How to protect sources: Politico linked draft copy contains no hints in metadata | Hacker News Reader

How to protect sources: Politico linked draft copy contains no hints in metadata

twitter.com

Kudos to them for being careful about metadata. However, it probably doesn't really make a difference in this case. There are only so many SCOTUS clerks [1], and it's probably not hard to identify the person who leaked this.

Sotomayor's clerks are the most likely candidates, and among them Amit Jain [2] has been a previously a source for the Politico reporter Josh Gerstein [3]. (before becoming a SCOTUS clerk)

[1]: I think they are entitled to 4 law clerks each term, with the exception of the chief justices who's entitled to 5.

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-na...

[3]: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump...

I've seen the Jain theory, but I don't buy it. IMO it seems more likely the source was initially in contact with Ward, who brought in Gerstein (as senior legal affairs reporter) to assist and vet. The reverse seems less likely: if Jain leaked through Gerstein, why bring in a national security reporter as co-author?

I don't know how SCOTUS works. Considering the age of the judges, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bunch of secretaries and admin assistants with access. Hell, cleaning staff could have seen and photocopied it.

It's also conceivable (although I find it less likely) a conservative leaked it because they were afraid of a defection. Now any defection would look like caving to public opinion.

You certainly lay out a possible case, but I don't think they available information warrants such confidence (especially naming a specific person)

> You certainly lay out a possible case, but I don't think they available information warrants such confidence (especially naming a specific person)

That's absolutely true, that part is just speculation. (and FWIW, it's not my theory either, I just paraphrased the social media chatter)

But my point is that the number of candidates is limited. (and I disagree with you about the plausibility of a Republican leak, given that it was leaked to Politico)

If the court wants to avoid the leaker becoming a martyr, or otherwise giving the leaker power to further destabilize the court, they may not want to ever publicly identify them.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy Josh Blackman speculated that since this looks like a scan of a color print out, the fingerprints of the printer may have survived intact. Link here seems to be talking only about basic document properties, but some analysis of the page images themselves might be interesting.

Honestly Politico is one of the best news sources out there. I check their site every day. They are professionals, one of the last bastions of good quality journalism, and they wouldn't fuck up something as big as this.

Yeah, too bad they're owned by Axel Springer, the infamous litigious and super corrupt German mega conglomerate.

Care to give me the 411 on why this makes Politico not worth listening to?

They all have biases. Many have ugly ownership too.

Rather than write them.off blanket style as is implied here, best move is to seek diversity.

One way, on economic labor issues, which are basically not covered from a labor point of view in the US, is to seek that from indie media and or foreign sources.

Say it is war. Same deal due to owner conflicts of interest.

Other topics work in a similar way. Each one can do great work and often will so long as it does not run afoul of a stakeholder.

Watch for that, factor it in and pay attention to specific authors.

That is how I generally get broad opinion and more inclusive bodies of facts.

And were did I say they're not worth listening to? I just pointed out the unfortunate owner. I'm still happy with Politico.

Why are they "super corrupt?" That would be criminal, would it not be?

It would be criminal if the German government would bother to prosecute, but Germany's government is much better at protecting local corporate corruption than prosecuting it (Wirecard).

Reads very conspiratorial to my eyes, sorry.

And since the government consists now of representants of 3 different parties, who have an eye on everything that the other one is doing, i would imply, that conspiring together to protect something is not an easy thing to do.

Some things just take time, i guess.

Ok, if we're being pedantic, I meant German Government Institutions, like BaFin for example, are into protecting local corporate corruption. But BaFin is not some rogue organization, it's still a reflection of the German Government itself, regardless of which parties are/were in power.

And I don't know how you can claim it's conspiratorial when literally the whole world knows about the Wirecard scandal.

It’s a stretch to say the whole world knows of that scandal.

And that absolves the corruption how exactly?

The German government doesn't prosecute in general, independent state prosecutors do.

Sure, but those are still government institutions, not some rogue, privately run, independent institutions.

They're public institutions, but independent from the government. Separation of powers is important.

They're still heavily politicly influenced and open to corruption. Otherwise BaFin would have investigated Wirecard.

It will be interesting to see if the leaked text is actually the original text. There are anti leak systems that place distinct textual elements in a document so that each source can be traced. That can’t be scrubbed like meta data. However it can be defeated by recasting the document but that alters the document to the point that it raises questions about reliability and tampering. If there is not a system like this in place now at the court I suspect one will come in the future.

i wonder if this method could be defeated by trying to steal a second copy from another person (or even more than 1 copy from different people), and leaking it all.

You can see the staple marks and folds.

You should be able to ID it if the original's not destroyed.

Given its off centre, you'd guess it was scanned in a office and sent to Politico and reprinted to PDF or whatever.

The scanner marks and of centre look unique.

Any other scanned documents from the likely culprit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com