Matt BlazeApr 14, 2023

Some interesting tidbits from the warrant affidavit for accused leaker Teixeira:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777278-teixiera-affidavit (HT @kevincollier )

- He was arrested yesterday, but the warrant was issued this morning, which suggests he was arrested as an emergency measure. Things moved quickly in the last two days.

- At least one of the Discord users ("User 1") is cooperating. I wonder if it's the kid in the WaPo piece or someone else.

- Some "consciousness of guilt" in the access logs thrown in in ¶ 27.

DocumentCloud

Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023

Also, interestingly, the affidavit cites no evidence of contact with, or intent to leak to, foreign governments (or the media, etc). Which is not to say such evidence doesn't exist or won't be found in the future, but they'd likely have included (and added charges for) it if they already had it.

So far, it looks like the motivation was simply to impress his Discord buddies.

Show threadMatt Blaze
If he really did only post the docs to his discord server for his friends, that suggests that others were involved in the larger leaks. So there may be charges against other people coming as the investigation progresses.
Apr 14, 2023 at 7:30pmWeb
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
Anyone who was a user on that server who saw those docs should probably lawyer the hell up about now. And certainly come clean with their parents so they aren't surprised when the FBI knocks on the door.
Show threadHeath BordersApr 14, 2023

@mattblaze I just had a talk with my kids (14, 11) last night about this.

My rules:
1. Don't be on private Discord channels with people you don't know IRL
2. If you see anything online that makes you uncomfortable or that you think you shouldn't have seen, tell me, and we'll figure out next steps (including lawyering up).

Show threadJon SteegeApr 14, 2023
@heathborders @mattblaze I am gonna use these with my kids too. We already have a "don't friend anyone you don't know IRL" but I think that second part is also really good.
Show threadheridApr 14, 2023
@mattblaze would the users of the server be legally liable if they did repost those files? on what grounds?
Show threadJason LevineApr 14, 2023
@herid @mattblaze Yep, this. It’s not clear that there is any specific legal theory in which users who don’t hold security clearances and/or haven’t signed lifetime bars against info disclosure could be held responsible for holding or spreading this info. (And that makes sense — regular people aren’t trained in understanding how to even tell if a piece of info is classified!)
Show threadheridApr 14, 2023
@delfuego @mattblaze thanks, that's what I always thought. Was therefore very surprised by Matt's post.
Show threadJason LevineApr 14, 2023
@herid @mattblaze I mean — to be clear, federal LEOs can still make someone’s life an absolute living hell (see: Aaron Swartz). But what I hear from those who are in the know is that there is a general agreement on this one that it would be *exceedingly* difficult to go after anyone who didn’t hold a clearance for distributing this material.
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
@delfuego @herid That very much depends on intent and specific conduct. Knowingly giving classified (or even non-classified) material to a foreign government is likely going to get you charged with espionage. (Ask the Rosenbergs, or, more recently, the (uncleared) spouse of that feckless navy engineer who tried to peddle nuclear submarine info to Brazil).
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
@delfuego @herid Where it becomes a gray area is when uncleared people PUBLISH classified material (that they didn't themselves illegally procure). E.g., journalists, Wikileaks (although facts are murky there), etc. See the Pentagon papers case, for example.
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
@delfuego @herid Again, specifics are going to matter a LOT in such cases, but for the letter of the law and how prosecutors are likely to approach it.
Show threadheridApr 14, 2023
@mattblaze @delfuego thank you for the clarification. It does seem to me that espionage is unlikely to be in play here. But we'll see.
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
@herid @delfuego I think we just don't know yet. I believe at least one of the docs ended up being published (in altered form) by a pro-RU outlet, and I'd imagine the investigators are very interested in how it made its way to them.
Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023

@delfuego @herid

Spectrum runs from "You find a classified doc about US war plans while housesitting for your friend who works at the Pentagon, and you immediately head over to the Russian embassy to make a deal" (very likely to be prosecuted) to "Pulitzer-prize winning journalist writes a story about a classified report that reveals that the US military is illegally kidnapping orphans for medical experiments" (less likely)

Show threadDavidApr 14, 2023

@delfuego @herid @mattblaze

It might be legally perilous to solicit leaks of classified data as a random citizen, but if the documents land in your lap, you can spread them around and write an article about them if you want (under the Pentagon Papers precedent). You'd probably get in more legal trouble for spreading a Metallica MP3.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend doing any of this if you work for the government or wish to work for the government.

Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023

@herid @delfuego @hcetamd that’s dangerous as general advice. There may be circumstances where one can. There are also definitely circumstances where one can’t. It depends on specifics and intentions.

Also, the Pentagon Papers case wasn’t about whether the Times and Post could be prosecuted after the fact. It was about whether they could be enjoined in advance of publication (prior restraint).

Show threadMatt BlazeApr 14, 2023
@hcetamd @delfuego @herid basically, merely not having a clearance isn’t a get out of jail free card. There’s a lot of “it depends” involved.