4 ms·

Every journalist covering sensitive topics like national security should have well-practiced digital security habits. Edward Snowden specifically sought out La

by panarky 13y ago

Every journalist covering sensitive topics like national security should have well-practiced digital security habits. Edward Snowden specifically sought out Laura Poitras because she had a clue about information security. Peter Maass, who covers national security topics and interviewed Snowden, Poitras and Greenwald [0], explains that very few journalists take appropriate precautions to protect their sources [1]. Anything less than routine use of encryption, Tor, VPNs and secure voice communication should be considered journalistic malpractice given what we now know. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno... [1] http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/221003/peter-maass-everyone-needs-to-use-encryption-a-lot-more/ http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/221003/peter-ma...

marze 13y ago
That sounds nice and all, but the real solution is to have the government respect the constitutionally protected free press.
- gknoy 13y ago
  This may be true, but especially in the case of whistleblowing, where unethical behavior is already suspected/reported, it seems like prudence favors an approach that does not depend on one's rights being respected.
- INTPenis 13y ago
  In a perfect world, yes. But I think this is yet another signal to the people that we're not living in any utopia and it's time to protect oneself against the intrusions of the government. Free speach is now a right that the people must enforce. A hackerspace in Malmö Sweden are suggesting workshops for the public to teach them the use of open tools, encryption and secure communications. It would be nice if other hackerspaces around the world joined in on this idea.
- panarky 13y ago
  Yes, we must repair the tattered remains of our freedoms and democratic institutions. To do that, we desperately need exposure and public condemnation of the people and practices responsible for our predicament, plus discussion and analysis of the actions we can take. To do that we need free expression and a free press, where sources aren't afraid to talk to reporters or to self-publish. And _that_ requires well-practiced digital security habits and routine use of encryption, Tor, VPNs and secure voice communication at a minimum.
grey-area 13y ago
The notes in this case were actually on paper. The list of sources was on paper too I think - they were taken without her knowledge during the raid, and only returned later. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/25/report-armed-feds-raid-reporters-home-confiscate-confidential-docs/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/25/report-armed-feds...
- louwrentius 13y ago
  I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. A common thief would have been able to steal this information, and all these sources would have been out in the open. Maybe it's even wise never to pertain physical copies of documents, but to work digitally and encrypt everything. If you spend so much time investigating an agency that is so powerful, what do you expect? You must prepare for the worst: they may be fined by court for their actions, but they don't care: they got what they wanted: 1. information about the source of the leaks/information 2. scared any future wistleblowers of leaking to her or other people like her. It only shows that being a wistleblower is very dangerous because of the journalists who don't have any clue about security. But maybe I'm to harsh.
  - acqq 13y ago
    I don't understand your astonishment when most of the people believed that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... actually worked. It was assumed that the oppresive regimes are somewhere else.
  - a3n 13y ago
    > I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. Yes. Safes and encryption can be overcome by court order, or even rubber hose decryption, but even if you submit to an order you at least know that you've been surveilled. Safes and encryption are like an alarm, even if they don't ultimately keep you safe or encrypted.

by panarky 13y ago

marze 13y ago

That sounds nice and all, but the real solution is to have the government respect the constitutionally protected free press.

gknoy 13y ago
This may be true, but especially in the case of whistleblowing, where unethical behavior is already suspected/reported, it seems like prudence favors an approach that does not depend on one's rights being respected.
INTPenis 13y ago
In a perfect world, yes. But I think this is yet another signal to the people that we're not living in any utopia and it's time to protect oneself against the intrusions of the government. Free speach is now a right that the people must enforce. A hackerspace in Malmö Sweden are suggesting workshops for the public to teach them the use of open tools, encryption and secure communications. It would be nice if other hackerspaces around the world joined in on this idea.
panarky 13y ago
Yes, we must repair the tattered remains of our freedoms and democratic institutions. To do that, we desperately need exposure and public condemnation of the people and practices responsible for our predicament, plus discussion and analysis of the actions we can take. To do that we need free expression and a free press, where sources aren't afraid to talk to reporters or to self-publish. And _that_ requires well-practiced digital security habits and routine use of encryption, Tor, VPNs and secure voice communication at a minimum.

grey-area 13y ago

The notes in this case were actually on paper. The list of sources was on paper too I think - they were taken without her knowledge during the raid, and only returned later. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/25/report-armed-feds-raid-reporters-home-confiscate-confidential-docs/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/25/report-armed-feds...

louwrentius 13y ago
I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. A common thief would have been able to steal this information, and all these sources would have been out in the open. Maybe it's even wise never to pertain physical copies of documents, but to work digitally and encrypt everything. If you spend so much time investigating an agency that is so powerful, what do you expect? You must prepare for the worst: they may be fined by court for their actions, but they don't care: they got what they wanted: 1. information about the source of the leaks/information 2. scared any future wistleblowers of leaking to her or other people like her. It only shows that being a wistleblower is very dangerous because of the journalists who don't have any clue about security. But maybe I'm to harsh.
- acqq 13y ago
  I don't understand your astonishment when most of the people believed that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... actually worked. It was assumed that the oppresive regimes are somewhere else.
- a3n 13y ago
  > I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. Yes. Safes and encryption can be overcome by court order, or even rubber hose decryption, but even if you submit to an order you at least know that you've been surveilled. Safes and encryption are like an alarm, even if they don't ultimately keep you safe or encrypted.