undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCogitoCogito9y ago0 comments

There's no evidence that it was The Intercept's actions that caused her to be found. I agree that they should be more careful (they should _always_ be more careful), but there are many ways the source could have been found independent of the newspaper. Regardless, the government has many incentives to claim that it was The Intercept's deficient opsec that caused them to find the leaker.

There really isn't much you can reasonably conclude about this. Is the government lying? Is The Intercept incompetent? The only thing you should remember is that if you are going to leak documents you need to do as much as possible while they are still in your control to hide your involvement. Once you send them off, your fate is in the hands of others.

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

ucaetano9y ago· 3 in thread

Plenty of evidence: https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/how-a-few-yellow-do...

Massive incompetence and amateurish stuff on part of the leaker and The Intercept. Yellow dots have been known for ages.

CogitoCogitoOP9y ago

That article contains the following "evidence" claiming this is how the leaker was unmasked:

> Armed with this evidence, the NSA was able to quickly determine who had printed the document by checking audit logs.

So no I see exactly _zero_ evidence in that article that this was the method used. If you have any other article that has such evidence, I'm all ears.

Of course you're correct that The Intercept should have taken more care in this matter, but that doesn't mean that this was the reason why the leaker was found. The leaker should also have been a bit less amateur (e.g. not communicating with The Intercept on a _work_ computer).

kharms9y ago

Do you think the NSA wouldn't have checked access logs and the emails if not for the scan? The difference isn't between getting caught vs. not, it's between getting caught in days vs weeks.

ucaetano9y ago

But also caught with irrefutable proof. The printer and job time can be tracked back to her precisely. With that in hand, there is absolutely no doubt that leak came from her (she intentionally shared), or through her (she printed, but someone else shared, with or without her knowledge).

florean9y ago· 2 in thread

> There's no evidence that it was The Intercept's actions that caused her to be found.

There's plenty of evidence The Intercept's actions caused her to be found. It's documented in the FBI's affidavits for arrest and search warrants. https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevenperlberg/a-federal-government...

To wit: 'The Reporter told the Contractor that the Reporter had received the documents through the mail, and they were postmarked "Augusta, Georgia."'

So the FBI looked up who printed the document and of those six, who lived in Augusta, GA. Open and shut. Thanks, The Intercept!

ScottBurson9y ago

Yes, but there were only six who printed it to begin with. I'm inclined to agree that the Intercept shouldn't have shared that information with the contractor, but it's not at all clear that the leaker wouldn't have been found anyway.

florean9y ago

How does the FBI know it was printed? Because the Intercept told them. It could have been screenshots from a phone. It could have been downloaded from some hack. The number of people that viewed a document is going to be a superset of the number of people that viewed and printed a document. And if they're worried someone could access the report outside of their controls, then the set gets even larger. The Intercept only needed to disclose some content and the intelligence report number to get confirmation. Instead, they gave away how they got the report (printed), narrowing it to a set of six, and then they gave away the postmark, narrowing to a set of one. The Intercept burned their source.

1 more reply

moogleii9y ago

There's not much evidence that The Intercept tried very hard to protect her identity, either.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse