Leaker of U.S. secret documents worked on military base, friend says
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
> 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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.