Individuals who hold security clearances have a lifetime legal obligation to report unauthorized disclosures of classified information.https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/871867946649489408 …
In other words, by sending documents the journalist placed the cleared individual in legal jeopardy if s/he didn't report it.
-
-
Does this mean that people with clearances can effectively never be journalists? Or does the obligation cease if you give up your clearance?
-
If it's natsec journalism, probably not. Issue is more lifetime pre-publication review, but reporting obligation is forever as well.
-
There are some very smart people USG would love to bring in to advise who just refuse to hold clearance b/c of those rules.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would be interested in your thoughts on how the intercept should have verified document was authentic.
-
Retype (or OCR), edit (as though writing summary) to hide natural language document watermarks, reg e.g.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EdLPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=document+watermarks+synonyms&source=bl&ots=Y1gQY2cieE&sig=BDe_QnggWaTOOhi0Q_LC1Ltryp0&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi9prWB_6jUAhVBJMAKHcSjAXoQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=document%20watermarks%20synonyms&f=false …
-
But how would you verify the document was authentic? It was mailed anonymously.
-
TI appears to have some contacts to ask, mistake is in sending identifiable original rather than saying 'we have doc that broadly claims ..'
-
So you would need a source who knows the specific information, not just someone who could recognize what appears to be an authentic doc.
-
It is obviously very delicate, but a publication should protect sources & generally has time to corroborate leaks.
-
Unfortunately, I think it's harder than people realize to corroborate a document mailed anonymously to a news organization.
-
(My take) In their rush to publish TI burnt their source & disclosed an investigation where DHS or FBI are probably still assessing impact.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what is the takeaway here?
-
Never leak to Intercept?
-
you passed
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yes, let's all talk about the source, and not the fact russians hacked voting systems days before the election, installing a stooge
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wonder if that's the intercept's standard verification method. if so, it seems risky for all parties
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now I see how they got their name....smh. Who sends anything to an outfit named the Intercept?Then gets intercepted. Wish her the best.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It wasn’t hard to figure out who it was. Turns out don’t use color printers. https://t.co/xX6LGPaEoC?amp=1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hmmm....the word plan comes to mind -fear this kiddo got burned in the process-not that she is not accountable but played
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And the source in jeopardy if s/he did. Both Intercept & Winner were sloppy, careless, gave too much info
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.