it on purpose, but instead had someone not competent in protecting the source while attempting verification. The case of Teixeira seems remarkably different, however, in that journalists actively did the investigative work for the government while also, to an extent, reporting on the leaks themselves.
- netsharc 4y ago
  > investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. Hah, I think even without the paper, she would've been toast as soon as the email admins checked their logs...
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    For sure, The Intercept got dragged for that episode because of how shoddy their controls were. Winner would've been "got" regardless, just maybe a little bit later.
pessimizer 4y ago
The Reality Winner leak wasn't real, it was intentional. It was a leak of no importance (more summaries and assessments i.e. editorial) that claimed Russiagate stuff was true. The most important part of the leak was the identity of the woman who leaked it, who was a Bernie supporter with idiosyncratic politics. The goal was to bring the Bernie wing of the Democrats into the anti-Russian buildup by putting it into the mouth of a quirky left-leaning woman of pretty impeccable character (as far as that can be true for someone who works in US intelligence.) I absolutely guarantee that she wasn't in on it, they just played to her urge to feel heroic. Richard Esposito (https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0218/nypd-executive-appointments https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0218/nypd-executive-app...) was part of handling her leak on the other side (The Intercept is lousy with spooks), so they had whatever help they needed for their parallel construction, which they would have no obligation to fully explain, anyway. The trial went perfectly because Omidyar was paying her lawyers, so spies on both sides. ----- edit: the growing cynic consensus is that this leak is fake, too. The fact that there were "crudely altered" casualty figures and that point was repeated multiple times is bizarre. Why would Russians be altering information that they're meant to use? If it were meant for propaganda purposes, why would it be crude? And for the papers: why were they immediately convinced of the authenticity of these "crudely altered" documents when past leaked documents that had no indication of falsehood and were easy to authenticate were held in question for months or years after discovery by these same outlets?
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >the growing cynic consensus is that this leak is fake, too. Hard time squaring that with the hyperventilating in the press briefings, where administration officials ask journalists not to report on the documents.

remarkEon 4y ago

Full quote: >The Intercept was widely criticized for its handling of the document Winner leaked—in particular, the decision to show the leaked document to the U.S. government. While attempting to verify its authenticity with the NSA, an Intercept reporter inadvertently revealed its provenance. According to an FBI affidavit, the document had a telltale crease in it, indicating it had been printed and folded. An FBI agent assigned to the case would later testify that a total of six people had printed the document. The pool of potential leakers was further narrowed to one — Winner — when investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. The Intercept would go on to conduct an internal review, which found that, in Winner’s case, its “practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves” when it came to protecting sources. Ouch. That said this case seems quite different. The Intercept didn't do it on purpose, but instead had someone not competent in protecting the source while attempting verification. The case of Teixeira seems remarkably different, however, in that journalists actively did the investigative work for the government while also, to an extent, reporting on the leaks themselves.

netsharc 4y ago
> investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. Hah, I think even without the paper, she would've been toast as soon as the email admins checked their logs...
- remarkEon 4y ago
  For sure, The Intercept got dragged for that episode because of how shoddy their controls were. Winner would've been "got" regardless, just maybe a little bit later.

pessimizer 4y ago

The Reality Winner leak wasn't real, it was intentional. It was a leak of no importance (more summaries and assessments i.e. editorial) that claimed Russiagate stuff was true. The most important part of the leak was the identity of the woman who leaked it, who was a Bernie supporter with idiosyncratic politics. The goal was to bring the Bernie wing of the Democrats into the anti-Russian buildup by putting it into the mouth of a quirky left-leaning woman of pretty impeccable character (as far as that can be true for someone who works in US intelligence.) I absolutely guarantee that she wasn't in on it, they just played to her urge to feel heroic. Richard Esposito (https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0218/nypd-executive-appointments https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0218/nypd-executive-app...) was part of handling her leak on the other side (The Intercept is lousy with spooks), so they had whatever help they needed for their parallel construction, which they would have no obligation to fully explain, anyway. The trial went perfectly because Omidyar was paying her lawyers, so spies on both sides. ----- edit: the growing cynic consensus is that this leak is fake, too. The fact that there were "crudely altered" casualty figures and that point was repeated multiple times is bizarre. Why would Russians be altering information that they're meant to use? If it were meant for propaganda purposes, why would it be crude? And for the papers: why were they immediately convinced of the authenticity of these "crudely altered" documents when past leaked documents that had no indication of falsehood and were easy to authenticate were held in question for months or years after discovery by these same outlets?

remarkEon 4y ago
>the growing cynic consensus is that this leak is fake, too. Hard time squaring that with the hyperventilating in the press briefings, where administration officials ask journalists not to report on the documents.