In cases where offline communication would catch tampering, why would the New Yorker's advisement to use offline communication go through untampered? You seem

In cases where offline communication would catch tampering, why would the New Yorker's advisement to use offline communication go through untampered? You seem to be misunderstanding me. I think that there is value to offline communication with trusted but unanticipated 3rd parties, but I do not think that there is value to the New Yorker pointing this out.