
Feds identify suspected 'second leaker' for Snowden reporters - uptown
http://news.yahoo.com/feds-identify-suspected--second-leaker--for-snowden-reporters-165741571.html
======
ripb
>"The Obama administration in my view is conducting a war against
whistleblowers and ultimately against independent journalism."

This is spot on. When you use your power to ground another President's flight
in the hope of catching a whistleblower from your own country on it, there is
something very wrong.

~~~
sarciszewski
I'm always amazed that most people don't know about this incident.

~~~
sintaxi
Wow, I had no idea that happened. Here's a link for the lazy...

[http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/07/03/us-violates-intl-law-
grou...](http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/07/03/us-violates-intl-law-grounding-
bolivian-presidents-plane-in-pursuit-of-snowden/)

~~~
sarciszewski
Would it be considered topical enough to submit this to HN as a separate post?

EDIT:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8519052](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8519052)

------
matthewmcg
"But the case has also generated concerns among some within the U.S.
intelligence community that top Justice Department officials — stung by
criticism that they have been overzealous in pursuing leak cases — may now be
more reluctant to bring criminal charges involving _unauthorized disclosures
to the news media_ , the sources said. One source, who asked not to be
identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said there was concern
'there is no longer an appetite at Justice for these cases.'"

Aren't these comments _themselves_ probably unauthorized disclosures to the
news media?

~~~
privong
> Aren't these comments themselves probably unauthorized disclosures to the
> news media?

Offically, yes. In practice, no. My understanding is that government orgs need
some amount of non-official contact with journalists in order to get
information out to the public. That is partly so they can make favorable
information disclosures without it seeming official.

One could view the comment you quoted as an attempt to slightly improve the
image of the Justice Dept and intelligence community without risking those
entities appearing to be "soft on crime" (which is what would likely happen if
they issued an official statment).

~~~
bediger4000
Whoa whoa whoa! Now we're getting deep into what used to be called
"Kremlinology". Back in the depths of the Cold War (and even today, from North
Korea) the Soviet government would issue "news" that was blatantly untrue
manure, and nothing else. So people would try to divine real meaning from
arcane aspects of the untrue manure.

If they need to "make favorable information disclosures without it seeming
official", and they need to improve their image without appearing to be "soft
on crime", they should just say so, rather than making unofficial official
statements and jumping through flaming semantics hoops like linguistic circus
lions. We know those TLAs are rogue, but if we need to apply Kremlinology to
understand them, they've lost their moral and linguistic anchors as well.

~~~
rdtsc
The main goals of these "hints" is to

1) Release the information to the public.

2) Not be on the official record of releasing such information.

Maybe Justice Dept. doesn't want to be on the record about not towing the
party line or not being "tough" on leakers, but at the same time, it perceives
the public is getting a little fed up with these NSA shenanigans. So they
don't want to make it official, as it would seem as the executive branch is
devided in its public stance.

So they test the waters by releaseing an "anonymous" hint like that and then
see what happens.

This also, interestingly, can serve as a hint-hint to the NSA management to
tone it down a bit, as Obama is getting some bad rap about this and so on.
Sometimes the most direct message is not a direct message but through an
anonymous hint like this. (Directed both at media, people but also government
agencies as well).

This is nothing new and is tried and true PR technique.

~~~
sarciszewski
Are there any ongoing efforts to disrupt PR schemes like this? I'd like to see
the public less easily manipulated but I'm not sure where to start. (And,
technically, not sure that I'm not also being manipulated.)

~~~
rayiner
I don't think this amounts to manipulation of the public, since it's an
attempt to get truthful information out into the public. Rather it's politics
--like getting your friend to ask someone else's friend if she likes you.

People on HN tend to frown on this sort of politics. I'd posit that such
attitudes are counter-productive. If you forced Americans to choose between
two black or white options: security or liberty, you might very well not like
the outcome. Sympathy towards people who leak national security information is
not such a popular position that an agency can shout it from the rooftops. If
you make more subtle disclosures untenable, the outcome might not work out in
your favor.

~~~
sarciszewski
Sorry, I should have clarified: Any tool or technique can (will?) be employed
by either side.

I moreso wanted to know: when the security > liberty fanatics employ it
against us, how can we best disrupt it?

------
ademarre
Bruce Schneier insists this is actually the third leaker.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/us_intelligen...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/us_intelligence.html)

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/the_us_intell...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/the_us_intellig.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8150292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8150292)

~~~
par0xyzm
The second leaker will become the "third" if they are identified after Snowden
and the person in this story.

------
gnu8
I hope the leaker is safe - the article doesn't say an arrest was made.

~~~
sarciszewski
This is an excellent point.

------
sarciszewski
It's a shame they identified* the second leaker. I was hoping they would be
able to leak moar.

* Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty. It'd be great if they managed to beat the government in court.

~~~
par0xyzm
Maybe they haven't ;)

------
lovelearning
I'm curious why Greenwald and Schneier seem so keen to publicly conjecture
that there are multiple whistleblowers. It seems rather counterproductive to
me. Is there a good reason?

~~~
pgeorgi
After someone published Aug 2013 material, it was clear that Snowden isn't the
only one. There's no harm in talking about two whistleblowers at that point.

Emphasizing that there's more than one might encourage even more
whistleblowers. Talking about a certain number might also hide that there are
even _more_ out there.

Knowing the exact number of sources might help the agencies assign
publications to sources, and thus, support in locating them. If you try to
assign material that is actually from five sources to just two, you'll have a
hard time seeing a clear picture.

------
par0xyzm
Which band of government shills is downvoting anyone who doesn't side with the
feds [pigs] on this one?

Identify yourselves and sign up for pr0j3kt m4yh3m's next hit list whenever or
whoever that may be

~~~
beedogs
Don't you need several hundred points in order to downvote? I'd think that
would make it a lot more difficult to brigade on HN.

~~~
snsr
Thousands I believe at this point.

