3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.