The DoD really dropped the ball by granting access to this information to such a wide group of people, according to the article. "Thousands of people". What happened to need-to-know?
Since 9/11 there's been a shift towards not siloing information as aggressively as before in order to make intelligence failures less likely. Don't know if that was at play in this case though.
At the very least, access control systems should've flagged unusual access to more information that this person would've had a need to know. But as big as the US intelligence and defense apparatus is, not every agency, program, and office is gonna have rigorous enough controls to catch people like this. Seems like the lesson should've been learned after Manning and Snowden.
This is an unfair characterization without more due consideration.
The IC was raked across the coals for years over being overly secretive and is still blamed for 9/11 because they had the pieces, but wouldn't coordinate.
Balancing security and communication is very tough and the nation specifically choose communication.
That 1000s of people had access and didn't leak it speaks to the strength of the system. I'm sorry that one guy was eff'd in the head and felt he needed to buy friends with classical documents.
I agree. A lot of it seems fairly low value, but the info on intelligence penetrations of the Russian military is a major setback. That's high value intelligence; exposure means assets are now compromised. That this is floating around in the hands of some kid with a printer and a camera is deeply stupid.
It isn't, however, surprising. This is just another in a now long list of similar failures, increasing in frequency. Our intelligence and military leadership is not competent.
You'd be surprised what gets classified. For example aggregate maintenance data from aircraft, like the paperwork for changing tires, or repainting the fuselage on a C-130, can allow an adversary to develop pretty good estimates of a military's readiness capability. So it's classified, usually as Secret.
The USAF alone has something like 100,000 aircraft maintainers, all of whom have a need to access that data to varying degrees.
They Need To Know. NTK is a contextual requirement and shouldn't be solved by admitting them into an enormous pen whereby they instantly gain access to information that they don't, in fact, need to know.
>admitting them into an enormous pen whereby they instantly gain access to information that they don't, in fact, need to know.
In my firsthand experience, having been a military officer with a security clearance, this rarely if ever happens. My point about the aircraft maintainers is that it's fairly common and in fact rather mundane that "thousands" of people do actually have a need to know.
I am not sure how much I trust this explanation. A lone discord user was responsible for a top secret leak because of some banal online argument? Doesn't sound right. Almost too convenient to hide some deeper systematic cracks in the intelligence agencies and their incompetence in securing their own secrets.
I know, don't attribute malice where stupidity suffice. But something just nagging me about how inane this whole explanation is.
I can definetly believe that someone heavily invested in an argument on social media might do something like leaking docs on what they assumed was a niche audience.
I've seen enough flamewars even on HN that have shown those kinds of characteristics (and Ik I myself have been guilty of getting overly invested in threads as well).
Humans be humans I guess.
Also from the demographics and description, I think the leaker may have been younger (early to late 20s). Being in your 20s, isolated on a base, and being bored can make people get overinvested in online communities.
Did you read the article, though? The argument thing was on the Minecraft room; the leaks were reportedly more of a long-term thing with intel shared out of a sense of “community” and “edification” on a smaller group.
I've known people very close to me who have leaked stuff in this manner before (nothing this classified though - more like non-classified gossip you'd read in Politico or Staffer Twitter quoting "an anonymous source working closely to the XYZ Subcommittee").
The leaker ofc made a horrible pattern of decisions, but it's kind of easy to see where they came from if they're dunking on friends or acquaintances in a semi-competitive manner
this is just how things are now. as an older zoomer ive learned not underestimate the breadth and depth of the demographic that is gamers, seems like just about every single male is one to a certain extent, transcending just about all the cultural and social divisions I can think of.
What other third place do people in our 20s have nowadays?!?
We've all entered our own silos and are much more insular now - either due to financial reasons or social dislocation. Also a bunch of us in that same age demographic were fucked big time by the pandemic, and most of our communications and friendships are online and distance based now.
I agree it sounds completely nuts, but it might be in the "so insane, it must be true" category. Time will tell, I guess, but I'm actually leaning towards "military dude wants to impress his online pals by leaking intel simply for the lols." Because that's sort of the world we live in nowadays.
It's not without precedent; there is a long history of soldiers leaking classified info to win some banal online argument. Has happened 10 times in the last few years with the game War Thunder.
> his latest case involves a player getting into an argument on the game’s forums about the in-game depiction of France’s Leclerc Main Battle Tank. To settle the disagreement, they posted a part of what was essentially the tank’s manual, prompting the forum’s moderators to wonder just what the fuck is wrong with these people
After so many years of security research, and the well known use of solutions like honeytokens, properly hidden in documents, meant to raise an alert on each occurence of exposure, I'm amazed we're still reading things like month long unawareness of critical info like this being leaked in public forums.
He was manually typing up the documents into text form before leaking them at first so he obviously knew the risk of raw documents. He just got lazy and was engaging in reckless behaviour maybe because he liked the thrill/power the access gave him but very modestly shared in with a group of half-interested zoomers.
> To date, no federal law enforcement officials have contacted the young group member.
If this is real, it’s insane that WaPo beat the DoJ to get to these people.
Also, how stupid are these kids to publicly talk to reporters about their involvement and receiving state secrets (the kid requested his voice not be masked!!). People have been imprisoned for receiving classified information and this is one heck of a clown show the DoJ will want to appear completely on top of.
For real, guys: don’t talk to police or reporters or anyone when you’re involved in a mess (even one much smaller than this). Get a lawyer and learn how to say “no comment!”
By admitting that they knew these documents were classified and did nothing they have now broken the law. If they shut up, they can plead ignorance “oh I figured it was role play, why would I trust stuff on the internet, etc”.
It is never in your interest to talk to anyone in cases like these. Get a Lawyer on retainer and wait.
The case which ruled they couldn't use the law to bar publication of classified documents? I'm not sure if that's relevant when charging an individual. The government certainly doesn't think so, hence the ongoing indictment against Assange.
Your link is the DoJ summary of the indictment, if you read the attached actual indictment they reference title 18 section 793 for count 1 then 3-18. Reading the indictment is how I found the relevant law.
Read it again. The core of the indictment is for conspiracy and incitement. If Assange had merely received unsolicited classified information and published it then he wouldn't have been indicted.
It repeatedly says that Assange "knowingly and unlawfully received documents" in charges 5-8. Something it could be argued these people did too.
And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.
The non-military citizens in the group are not breaking any law by possessing, discussing, or even distributing the classified material, as long as they didn't commit a crime to obtain it. It's protected speech, just like when WaPo published the Pentagon papers. However, despite no criminal liability, they could possibly be sued by the government.
On the other hand, the leaker, or anyone with a clearance, cannot legally possess or distribute the documents.
My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question.
I've also heard that, in recent decades, Federal prosecutors have not brought Espionage Act charges directly against those they agreed were acting as journalists, although they have been willing to try to force them to reveal the identity of their sources. (There are also court decisions limiting "prior restraint" of publication of classified material, e.g. via a court injunction, but that doesn't necessarily equate to prohibiting people from being punished for doing so after the fact.)
>My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question.
My impression is that it's very much a "leak one document, you have a problem, leak a million documents, the feds have a problem" situation wherein they'll happily prosecute people when the situation is mundane enough it won't draw serious scrutiny but when something is a media spectacle they don't tend to go hard except against the initial leaker.
That’s not correct. If you say find a cache of classified documents on the street or on some open FTP site and you sell it to China or leak it to the public you’ll be charged under the espionage act.
In general distribution of classified materials even those which have already been leaked is technically an offense.
The question is how likely you are to be prosecuted and in general found guilty.
So sharing a photo of a leaked document that was already been made public especially in the press on Twitter is probably ok form a legal perspective (unless you hold or plan to hold security clearance or a federal government job) but being in on it from the get go would likely land you a charge as a co conspirator under the espionage act.
Bullshit. You're just making things up. The actions you describe are generally not illegal. This is settled law at least since New York Times Co. v. United States.
>> It's protected speech, just like when WaPo published the Pentagon papers
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Pentagon Papers case was about "prior restraint", meaning the government tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing the information. They still could have been charged under existing laws on distributing classified information after publishing, the government considered that but did not charge them. And prior restraint is not always prohibited, the courts just decided that in the Pentagon Papers case, it was not appropriate.
Anyone involved in the leak in any way should only be talking to their lawyer right now.
Per the article he is also charged re: the espionage act.
In May 2019 and June 2020, the United States government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and alleging a history of conspiring with hackers.
I guarantee these people are are under surveillance. The FBI likely knows a lot more than WaPo reports. Part of the process is to make sure you get everyone and get your arms around the entire leak.
I'm just impressed at the lack of control the DoD has over such sensitive information. It's incredible that this went on for so long. It does not leave me with a lot of confidence that they are competent enough to protect Americas secrets.
Law enforcement/IC always moves slower in these sorts of things than journalism.
Often because the FBI/spies prefer reading their emails and catching them surreptitiously before making overt plays, since they already know the latter will remain a sure thing if they wanted. At least until they get forced to play their hands by journos and public pressure. Or maybe they did already and the friends are privy to it.
Or just as likely we over value the competence of government workers.
USA has laws such as the cloud act or patriot act for that, so I would expect them to be able to get the data or to become very upset and make sure that they will never lack data from discord anymore.
What I don‘t get about the not talking to the police stuff is that it destroys all your plausible deniability. I get that if everyone would do it it would probably be great but realistically I don‘t see it being the optimal strategy in all cases
Plausible deniability ~= source of reasonable doubt in a jury case, which criminal cases fundamentally are.
The bar to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not as far a stretch of a colloquialidm as you think, though I'd second your caution around ever relying upon it as a legal strategy, as you have no guarantees that your jury will see plausible the same you do.
Assuming that most of what was in the article is true, then I guarantee that the government now knows exactly who the leaker is and has no need to contact the person who was the source for this article. Message logs, ip addresses, user account info, and whatever else needed to identify this person all exists on Discord's servers, and I doubt law enforcement will have any trouble getting access to it (assuming they didn't already have it through other channels).
Not saying it's the case here but for these kind of investigations it's a classic technique of law enforcement to play dumb. These people might very well be monitored 24/7 to collect further evidence while they think they're safe
If the only contact the kid had with the leaker was through Discord, the FBI already knows literally everything the kid knows. If the leaker is on the run, perhaps they’re hoping the kid might keep talking to the leaker and lead them to him. He told the reporter already that he won’t cooperate with the FBI to catch the leaker.
If the article is accurate, how could someone who'd been through whatever onboarding for security clearance think that this was a good idea, or think that the documents wouldn't also spread once leaked?
Is it mental illness? (Like, they couldn't extrapolate from training like "Following the classified materials handling protocols is important, because... Be vigilant against foreign operatives attempting to befriend you, because... Etc...." to implied practices like "Oh, hey, and don't steal classified materials and post them in Internet social venues, not even your own private Discord of Internet randos, because that has similar problems"? Or could they see the similarity, but they thought they were above it?)
And/or was the wider spread of the intel beyond the Discord actually intended?
Related question. If someone has access to classified info, but has become dangerously disenchanted with their work... In the various roles that person might have, are there processes that provide collegial opt-out for someone before they become a rogue behavior risk?
For example, let's say an intel analyst is so upset over some decision, that it's a showstopper for their morale. Can they go hand in the opt-out form, and some official replies, "Sorry to hear that, we appreciate you letting us know, feedback channels and/or counseling are always available, but whenever you're sure you want to leave the role/department/agency, where can we help you pivot your career to?"?
I would expect they do not, unfortunately. They could likely request a transfer to a different position but that would be up to their chain of command to act on. AFAIK, there is no pipeline to handle "Hey boss I've become disillusioned and I want out"
They likely weren't thinking of the long term consequences and were focused on getting the approval of their peer group. That's what I take away from the seemingly attention seeking complaints that people weren't reacting to the light treason they were engaging in.
Like "I want people to like me, so I'll make this grand display none of them actually asked for." I've known people that have done similar things with much lower stakes.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a nonsexual honey trap someplace egging them on, but it's also believable they did it to themselves.
Yeah, I find it utterly believable because I've seen the exact same dynamic, down to the increasingly lazy redaction and bizarre lack of opsec, in a different context: low self esteem gamer gets hired by game studio, but most of his friends still play MMO produced by said studio. No shit there's gonna be leaks and no shit it's not staying within that original circle.
TLDR:someone with an intel exchange or clone tor url was reposting material from it to discord shocker.
The real scandal here is that none of these supposed media outlets are reposting the documents, nor putting what they say in context of other leaks like the one from mossad back in January.
> OG told his online companions that the government hid horrible truths from the public. He claimed, according to the members, that the government knew in advance that a white supremacist intended to go on a shooting rampage at a Buffalo supermarket in May 2022. The attack left 10 dead, all of them Black, and wounded three more. OG said federal law enforcement officials let the killings proceed so they could argue for increased funding, a baseless notion that the member said he believes and considers an example of OG’s penetrating insights about the depth of government corruption.
Why is that a "baseless notion" (which is stated in the newspaper's voice)? It might be far-fetched, but this "OG" guy had proven access to top secret documents, and (IIRC) that shooter left all kinds of documents and plans online. It's not inconceivable that "federal law enforcement officials" picked up something that told them a shooting was likely to happen, didn't act, and this guy was privy to some document or conversation about that. Weaseling "baseless" in there reeks of condescendingly making sure to tell the plebs exactly what you want them to think at every opportunity.
Seems like every whistleblower can just be called a false flag op, then. Doesn’t seem like a very substantive criticism, so unless you can show these ties you are talking about.
'baseless' is perfectly right; there's no basis for it. The guy said he had a theory. Guy goes on to yell racist and antisemitic words while shooting a rifle. Given that there have been literally tens of thousands of ridiculous right wing conspiracy theories over the last few years (plandemic! Hillary executed in gitmo (again)! Biden body double! Deep state! Venezuelan dictators!), and this is the same old Our Enemies Are Amoral Supervillains Who Victimize Us, why should anyone legitimize this one?
> 'baseless' is perfectly right; there's no basis for it.
No. The issue is: how can you tell that? Do you have top-secret clearance to see what this "OG" guy saw? Do these Washington Post reporters?
"Baseless" means it has no foundation at all, not that it has a foundation inaccessible to you. It's impossible for us to reasonably distinguish between those two with this guy. There's a serious possibility he had access to scandalous secrets due to his position and security clearance.
and indeed, it has no foundation at all. The aforementioned jew-hating racist who has made these accusations has presented zero evidence, despite theoretically having a position, security clearance, means and motive. So not only is it part and parcel of what has been an avalanche of lunatic right wing jew-hating racist conspiracy theories, but it doesn't even come with a basic sop towards proof. It's dark right wing fantasy cosplay and it's great that the media is beginning to label it as such, rather than legitimize it with 'well gosh it could be true that the FBI is in a grand conspiracy to murder black people for money'.
You keep saying that, but nothing written in the source doesn't go that far. The closest it comes is to say he made a video where he yelled "a series of racial and antisemitic slurs into the camera...," but there's no other context. Saying stuff like that certainly indicates he almost certainly rejects modern liberal identity politics, but it's quite possible he's was just being tastelessly edgy and transgressive for his friends, and nothing presented disconfirms that possibility (though I can't watch the videos through the paywall bypass). I'd expect if it was clear he was a "jew-hating racist" the article would have outright said he was.
> ...who has made these accusations has presented zero evidence, despite theoretically having a position, security clearance, means and motive.
The accussation was reported secondhand (OG -> interviewee -> journalist). As far as I can tell, this "OG" guy is probably on run or getting ready to be arrested. Proving that claim (apparently made some time in the past) is probably the farthest thing from his mind right now.
> he yelled 'a series of racial and antisemitic slurs' into the camera and we don't know he's a jew-hating racist because we lack context?
Yes, exactly. It appears you disagree, but I think your thinking is sloppy on that point. There's a reasonably large chance he doesn't actually hate Jews and that he was just being tastelessly edgy and transgressive.
So your new formulation of Occam's Razor is that the most probable thing is likely true, unless that thing is the possibility that a tastelessly edgy 21 year old 4chan gun nut who yells racist and antisemitic slurs and a military security clearance just so happens to have uncovered a massive FBI (note: not military) conspiracy to murder blacks in order to increase their funding, in which case we should hear them out and not use hurtful language like 'baseless'. I see. Are you sure I'm the one with the sloppy thinking on this point?
Come on, dude. Quit being so needlessly confrontational.
My only point was "baseless" was too strong a word, because of all the unknowns. The allegation is almost certainly untrue or distorted, but "baseless" is certainly-level 10/10, and the unknowns just don't let you reasonably get to that level (only, say, to level 9/10). Baseless is for nonsense that couldn't possible even tough the ground, like Q-Anon level garbage (e.g. some dude who never leaves his basement alleging he's discovered that Hillary Clinton drinks children's blood to live forever).
> in which case we should hear them out and not use hurtful language like 'baseless'.
No. The reporters should have asked the government for a statement and reported the denial, so "a notion the government says is baseless," instead "a baseless notion." Alternatively, they could have exposed their thinking and said "a notion that we know is baseless because we trust the government to never do such a dastardly thing."
> Authorities investigating if retired federal agent knew of Buffalo mass shooting plans in advance
> Authorities believe the former agent – believed to be from Texas – was one of at least six individuals who regularly communicated with accused gunman Payton Gendron in an online chat room where racist hatred was discussed, the two officials said.
Back during the Obama administration, one of the reasons (as mentioned in a subsequently leaked memo) the ATF was gunwalking was so that the guns used in subsequent crimes could be pointed to as a justification for expanding ATF powers.
106 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadAt the very least, access control systems should've flagged unusual access to more information that this person would've had a need to know. But as big as the US intelligence and defense apparatus is, not every agency, program, and office is gonna have rigorous enough controls to catch people like this. Seems like the lesson should've been learned after Manning and Snowden.
The IC was raked across the coals for years over being overly secretive and is still blamed for 9/11 because they had the pieces, but wouldn't coordinate.
Balancing security and communication is very tough and the nation specifically choose communication.
That 1000s of people had access and didn't leak it speaks to the strength of the system. I'm sorry that one guy was eff'd in the head and felt he needed to buy friends with classical documents.
It isn't, however, surprising. This is just another in a now long list of similar failures, increasing in frequency. Our intelligence and military leadership is not competent.
The USAF alone has something like 100,000 aircraft maintainers, all of whom have a need to access that data to varying degrees.
In my firsthand experience, having been a military officer with a security clearance, this rarely if ever happens. My point about the aircraft maintainers is that it's fairly common and in fact rather mundane that "thousands" of people do actually have a need to know.
I know, don't attribute malice where stupidity suffice. But something just nagging me about how inane this whole explanation is.
I can definetly believe that someone heavily invested in an argument on social media might do something like leaking docs on what they assumed was a niche audience.
I've seen enough flamewars even on HN that have shown those kinds of characteristics (and Ik I myself have been guilty of getting overly invested in threads as well).
Humans be humans I guess.
Also from the demographics and description, I think the leaker may have been younger (early to late 20s). Being in your 20s, isolated on a base, and being bored can make people get overinvested in online communities.
I'm just speaking from experience.
I've known people very close to me who have leaked stuff in this manner before (nothing this classified though - more like non-classified gossip you'd read in Politico or Staffer Twitter quoting "an anonymous source working closely to the XYZ Subcommittee").
The leaker ofc made a horrible pattern of decisions, but it's kind of easy to see where they came from if they're dunking on friends or acquaintances in a semi-competitive manner
We've all entered our own silos and are much more insular now - either due to financial reasons or social dislocation. Also a bunch of us in that same age demographic were fucked big time by the pandemic, and most of our communications and friendships are online and distance based now.
In 2021, https://kotaku.com/war-thunder-military-documents-classified...
Also in 2021, https://kotaku.com/classified-military-documents-leaked-agai...
In 2022, https://kotaku.com/war-thunder-tank-classified-military-docu...
In 2023, https://kotaku.com/war-thunder-military-documents-classified...
Those are all different instances
A quote
> his latest case involves a player getting into an argument on the game’s forums about the in-game depiction of France’s Leclerc Main Battle Tank. To settle the disagreement, they posted a part of what was essentially the tank’s manual, prompting the forum’s moderators to wonder just what the fuck is wrong with these people
> To date, no federal law enforcement officials have contacted the young group member.
If this is real, it’s insane that WaPo beat the DoJ to get to these people.
Also, how stupid are these kids to publicly talk to reporters about their involvement and receiving state secrets (the kid requested his voice not be masked!!). People have been imprisoned for receiving classified information and this is one heck of a clown show the DoJ will want to appear completely on top of.
For real, guys: don’t talk to police or reporters or anyone when you’re involved in a mess (even one much smaller than this). Get a lawyer and learn how to say “no comment!”
By admitting that they knew these documents were classified and did nothing they have now broken the law. If they shut up, they can plead ignorance “oh I figured it was role play, why would I trust stuff on the internet, etc”.
It is never in your interest to talk to anyone in cases like these. Get a Lawyer on retainer and wait.
Sections C through F. I'm unsure of relevant case law, it may be untested, but it's part of the charges against Julian Assange.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...
And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.
The non-military citizens in the group are not breaking any law by possessing, discussing, or even distributing the classified material, as long as they didn't commit a crime to obtain it. It's protected speech, just like when WaPo published the Pentagon papers. However, despite no criminal liability, they could possibly be sued by the government.
On the other hand, the leaker, or anyone with a clearance, cannot legally possess or distribute the documents.
I've also heard that, in recent decades, Federal prosecutors have not brought Espionage Act charges directly against those they agreed were acting as journalists, although they have been willing to try to force them to reveal the identity of their sources. (There are also court decisions limiting "prior restraint" of publication of classified material, e.g. via a court injunction, but that doesn't necessarily equate to prohibiting people from being punished for doing so after the fact.)
My impression is that it's very much a "leak one document, you have a problem, leak a million documents, the feds have a problem" situation wherein they'll happily prosecute people when the situation is mundane enough it won't draw serious scrutiny but when something is a media spectacle they don't tend to go hard except against the initial leaker.
In general distribution of classified materials even those which have already been leaked is technically an offense.
The question is how likely you are to be prosecuted and in general found guilty.
So sharing a photo of a leaked document that was already been made public especially in the press on Twitter is probably ok form a legal perspective (unless you hold or plan to hold security clearance or a federal government job) but being in on it from the get go would likely land you a charge as a co conspirator under the espionage act.
What now?
And this has already been tested in court.
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Pentagon Papers case was about "prior restraint", meaning the government tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing the information. They still could have been charged under existing laws on distributing classified information after publishing, the government considered that but did not charge them. And prior restraint is not always prohibited, the courts just decided that in the Pentagon Papers case, it was not appropriate.
Anyone involved in the leak in any way should only be talking to their lawyer right now.
The fact that he's charged with hacking (merits aside) as opposed to leaking is proof that non-military citizens are indeed not breaking the law.
In May 2019 and June 2020, the United States government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and alleging a history of conspiring with hackers.
Conspiring to acquire classified information is quite different than merely possessing or distributing it.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assa...
I’m sure WaPo was second after not getting a response from Mr. QAnon.
If you receive them unsolicited you have broken no law.
Pass me secret documents.
Now, my question - did I just break the law? Or am I only breaking the law if someone responds with secret documents?
If you just say "oh no sorry I don’t actually want your secret documents, that was just a joke" and move on, you are fine.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
So it would be up to a prosecutor and jury to determine your state of mind.
I'm just impressed at the lack of control the DoD has over such sensitive information. It's incredible that this went on for so long. It does not leave me with a lot of confidence that they are competent enough to protect Americas secrets.
Often because the FBI/spies prefer reading their emails and catching them surreptitiously before making overt plays, since they already know the latter will remain a sure thing if they wanted. At least until they get forced to play their hands by journos and public pressure. Or maybe they did already and the friends are privy to it.
Or just as likely we over value the competence of government workers.
At a minimum, they can get a warrant and/or use provisions of the Patriot Act and similar. And for this it's likely warranted.
Even discussing this in the future tense is a bit weird, there's no way they don't _already_ have everything Discord does.
The bar to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not as far a stretch of a colloquialidm as you think, though I'd second your caution around ever relying upon it as a legal strategy, as you have no guarantees that your jury will see plausible the same you do.
In the United States? I doubt it. See the Pentagon Papers case.
Is it mental illness? (Like, they couldn't extrapolate from training like "Following the classified materials handling protocols is important, because... Be vigilant against foreign operatives attempting to befriend you, because... Etc...." to implied practices like "Oh, hey, and don't steal classified materials and post them in Internet social venues, not even your own private Discord of Internet randos, because that has similar problems"? Or could they see the similarity, but they thought they were above it?)
And/or was the wider spread of the intel beyond the Discord actually intended?
And arguments on the War Thunder forum are notoriously full of leaks https://www.eurogamer.net/yet-more-military-documents-leaked...
If so, are there suspicions that normalizing leaking is actually intentional action by an adversary? (To get the info, or to erode professionalism?)
For example, let's say an intel analyst is so upset over some decision, that it's a showstopper for their morale. Can they go hand in the opt-out form, and some official replies, "Sorry to hear that, we appreciate you letting us know, feedback channels and/or counseling are always available, but whenever you're sure you want to leave the role/department/agency, where can we help you pivot your career to?"?
Like "I want people to like me, so I'll make this grand display none of them actually asked for." I've known people that have done similar things with much lower stakes.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a nonsexual honey trap someplace egging them on, but it's also believable they did it to themselves.
The real scandal here is that none of these supposed media outlets are reposting the documents, nor putting what they say in context of other leaks like the one from mossad back in January.
Why is that a "baseless notion" (which is stated in the newspaper's voice)? It might be far-fetched, but this "OG" guy had proven access to top secret documents, and (IIRC) that shooter left all kinds of documents and plans online. It's not inconceivable that "federal law enforcement officials" picked up something that told them a shooting was likely to happen, didn't act, and this guy was privy to some document or conversation about that. Weaseling "baseless" in there reeks of condescendingly making sure to tell the plebs exactly what you want them to think at every opportunity.
No. The issue is: how can you tell that? Do you have top-secret clearance to see what this "OG" guy saw? Do these Washington Post reporters?
"Baseless" means it has no foundation at all, not that it has a foundation inaccessible to you. It's impossible for us to reasonably distinguish between those two with this guy. There's a serious possibility he had access to scandalous secrets due to his position and security clearance.
You keep saying that, but nothing written in the source doesn't go that far. The closest it comes is to say he made a video where he yelled "a series of racial and antisemitic slurs into the camera...," but there's no other context. Saying stuff like that certainly indicates he almost certainly rejects modern liberal identity politics, but it's quite possible he's was just being tastelessly edgy and transgressive for his friends, and nothing presented disconfirms that possibility (though I can't watch the videos through the paywall bypass). I'd expect if it was clear he was a "jew-hating racist" the article would have outright said he was.
> ...who has made these accusations has presented zero evidence, despite theoretically having a position, security clearance, means and motive.
The accussation was reported secondhand (OG -> interviewee -> journalist). As far as I can tell, this "OG" guy is probably on run or getting ready to be arrested. Proving that claim (apparently made some time in the past) is probably the farthest thing from his mind right now.
Yes, exactly. It appears you disagree, but I think your thinking is sloppy on that point. There's a reasonably large chance he doesn't actually hate Jews and that he was just being tastelessly edgy and transgressive.
My only point was "baseless" was too strong a word, because of all the unknowns. The allegation is almost certainly untrue or distorted, but "baseless" is certainly-level 10/10, and the unknowns just don't let you reasonably get to that level (only, say, to level 9/10). Baseless is for nonsense that couldn't possible even tough the ground, like Q-Anon level garbage (e.g. some dude who never leaves his basement alleging he's discovered that Hillary Clinton drinks children's blood to live forever).
> in which case we should hear them out and not use hurtful language like 'baseless'.
No. The reporters should have asked the government for a statement and reported the denial, so "a notion the government says is baseless," instead "a baseless notion." Alternatively, they could have exposed their thinking and said "a notion that we know is baseless because we trust the government to never do such a dastardly thing."
> Authorities believe the former agent – believed to be from Texas – was one of at least six individuals who regularly communicated with accused gunman Payton Gendron in an online chat room where racist hatred was discussed, the two officials said.
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/authorities-investigating...