• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s how Reality Winner got real fucked.

    via Wikiedpia:

    Both journalists and security experts have suggested that The Intercept’s handling of the reporting, which included publishing the documents unredacted and including the printer tracking dots, was used to identify Winner as the leaker. In October 2020, The Intercept’s co-founding editor Glenn Greenwald wrote that Winner had sent her documents to The Intercept’s New York newsroom with no request that any specific journalist work on them. He called her exposure a “deeply embarrassing newsroom failure” resulting from “speed and recklessness” for which he was publicly blamed “despite having no role in it.” He said editor-in-chief Betsy Reed “oversaw, edited and controlled that story.” An internal review conducted by The Intercept into its handling of the document provided by Winner found that its “practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves”.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      A technology that was made To Stop Criminals™ being used against a political whistleblower? Color me surprised! (thanks for sharing the link btw, didn’t know about that)

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You’re very welcome. It’s good to be able to show real-world examples so people are less skeptical. A lot of people won’t read a deep technical document describing printer surveillance, but they will read a paragraph excerpt from Wikipedia.

    • ElCanut@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      To be fair Reality Winner sent her emails to the intercept from her government account, so she was fucked anyway and it was just a matter of time

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Those dots are practically invisible if you have the printed copy, they’re not going to be visible at all in a photography. Printers and their network leave a lot to logs behind, pretty sure they just check up the printed files of their network, found the document and who send the printer order and done.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        So you think tracking her down with forensic methods that objectively exist is farfetched, but accessing the print logs of every printer in America to figure out which one printed the document is realistic?

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Interesting. I remember reading a news article before 2017 stating that printers used to do this, but the practice has since ended because someone was able to prove they were doing it in the mid-2000s. At the time, I saw some people on Reddit claiming they just switched to a new, harder to detect method, and everyone was saying they were conspiracy theorists.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        On wikipedia there’s some suggestion that methods that involve intensity of toner/ink across a document could be used to uniquely identify a machine but no such methods are currently publicly known (at least as far as the Wikipedia article has been updated)