161–170 of 245 posts
Have we learned nothing about the NSA's tactics? The Intercept publishes reporting that they would rather not have been printed, and the very day the DOJ unseals charges where they try to say they learned about the leak from a paper crease from what can be reasonably inferred to be The Intercept. Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept (in contradiction with their recomm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.
What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand. There's a woman actually in jail awaiting charges over this. You're saying the NSA has a sacrificial agent to take the fall? That they're faking the whole judicial process? That they somehow induced a contractor to steal a real document and leak it to the paper they wanted it leaked to? I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but you're going to have to spell this one out better.
Not that I have any idea what actually happened but hiring someone at a low level, who seems kind of unreliable, allowing them access to something who's leakage you might not care about, letting everything play out the way it did, seems like something a spy agency would be reasonably adept it. The women was a contractor, not an agent, so they aren't sacrificing someone they've invested in. etc Again, what actually ha…
So given the choice between "News Site Messed Up Protecting a Source" and "The Whole Thing Was Orchestrated By The Spymasters", you're refusing to make a call because... "who knows?"
I mean, if that's the level of detachment and rationality you're going to apply here... why stop at a mere egg-on-face moment for The Intercept? Surely the NSA could be applying those powers for something more juicy.
* The story is a huge black eye for the Intercept, makes it look like they are very inept.
* The leak is not really substantial, mostly analyst notes about an ongoing thing that's been talked up in the press quite a bit.
* The DocuColor thing is ancient as well: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/20/outlaw_printer_dots...
Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but this just has a funny odor to it. One might speculate that this is a calculated leak intended to discredit The Intercept, sow fear in the minds of potential leakers?.
If the comments on other forums are anything to judge by, there are at least two groups of paid astroturfers battling it out today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has all the appearances of the government trying to smear a news outlet and ensure no one leaks to them again. A scheme that would be less effective if not for The Intercept's demonstrably deficient opsec in protecting its source in this affair.
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 ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they need parallel construction when The Intercept narrowed it to a single person (printed and lives in Augusta, GA)? I'm going to restrict my conversation on this topic to the reporting and sworn testimony.
I'm not shielding The Intercept from criticism. But the reporting is based on what the DOJ wanted released and I do not share your trust in what they say.
Instead, they released this chickenshit statement that tries to cast doubt on the testimony without actually disputing any of it: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-dep... So, it looks like we live in the reality where the FBI didn't lie on a warrant application and The Intercept burned a source.
Any article that ends with a yes/no question is always answered with "no". This one is no exception. Print classified info out at work on work printers from a monitored work computer you are logged into and said info ends up with reporters days later? Reporters you communicated with over gmail ?! This person isn't exactly an infosec genius. Which, I mean, isn't a sin or anything, but when you know the organization yo…
* Our leaker is a person with a Twitter timeline that makes you wonder how she maintained her Secret clearance. She retweets @Snowden, yet was hired at Pluribus in Feb. of this year, days after doing so. * The story is a huge black eye for the Intercept, makes it look like they are very inept. * The leak is not really substantial, mostly analyst notes about an ongoing thing that's been talked up in the press quite a…
[0] http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not shielding The Intercept from criticism. But the reporting is based on what the DOJ wanted released and I do not share your trust in what they say.
You are shielding The Intercept from criticism. The Intercept has not countered the DOJ testimony or any of the other reporting on this. The FBI has sworn that these things happened. So let us think through the counterfactual that you're proposing: The Intercept didn't burn their source and the FBI lied to a federal judge on a warrant application. In that reality, the Intercept would immediately publish a story about…
* Our leaker is a person with a Twitter timeline that makes you wonder how she maintained her Secret clearance. She retweets @Snowden, yet was hired at Pluribus in Feb. of this year, days after doing so. * The story is a huge black eye for the Intercept, makes it look like they are very inept. * The leak is not really substantial, mostly analyst notes about an ongoing thing that's been talked up in the press quite a…
She had top secret clearance prior to being hired by Pluribus in February. She was formerly in the Air Force and apparently specialized in Middle Eastern languages. Apparently, top secret clearance is renewed every 5 years [0], so she may have had carte blanche to do what she wanted for a few years. [0] http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs...