[HN Gopher] What we can deduce from a leaked PDF ___________________________________________________________________ What we can deduce from a leaked PDF Author : winkywooster Score : 142 points Date : 2022-05-04 18:48 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (matthewbutterick.com) (TXT) w3m dump (matthewbutterick.com) | nbbbshmbdy wrote: | aerovistae wrote: | > This website is the worst subreddit | | Then stop visiting the site | teslabox wrote: | I don't post on reddit much, but I've gotten more off-channel | messages asking for details about my quip in a post about how my | friend realized her period was 2 weeks late, and how she got her | period to come back. Then she went to Planned Parenthood for a | free blood test. She was told she'd had a miscarriage, and _don | 't do that again._ | | The essential oil of the plant that Nirvana sang about is highly | toxic. The tea is relatively safe. My friend used a 3-prong | approach to inducing her period, not just the tea. | | This tweet makes the case that the leaker was probably Justice | Bryer's clerk: | https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/15216859689396305... | [deleted] | ModernMech wrote: | > This tweet makes the case | | Please stop sharing nonsense like this, because those people | _will_ get death threats as a result of their LinkedIn profile | being shared in this context. The tweet isn 't "making a case"; | it's wild speculation about someone he just looked up on | LinkedIn. The whole "case" being made here is that this | particular clerk is passionate about abortion rights, and she | has some second degree connection to the Politico journalist | who published the leaked documents. That's _it_. That is the | flimsiest case I 've ever heard in my life. That's a high | school gossip level evidence right there. | buerkle wrote: | You would hope a lawyer would know better than to name names | with absolutely zero evidence other than speculation. Hopefully | this will not lead to her harassment, but based on history, I | wouldn't be surprised if she's already received threats. | dvt wrote: | Absolutely insane thread. And any speculation is extremely | premature and dangerous at this point. But, hey, whatever gets | you that "social engagement," right? Can't believe Mr. | Chamberlain is a lawyer; I'd fire him on the spot. | | I am a bit surprised that Justice Bryer's clerk is allowed to | have a LinkedIn, though. An old classmate of mine clerked for a | justice in the Supreme Court of California, and they had to | disable all their social media by policy. | tmaly wrote: | >should court deliberations be confidential? Or should justices | be required to post drafts of opinions to the judicial equivalent | of GitHub? | | I think they should. The court has been granted extreme power to | decide the nuances of our rights. | [deleted] | vmception wrote: | On rewatching L's deductive reasoning on Death Note, it is | interesting that the viewer sees 100% of the investigation and | assumptions on Light while we never see any of L's other | investigations, despite L repeatedly mentioning outloud and in | his own head that Light's probability of being the culprit was | less than 5%. | | In this case, I think this author ruled out the clerks and other | parties too quickly. It is interesting insight to consider that | there is a lack of consensus amongst the majority opinion | justices and a leak could be to move them back towards the draft, | but it has to consider all people with access. | ribosometronome wrote: | In speaking with a biologically female friend, she commented | how she knows many men who are upset by the draft, always vote | on the "right" side of issues, etc., but none cried with her | hearing about this draft. The author's being a straight, white | male could potentially also lead him into dismissing justices | or clerks too quickly. | | >Justices understand that they don't always end up in the | majority. Clerks rely on these jobs as a calling card for the | rest of their careers. To be exposed as a leaker would amount | to setting that future career on fire. It's not worth the risk. | | To Matthew Broderick, certainly, this risk isn't worth it. To a | woman or minority who is genuinely afraid of the consequences | for either themselves or can immediately put themselves in the | shoes of those who it could harm? I don't know. Maybe it is | worth it if they think that public outcry could sway a justice, | particularly one who has previously and recently talked about | it being settled precedent even if it may come at the cost of | her career. | [deleted] | suzzer99 wrote: | On the flip side - many are speculating a conservative | justice (edit: or staffer) leaked it in an attempt to | effectively cement the decision in place before it could be | watered down. | blockwriter wrote: | Any justice that would be the target of the proposed | influence campaign knows that the process of deliberation | is not decided in the first draft. Moreover, none of the | justices would need to explain their apparent vacillation | to the public. None of their power is derived from public | opinion, so they are not incentivized to align themselves | with public opinion or public pressure. Is leaking this | actually likely to influence a ruling in the more | conservative direction? | Kranar wrote: | That would be career suicide for a justice and almost | certainly result in impeachment. Furthermore there's almost | no reason for any justice to do such a thing. | adamsmith143 wrote: | >That would be career suicide for a justice and almost | certainly result in impeachment | | This seems naive. If Trump can make it past 2 | impeachments I have no faith that a Justice would be | impeached also not at all clear that this is even | impeachable. | Kranar wrote: | >not at all clear that this is even impeachable. | | What is your understanding of what an impeachment is? | ziddoap wrote: | > _almost certainly result in impeachment._ | | That is awfully optimistic, considering the track record | of impeachment in general , and the fact that only one | justice has ever faced impeachment and it was over 200 | years ago. Not to mention, leaks (as pointed out by the | author of this post) are not new, nor are draft opinions | protected by any sort of law or classification that would | warrant impeachment (that I am aware of, happy to be | corrected on this point). | | > _Furthermore there 's almost no reason for any justice | to do such a thing._ | | Some plausible reasoning has been posited here and | elsewhere. | Kranar wrote: | You are coming to the wrong conclusion. The fact that | almost no Justice has faced impeachment is precisely why | it's unlikely a Justice leaked this document. Also | impeachment does not require any statute to be broken, an | officer of the United States can be impeached for any | conduct deemed incompatible with the duties of their | respective office. Surreptitiously leaking a draft | opinion would almost certainly count as conduct | unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice, after all if it | weren't there'd be no need to be secretive about it. | ziddoap wrote: | > _The fact that almost no Justice has faced impeachment | is precisely why it 's unlikely a Justice leaked this | document._ | | My conclusion wasn't that a Justice leaked the document. | My conclusion was that is optimistic to think they would | be successfully impeached if it ends up being a Justice. | What you've written has not convinced me otherwise. | | Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done | something of similar unbecoming-ness, and yet a | successful impeachment of a Justice has never happened. | Kranar wrote: | >Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done | something of similar unbecoming-ness. | | If something is surely true, then you can surely point to | an example of it. | ziddoap wrote: | Hah. I am nowhere near invested enough in this | conversation to sift through 200+ years of uninteresting | history because of a snarky request. | | If it makes you happy, I can edit the word "surely" to | "moderately probable"? | Kranar wrote: | If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find | an example of something you are certain is true, then you | should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish | truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to | speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices | engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of | the institution they serve, but you should not be so | certain of it without being able to present some kind of | evidence. | | Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" | suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the | term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly | misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with | conviction, but it's a further indication that your | speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is | no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than | there is a successful trial, they are both processes | rather than outcomes. | pmyteh wrote: | Potter Stewart leaked large amounts of inside knowledge | to Bob Woodward for the book 'The Brethren' (which is | excellent BTW) though it didn't come out until his death. | Abe Fortas eventually resigned under a cloud of | partisanship and questionable financial decisions, but | was not impeached. I'm sure there are others. | | The honest truth is, though, that impeachment simply | isn't going to happen. If a conservative leaked, | essentially no Republican will vote to convict, and if a | liberal essentially no Democrat. Impeachment is | fundamentally a political process, the issue is partisan, | and neither side has a sufficient supermajority. The | facts are irrelevant, even if you think a leak is | impeachable (which I don't, FWIW). | spa3thyb wrote: | > none cried with her | | I'm not understanding - these men aren't as upset as | biological women are? | ribosometronome wrote: | More that lots of men who are upset still won't experience | it with the same emotional resonance that many women are. | Not because women are more emotional or men aren't | empathetic but just that the fear lives closer to the | surface for those who can really see themselves in the | shoes of someone this decision will hurt. Dismissing clerks | because they fear risking their career makes sense unless | that clerk fears more for the lives of people they | know/people like them. | whymauri wrote: | I think that's pretty much what the comment is saying, | yeah. Doesn't seem like a controversial POV that being a | man _could_ bias expectations when considering who leaked | the memo (because the emotional investment is different). I | know the GP uses language people here don 't like, but it's | not an unreasonable point to make when the core issue | primarily impacts women. | Dracophoenix wrote: | Nice to see a Death Note fan. | jtc331 wrote: | > In 2018, Bloomberg Businessweek published a story called "The | Big Hack" that was vigorously denied by Apple and Amazon. Based | on these denials, certain tech bloggers became convinced that the | story was false. The fact that neither Apple nor Amazon sued | Bloomberg for defamation--despite being extremely rich, finicky, | and litigious--made nary a dent. | | No, people concluded that because there were so many holes in the | Bloomberg reporting that didn't make any sense conceptually. | gwern wrote: | And because the people sourced for the story disagreed with it, | and all the tech & security experts disagreed (as well as | bloggers), and the journalists in question never followed up | this incredible bombshell with all of the additional bombshells | it should've lead right to as further implants were discovered, | and neither did anyone else ever follow it up, and IIRC, didn't | some of the journalists quietly leave Bloomberg later? Really, | quite a lot of things. While against all this, the absence of a | lawsuit says _very_ little, given how horrible the PR from | suing is and how pointless it is suing the very rich Bloomberg | corporation in an American jurisdiction for nebulous damages. | | Butterick is being silly here. | threepio wrote: | > the journalists in question never followed up this | incredible bombshell | | They did publish more stories on the topic, which are | collected here: | | https://www.bloomberg.com/2018-the-big-hack | | > IIRC, didn't some of the journalists quietly leave | Bloomberg later? | | AFAIK the authors of The Big Hack, Jordan Robertson and | Michael Riley, are still employed by Bloomberg. Riley was | even promoted about a year later: | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/17/bloomberg. | .. | | > how horrible the PR from suing is and how pointless it is | suing the very rich Bloomberg corporation in an American | jurisdiction for nebulous damages | | Based on what? This past year, for instance, Dominion Voting | Systems sued Fox News and certain individuals for defamation | and claimed billions in damages | upofadown wrote: | That and that there wasn't anything actually defamatory in the | article against either of those entities. It was just a claim | that a particular technology existed and that it was used | maliciously. | macinjosh wrote: | I think the author is spot on when he said the leaker is probably | a non-professional close to someone who has legitimate access to | these documents. Maybe a soon to be ex-spouse or a politically | passionate young family member. WFH would have meant a lot of | potential for unauthorized access. | res0nat0r wrote: | If I was leaking something of this magnitude I would be | *extremely* paranoid, and frankly require that Politico cannot | publish the PDF itself, but must retype the entire document in- | full and display it on their website. (Let's hope there aren't | different versions of the document floating around with slightly | altered sentences to track down a leaked version). | | Reality Winner was caught partly by The Intercept's poor opsec, | and investigators reviewing the microdots on the PDF scan. | | https://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reali... | chasd00 wrote: | The pdf was probably left on a bar table and a reporter from | Politico happened to find it before the waiter cleared the table. | That's about as probably as anything else... | rayiner wrote: | > Therefore, I don't think the source is someone who works at the | Supreme Court, like a justice or a clerk. Justices understand | that they don't always end up in the majority. Clerks rely on | these jobs as a calling card for the rest of their careers. | | I think people underestimate how ideological the legal profession | has become. On an increasing number of social issues, liberal | lawyers (which is 90% of them) believe that their position is not | only correct, but above debate and above the political and legal | process. They begrudgingly accept that economic issues are | subject to political debate, but moral issues are their exclusive | domain, and politics and law are merely vehicles for imposing the | moral views of highly educated professionals on the unwashed | masses. | | It doesn't matter that _Roe_ is so bad that numerous prominent | liberal legal scholars are unable to defend its reasoning: | https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/honest-pro-choicers-admit.... | It must be the law of the land forever because it's proponents | are _right_ and it's opponents are "on the wrong side of | history." The arc of history bends towards justice, after all, | and no institutional norm can override the march of progress. | | A breach of trust like this is obviously a serious offense in a | profession where keeping people's confidences is fundamental to | the job. But nonetheless there's plenty of corporate law firms | where these leakers will be feted, not condemned. | xenadu02 wrote: | > liberal lawyers (which is 90% of them) | | What is the basis for this claim? | | > believe that their position is not only correct but above | debate and above the political and legal process | | You seem to be accusing everyone who disagrees with you of | malice and abandonment of all principles - more or less evil. I | would counter that this kind of argument is only ever made in | bad faith in an attempt to demonize those who don't agree with | you. | | > politics and law are merely vehicles for imposing the moral | views of highly educated professionals on the unwashed masses. | | And one could likewise say that much of conservative thought is | an attempt to force people to adhere to certain religious | values using state coercion. But that would just be an opinion, | not a fact. | | What is fact is that many (possibly most?) conservative | policies and doctrines do not enjoy majority support in the | United States, yet are being rammed down our throats regardless | because those policies are a) supported by those in power and | b) convenient wedge issues or rallying cries for a small | minority of the voting base - a minority that happens to be | highly motivated. | | Even the current composition of the court was a blatant power | grab to deny Obama's constitutional right to appoint a justice | with a made-up rule that it was "too close" to an election. | Then immediately discarding that so-called rule when Trump was | in the same position. In that sense the current conservative | majority is illegitimate. Regardless of how you think any | specific SCOTUS decision should go I hope you'd agree that a | court that the majority of Americans believe to be | illegitimately stacked is not a good thing for the stability of | our separation of powers. | | For that matter the overall tilt toward conservatives in House | representation thanks to gerrymandering along with over- | representation of conservative thought in the Senate due to the | 2-senators-per-state rule undermines the legitimacy of Congress | and the entire government. You can only get away with | preventing the majority from being able to enact any | significant policies for so long before a representative | government collapses. Granted that might take tens or hundreds | of years but in the long term it erodes the very foundation of | our society. I find that very concerning personally but some | people would rather win at any cost (witness Trump's recent | loss and the fact that some conservatives attempted to | sacrifice free & fair elections for a single win of a single | presidential term. How cheaply they were willing to sell out!) | avs733 wrote: | > the bad news for those who contend that the recent leak of a | draft Supreme Court opinion is "unthinkable" or, in the words of | Chief Justice Roberts, a "singular and egregious breach"--the | horse is long out of the barn. | | I mean...people know that. The lie is the point. The distraction | is by intention the point of making the false claim. | philjohn wrote: | My money is on Ginny Thomas, seeing the tides shifting and not | supporting this, decided to put it out. | | That news agencies and commentators on the right IMMEDIATELY | communicated in Lockstep about "this leak is an egregious affront | to the court" points to that. | tablespoon wrote: | > My money is on Ginny Thomas, seeing the tides shifting and | not supporting this, decided to put it out. | | My money is on "no one knows a damn thing," and everyone who | says otherwise is just pointing fingers at their partisan hate- | objects. | buerkle wrote: | I don't think the right communicating in lockstep about the | leak instead of the contents of the leak points to any person | in particular. If nothing else, the right is extremely good at | keeping their stories in lockstep. In any case, when the | majority of Americans support upholding roe v wade, it's in the | right's best interest to keep the story on the leak. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | I would push against using how quickly commentators commentate | as an example of a leaker allied with a certain side. Tweeting | takes seconds. A group chat can decide what to do in minutes. | It likely takes less than an hour to have an emergency press | release ready to go and instantly disseminate on the internet. | | (Fwiw: I don't care who leaked or how leaked. I think people | should focus more importantly that the legal opinion in the | draft uses reasoning applicable to any sense of personal | privacy. It's more than just reproductive rights here, because | the reasoning is that any rights logically derived from a right | to privacy are illegitimate.) | philjohn wrote: | Disparate news agencies? | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | Yes. They each maybe have one, maybe two big editors, and | there are only a few major conservative news agencies, then | they all can definitely be in a group chat! I doubt that | list of contacts would be over two dozen people and I | definitely have discord chats bigger than that. | | News media if you think about it is a really small world. | If you're a conservative reporter on national beats how | many companies can you work for, actually? The national | review, Fox News, Wall Street journal, OAN? Maybe Cato | institute? That's only a small handful of possible | employers. | TameAntelope wrote: | > In sum--I'd suppose it's a friend, spouse, or family member of | a Supreme Court justice who has consistently opposed Roe v. Wade, | acting with something between autonomy and plausible deniability. | | So I'm curious if he wrote this with knowledge about what's been | going on around Justice Thomas and his wife's behavior [0]. It | fits pretty perfectly with that narrative, though is totally | bereft of any actual evidence. | | [0] https://apnews.com/article/elections-donald-trump- | presidenti... | philjohn wrote: | Same as lots of other people writing that it's definitely, 100% | a liberal clerk, and even linking to their supposed suspects | LinkedIn with 0 evidence? | mhh__ wrote: | No one ever learns from the "We did it Reddit" incident. | ianferrel wrote: | Near certainty. Someone familiar with the typography of the | Supreme Court would definitely also be aware of high visibility | current events around it. | benmmurphy wrote: | If Politico knows the identity of the leaker then I think that | reduces the chance that it was conservative aligned. You have to | be either mad or have very little to risk to put your trust in | Politico. If they are 4D chess enough to come up with this game | theory strategy then I assume they would use washington post | securedrop (https://www.washingtonpost.com/securedrop/) or | something similar or at least leak through a non-mainstream | liberal/non-conservative reporter that can be trusted like | Greenwald. | Imnimo wrote: | I'm somewhat skeptical of attempts to play out the game theory of | what the leaker's motivations would have been. While I generally | agree that the author has identified the correct incentives, I'm | not so convinced that we can sure the leaker would have arrived | at the same conclusions. | | I'd still count this sort of reasoning as evidence, but I'd give | it significantly lower weight than the author seems to. | livinginfear wrote: | Although this might be a bit too conspiratorial for the tastes of | many. I suspect that this is an act in a larger piece of | political theatre. Someone showed me this: | https://who.is/whois/jewishrallyforabortionjustice.org | | It's an incredible coincidence that someone knew to have this | website up and running just ahead of the draft leak: | https://web.archive.org/web/20220426203219/https://jewishral... | | It could be totally unrelated to _this_ abortion controversy, | however that would be amazing coincidence. | | The site maintained by this group: | https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-council-o... | | I'm aware of the fact that it's run by Jewish organisations will | make me the butt of many accusations. All I'm alleging is that | rumours have probably been moving around the right circles for a | long time. | ComradePhil wrote: | eCa wrote: | As a western (but non-US) male, anyone who thinks that women | and couples that discover that they are having an unwanted | pregnancy, won't (sometimes) go to extreme lengths to end such | pregnancy, if it isn't lawfully available, is, and I quote: | | > absolutely insane to me | ComradePhil wrote: | umvi wrote: | > I believe it's much more likely that the leaker is someone who | supports the opinion rather than an opponent | | > If [the majority bloc in favor of the opinion has held | together], there's no reason for a supporter or an opponent to | leak an old draft now. | | I don't find the reasoning behind this convincing at all. It | would make for a good plot twist in a book, but in my opinion the | leaker was most likely an opponent wanting to spark national | outrage ahead of the final ruling, in an effort to either | pressure judges if the outcome can still be changed, or as an act | of vengeance against the court in retaliation for a ruling they | feel _extremely_ strongly about. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | I lean to this - It was leaked by an opponent, but the timing | was in consultation with a political strategist as to timing. | Primaries are starting up, and that's why it's now and not | earlier or later. This is the perfect time to fire up the base | and get them watching primaries and contributing dollars. The | leaker may have had idealistic reasons, but the timing feels | like it's much more cynical. | philosopher1234 wrote: | This models the leaker as unsophisticated/naive. It's not clear | to me that's warranted given they were likely part of the | Supreme Court staff. The actual effect of leaking this as | opposed to waiting for it to be announced seems beneficial for | supporters of the decision not detractors. | Terry_Roll wrote: | The actions after the leak, like the barricades going up I | think was more telling. The intelligence was good enough to | prompt a knee jerk reaction to protect the building, yet the | intelligence is not good enough to find the leaker. Something | doesnt add up! | nl wrote: | That makes no sense. | | Anyone can predict that this could prompt protests. It's a | no-brainer to put up barricades. | 650REDHAIR wrote: | I read there were barricades before because the person lit | themselves on fire recently. | zerocrates wrote: | It doesn't take much intelligence, under any definition, to | know that once this leaked there would be protests. | [deleted] | gfodor wrote: | It seems highly unlikely anyone who leaked this was part of | the core of the institution of the Supreme Court. Selection | bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for | the court support the neutrality and processes of the court, | and have much to lose from this action vs possibly marginal | potential upside. Much more likely is this was either a low | level or external actor imo. | db65edfc7996 wrote: | >...and have much to lose from this action vs possibly | marginal potential upside | | That would be my assumption as well. Clerking at the | Supreme Court seems like one of the top appointments one | could possibly achieve. Requiring top tier academics and | some number of personal connections to secure the position. | This stunt would destroy all of their future prospects. | LordDragonfang wrote: | >Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those | who work for the court support the neutrality and processes | of the court | | That may be true, but a key issue with this reasoning is | that there has been an increasing opinion that the move to | overturn _Roe v Wade_ is an explicitly _partisan_ affair | precipitated by bad-faith manipulations of recent SC | appointments from the conservative side. | forgetfulness wrote: | Roe v Wade is already a result of the politicization of | the US Supreme Court, which is used an an upper-upper- | house to pass legislation for which there is no | consensus, by both parties. This has resulted in a | continued erosion of institutions. | [deleted] | cudgy wrote: | Clerks work at the Supreme Court for short periods of | time, and most of these clerks are brilliant people that | would succeed in almost any job. If a clerk felt strongly | enough about a polarizing, complex issue such as abortion | and also knew they would be considered heroes by others | of similar beliefs, taking an action such as this is not | only implausible but could quite possibly vault the | leaker into legendary status. | michaelmrose wrote: | Institutions with any sort of money prestige power to | hand out only value loyalty and societies destroy | defectors because they ultimately don't now and have | never valued ethics decency or morality. We only like | rebellion when its a prepackages story about someone | whose values and loyalty are aligned with the present | winners about their rebellion against now disgraced and | powerless losers. We aren't good people we just play them | on TV. | | They would be more likely to get a legendary amount of | shares on facebook while their actual life crashed even | if folks didn't find a way to put them in jail based on a | usefully broad interpretation of the CFAA for example. | | One could imagine that they face merely professional ruin | NOW but face actual legal action only years hence when | the administration changed for example. It would an | extremely dubious position to be in. | zerocrates wrote: | I think you have an extra "im-" (or a missing "not") | around "implausible" there. | anothernewdude wrote: | > Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those | who work for the court support the neutrality and processes | of the court | | Certainly hasn't been true for those who make up the court. | It's one of the least legitimate legal courts in the land. | CPLX wrote: | I mean the implication here doesn't seem all that subtle. | | I think he's kind of pointing in the direction of Clarence | Thomas's wife, who is a batshit crazy right wing activist | that was involved in the events of January 6th. | | No idea if he's right but it's well within the range of | plausibility. | not2b wrote: | The issue is that the decision was not final; Chief Justice | Roberts was still trying to persuade other justices to adopt a | split-the-difference decision (uphold the 15-week law but don't | kill Roe v Wade). Justices have switched sides before. Leaking | it could kill any quiet negotiations. There was a second leak | after the first one about this (about Roberts' position). | | So someone on the hard-line anti-abortion side had a motivation | to do the leak. | hooande wrote: | They would have to be _very_ convinced that someone was going | to flip. And even then there 's a good chance that the | wavering Justice would see this as a ploy the same as you do, | and take offense. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _would have to be very convinced that someone was going | to flip_ | | The only element making me question the amateurishness of | this leak is its timing, on the eve of bellwether | primaries. | zerocrates wrote: | The opinion piece from about a week ago in the Wall Street | Journal reporting this wavering on the margins of the | conservative bloc points to a more normal, less unprecedented | type of leak. | | So then, one view is that the leak of the draft is just a | continuation of that effort to hold the line on the full | overturning, and that view seems pretty sensible. On the | other hand, what to make of the fact that the leak goes to | Politico and not somewhere like the Journal? Do you instead | see it as a disgruntled partisan opponent trying to _counter_ | the likely leaks that led to the WSJ piece? Or simply a minor | smokescreen? | | I don't think there's any reasonable basis to be particularly | sure either way. My gut leans toward the leak having come | from the "overturn Roe" camp, but I think most peoples' "gut" | on this is pretty highly correlated with their personal views | on the topic. | masklinn wrote: | > The issue is that the decision was not final | | Wasn't it? | | From the descriptions I've seen of the process, the decision | draft starts circulating once the decision has been taken. | The language can be softened or hardened, but from what I | understand here Roe would be dead regardless. | | I'd think the possible changes would have been with respect | to the "blast radius" aka the references to (and explicit | targeting of) Obergefell, Lawrence, Eisenstadt. | rayiner wrote: | Overruling a case isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Upholding | Mississippi's 15-week ban would simply require the Court to | acknowledge that Roe's protection of elective second | trimester abortions turned out to be an error that | continues to defy international norms and attract public | opposition. | | Overruling that part of _Roe_ doesn't require a meandering | rant about abortion rights writ large. | aw1621107 wrote: | As far as I know the decision isn't necessarily final after | the initial vote following arguments. A prominent example | of this is _National Federation of Independent Business v. | Sebelius_ , where Chief Justice Roberts was reported to | have initially voted to strike down individual mandate of | the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), but later | changed his mind. | not2b wrote: | Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said that | justices have switched sides before. I understand that | there was a draft opinion overturning the ACA when | Roberts switched sides, though I'm not certain how | complete it was. | cudgy wrote: | In fact, knowing how and why these opinions change during | this phase could be quite illustrative and interesting. | | Would also be interesting to see if Roberts received a | windfall during his deliberations. Insurance companies | surely appreciate the individual mandates ... it's the | closest thing to printing money they could achieve. | | Earlier today I heard someone state that historically the | Supreme Court rules in favor of the large corporate | interests. My thought at the time was it did not make | sense, since technically supreme court justices are | beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of | the Supreme Court, if it truly exist? | cortesoft wrote: | They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. | They are only appointed, however, if their views match | the people who are doing the appointing, who are beholden | to many. | cudgy wrote: | Yet there are numerous examples of justices not rendering | opinions meeting their appointee's expectations. Many of | these justices serve for decades which is plenty of time | for any human to change their viewpoints. | rascul wrote: | > They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. | | Article V of the US constitution makes them ultimately | beholden to the states. It describes how the constitution | can be amended. Such an amendment can possibly threaten | the supreme court. Seems very unlikely to happen, though. | fsagx wrote: | _supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What | explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if | it truly exist?_ | | The people who nominate and confirm them may very well be | beholden to any number of interests. Lower federal judges | are also appointed for life. It would be logical that | those who nominate and confirm would select judges with a | record that aligns with whatever issues they (and the | ones they are beholden to) find important. | cudgy wrote: | Predicting future human behavior is fraught with | disappointment. Many justices act unpredictability and | change opinions over time. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Which is an inherent part of the process of nominating | anyone to any position. _Selection_ is an inherently | political process. The goal is to eliminate post | selection influences. | bigmattystyles wrote: | > I believe it's much more likely that the leaker is someone | who supports the opinion rather than an opponent | | I only want this to be true and it to be a justice to see how | quickly Josh Hawley backs off his threat to impeach said | justice. | | I'm also curious, what kind of source control / collaborative | tools do they use inside the supreme court? These decisions | look like LaTeX. | hbosch wrote: | There is a similar concept used in commerce, where a product or | service is "artificially" overpriced and then discounted to | make it seem like the buyer is getting a good deal. | | In the same way, it makes sense to leak an "extreme" draft and | then modify it after the fires have burned a bit, because you | still get the benefit of passing unpopular legislation while | seeming like you compromised on the details (when perhaps the | final outcome is the one you wished for all along). | | On the other hand, it makes some sense to me in some cynical | ways for the opposition to leak this. We've already seen e-mail | blasts going out asking for fundraising in the wake of this | event, which certainly will solicit funds for numerous PACs and | midterm war chests. Still, though, it's not like public opinion | often ways heavily on the minds of the court -- they are not | elected, after all, and do not face the perils of the election | cycle very much. In fact, this puts much, _much_ more pressure | on the opposition 's comrades in the presidential and | congressional seats to come together and act. Pressure which | may not be welcome ahead of said midterms... | aaron695 wrote: | jtc331 wrote: | > > there's no reason for a supporter or an opponent to leak an | old draft now. | | It's a big assumption that it's an _old_ draft. It could also | be the last draft circulated, and that everything since has | been on concurrences or minority opinions. | Hizonner wrote: | Maybe, but that would be stupid and ineffective. It would be | more likely to make them feel like they _could not_ change it. | | However, I submit that a _supporter_ of the ruling actually has | a _smart_ reason to release it early, namely that it 's better | for them to let any possible backlash calm down before the | midterm elections. | reitanqild wrote: | Another explanation that I have considered today: | | Someone really doesn't like that US for once stand united (in | support for Ukraine). | | That someone pulled some strings to leak (or "leak", has it | been confirmed yet?) this document. | | I.O.W. a sign that Gerasimov and his ideas aren't completely | dead, _yet_. | | (I'm no specialist, this just struck me today as I realized | none of the Americans I follow at Twitter care about the | ongoing genocide in Europe anymore.) | trasz wrote: | It would explain why the draft was written in the first | place: Russia is known for supporting extremist groups. | SllX wrote: | Sarah Isgur and David French of The Dispatch ran through | basically all of the possibilities and basically came to the | conclusion it could be anyone but most likely it was just a | stupid young clerk that never had a real job (University to Law | School to probably at least two clerkships before a SCOTUS | clerkship) trying to play politics and not having a strategy, | or at least a _good_ strategy for what they might accomplish | here. Theoretically this benefits Republicans, conservatives | and the religious right more by dropping this bomb early, but | that's just speculation about future possibilities and we're | talking about judicial clerks, not political operatives. Given | that applies to mostly if not all of the clerks under any of | the Justices, all you're really doing is reading soggy tea | leaves. | | Sarah also pointed out that the Chief Justice has, technically, | firing power over all of the clerks under any of the Justices, | and there's maybe a case to be made for him exercising that | power here to fire all of them if they cannot definitively | prove who it was after investigation in order to defend the | integrity of the Court's deliberation process. If they can at | least narrow down that it was in fact a clerk and not some | other staffer and definitely not a Justice (probably wasn't, | but still better to go through the investigation), then I can't | say I would disagree with that outcome. | verve_rat wrote: | Maybe, but while the intention wouldn't be to punish these | people, the outcome would amount to collective punishment. | Collective punishment is bad, like so bad it is a war crime, | if done during a war. | SllX wrote: | It's the loss of a job with the nearly guaranteed promise | of a new one. The hiring bonus for a former SCOTUS clerk | presently going into a private firm is >$400K. It would be | a terrible outcome to be sure, but we are a long ways away | from what you can even think to call a war crime and the | integrity of the Court is vastly more important to me than | the integrity of the jobs of its staff. | | By the way, the June-July recess is about when clerkships | turnover and they choose to stay on for another term (at | the Justice's discretion) or move on in their careers. | Clerkships aren't forever. | hirundo wrote: | And such a clerk could be particularly welcomed by an | ideologically aligned firm, but less so if they have been | disbarred as a result, which seems to be a real | possibility. It could be a great boost to a media or | political career, but not so much for a legal career. | SllX wrote: | If it's a mass firing, do you think disbarring would be | likely for any or all of them? | | I think it's incredibly likely if they determine exactly | who it is and that person would deserve to see their | career ended and at that point you would just fire that | one clerk; but I don't think it is likely at all if they | were fired en masse because the Court couldn't determine | the exact culprit. It's not great, but we're still | talking about a group of people who know how the Court | operates because they worked there recently, and I think | it would be difficult to make a case for disbarment for | the whole lot if the Chief Justice actually did exercise | this option. | defen wrote: | Roberts should simply have the FBI ask each clerk if they | leaked the document. | | If the clerk says yes, fire them. | | If the clerk says no, they are either telling the truth | or committing a felony. Would the real leaker risk | catching a felony charge if they don't know whether the | FBI actually knows the identity of the leaker? | | If the clerk refuses to answer, apply "adverse inference" | and fire them, because they are either the leaker or are | hindering an investigation. | SllX wrote: | Maybe I haven't made it clear from this comment chain, | but I view Sarah's proposal as a last resort if | investigatory measures fail, as I think Sarah did too | when she presented it. Right now the Court is conducting | its own investigation and while Roberts could bring the | FBI in, he can't control how they conduct an | investigation and it would present its own dangers to the | Court itself. | defen wrote: | True, he can't control but that's federal law enforcement | 101 - "get the suspect to lie to you". | rayiner wrote: | I can't see any blue state bar taking action on this. | giarc wrote: | The argument I heard elsewhere is that the draft was circulated | a few months ago and therefore if they were against the | decision, they likely would have leaked it then. However, that | argument collapses when you consider that it circulated in ~Feb | but doesn't mean the leaker had it then. | twblalock wrote: | The timing makes this more convincing. | | If the leaker is someone who is outraged by the decision, why | didn't they leak it in February when it was first circulated? | Why wait until now? | | Also, keep in mind that the final decision was going to be made | public in June, several months before the midterm elections. | That's next month -- the outrage was going to happen soon | enough. Why jump the gun at such a late date, so close to when | the decision was going to be public anyway? | blueelephanttea wrote: | draw_down wrote: | [deleted] | d--b wrote: | It's mostly not at all something one can deduce from the PDF. | | This guy is doing some pretty basic 'forensic' work ('ooh, | there were staples') and then jumps to a completely self-made | conclusion. It's ridiculous. | civilized wrote: | It's always annoying when something tries so hard to have the | trappings of logical reasoning but is completely lacking in | the substance. | drewcoo wrote: | It's not about reasoning. It's about excuses for partisan | squabbling. | Spooky23 wrote: | Nah. The only one who wins is Alito. It undermines Roberts | attempts to be more "moderate". | marcodiego wrote: | Beware of leaked PDF's. It is very easy to distribute documents | with small modifications among workers of a company. If any of | these is leaked, it is easy to track down who leaked it. | rhexs wrote: | Are there services that provide this? If so, what are they | called and who are the vendors? | Dma54rhs wrote: | You can just share a document with small differences to | suspected moles. You don't jsv to even change the text, typo | or comma here and there sufficient. Football (soccer) coaches | have used the tactic to identify who from their own team | leaks stuff to the press etc, it's s very old tactic. | jliptzin wrote: | No one seems to have considered the possibility that it's just a | leak in the classic sense - maybe a janitor or electrician or | painter came across a copy of the document, recognized its value | and sold it to politico purely for monetary gain. | dzmien wrote: | That this was the work of an otherwise uninvolved opportunist | is always a possibility (it came to mind while considering that | the document was from Feb 10, unmarked, and had been stapled), | but I am almost certain it was not done for financial gain. | Maybe I am naive, but I do not think news organizations pay | their confidential sources very much for their trouble. So it | just seems unlikely in this case. | js2 wrote: | As long as we're using a divining rod to try to derive the | source, what does it tell us that the document was leaked to | Politico and not the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Wikileaks or some other org? | ksherlock wrote: | SCOTUS rules require submissions use the Century family (Century | Schoolbook, etc) font, and it seems reasonable that's what their | opinions use (as opposed to CMR which would imply LaTeX). | ParksNet wrote: | This is all just a wedge issue to distract from the disastrous | management of the US economy, the US border with Mexico, and | failed COVID policies. The timing - 6 months before midterms - is | deliberate. | vmception wrote: | The final opinion would come out 2 or 3 months before midterms | either way, because all opinions come out over summer. | | Have you consider grasping at _different_ straws? | throwmeariver1 wrote: | the economy was up before the war in Ukraine, dow had its best | time ever even through covid, the caravans never arrived and | covid killed itself. Are we living in different countries or | are you just mad? | zdragnar wrote: | It's a little early for that, IMHO. Unless they were worried | the final ruling wouldn't become public until after the | midterms, I rather suspect they would have preferred an August | or late September release to cover up their poor polling. | | OTOH, if I were motivated to prevent this from affecting the | midterms, I'd want it out as soon as possible to let people | blow off their steam and for the news cycle to move onto other | issues before the campaign season begins again. | | Although support for late term abortions is quite low, support | for Roe v. Wade itself is quite high (insofar as that it | legalizes abortion, in general). As an election season issue, | overturning Roe v. Wade hurts the republicans more than it | helps the democrats. | doliveira wrote: | Making sense in your head isn't enough to make a claim factual. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | If the government was that competent at releasing propaganda to | distract from ongoing crisises at hyper convenient moments | wouldn't you think they'd have much better ways of convincing | people to mask, isolate, and vax? | tablespoon wrote: | > (This dynamic isn't limited to political reporting. In 2018, | Bloomberg Businessweek published a story called "The Big Hack" | that was vigorously denied by Apple and Amazon. Based on these | denials, certain tech bloggers became convinced that the story | was false. The fact that neither Apple nor Amazon sued Bloomberg | for defamation--despite being extremely rich, finicky, and | litigious--made nary a dent.) | | That's an interesting point! | | > But Politico has a strong incentive to protect their source. By | making their own scan from a paper original, they wouldn't open | themselves up to the disclosures of confidential information that | have tripped up others. (That said, printed documents are not | necessarily free of metadata, as Reality Winner found out the | hard way.) | | If you color-scan a printed document at low-enough resolution, | will it corrupt the color-printer dot patterns or are they | resilient to that? | | > I conclude it must be someone who only had access to a stapled, | printed copy of the draft opinion. (If the person had access to | the underlying digital file, they wouldn't have printed & stapled | it just to unstaple it.) | | IMHO, the author is reading too much into that and many other | things. The impression I get is he already has a favored suspect | (who is obvious though he doesn't name her), and his whole | analysis is looking to find a path to finger that person. | | It's totally plausible to me that a moderately savvy leaker with | a digital file would leak a printed copy to protect themselves | from metadata, and that Politico just used lesser equipment that | the author _assumes_ they would have. Quick and dirty is more | often the rule than careful and perfect. | | Even the meaning of the staple may be very unclear: at work I | print _everything_ stapled, because I set it as a default in my | print settings. If for some reason I realize I don 't want it, | it's actually easier for me to remove it than to go back to my | desk to print another copy after changing the setting and go back | to the printer. | Manuel_D wrote: | > The fact that neither Apple nor Amazon sued Bloomberg for | defamation--despite being extremely rich, finicky, and | litigious--made nary a dent | | For private individuals, the thresholds for defamation lower. | But for public officials, and corporations defamation is nearly | impossible to prove. It's not enough to prove that the | statements made were false, it's also necessary to prove that | they were made with malicious intent. Unless there's some | bombshell piece of evidence, like journalists actively | conspiring to tear down a target, the journalists can just say | "well, we were just writing a piece interesting for our | readers." | | The 9-0 supreme court case that set this precedence: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan | vel0city wrote: | > were made with malicious intent | | That's not what "actual malice" means. Actual malice means: | | > with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard | of whether it was false or not | | So its not just that they wanted to harm the person, but that | they took reckless disregard to whether it was true or not. | Essentially, writing something without even doing a bit of | fact finding to try and support it would be considered | "actual malice". You don't need to prove the defendant wanted | to harm the person being libeled, just that they didn't care | whether or not what they were saying was true or not. | Hizonner wrote: | Not to mention that suing over something like that would just | have called attention to it. There's no universe in which | Apple or Amazon would actually benefit from filing that kind | of lawsuit even if they _won_ it. And there are relatively | few universes in which whoever was making the decision would | be dumb enough to _think_ they 'd benefit. | pvg wrote: | _That 's an interesting point!_ | | It's not really, it's a misunderstanding of both the US | defamation legal landscape and the typical behaviour of large | corporations in such circumstances. A news org getting a story | wrong is not defamation and statistically nobody sues over | stuff like that because it's nigh-impossible to win. | ghaff wrote: | And whether or not we ever know the truth, such as it is, | it's pretty clear to me that the companies involved sincerely | believe their positions at an executive level and that BBW | editors really believe their position for whatever reason. | The whole thing is very strange. | MrMetlHed wrote: | I imagine the Supreme Court is an environment where everyone | prints everything. Everyone is in their 50s (some in their 70s) | and they probably print and annotate everything manually. I | imagine there are copies of everything floating around and | picking one up and making another copy wouldn't be all that | difficult. | | I also wouldn't assume Politico has full staff in office yet, | and it wouldn't surprise me if they made a scan-of-a-handed- | off-copy on a personal device to get to their web staff. It's | pretty brave of them putting it online as a scan still, I think | I'd have retyped or taken closer care to crop out the edges and | all that just in case (source: Am journalist.) But maybe they | handed it to someone in digital forensics and ensured any sort | of microdots were stripped out. I worry about words being | switched on a per-copy basis as a trap (Tom Clancy used it as a | plot device ages ago and it stuck with me,) so maybe they knew | it was a copy that floated around and couldn't be traced, or | they're not as paranoid as me. | er4hn wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code | | The visibility section of the wiki link suggests that they may | be resilient. They are printed using a low visibility color | (light shade of yellow) which can be made visible via post | processing. While they do note using a high resolution scanner, | I suspect that could be made less important by building | redundancy into the MIC, a la how QR codes can function well | despite having portions be damaged or missing. | Someone1234 wrote: | I wonder if anyone has looked at the leak for a MIC/yellow | dots. It contains a color channel (see highlighting) so it is | plausible it could, even if re-scanned. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I quickly isolated the blue channel of the document and | ramped up the saturation (which should emphasize yellows), | but I can't find any obvious dots (even at 10x zoom). AFAIK | it's not the only method in use though, just the most well | known. | zerocrates wrote: | I was thinking along those Reality Winner lines that if I were | an organization today getting a leaked document like this, what | I would do would be to print it and then scan it grayscale and | post that. Thereby being sure to avoid issues of embedded | metadata and probably making it at least harder to read things | like sneaky printer codes. Not that I'd really expect the | Supreme Court to use something like that, but just as a general | principle. Obviously this wouldn't be foolproof (something as | simple as having a subtly different version of that office | routing "stamp" on page 1 for different recipients would | suffice to narrow things down a lot) but good practice anyway. | | Other than it being color, that's what I would have assumed was | done here, except the staple holes and relatively decent image | quality do seem to argue against it. | MrMetlHed wrote: | You either print and rescan and crop the edges, or you type | it all out yourself. It'd be safest to never put it online at | all other than paraphrased summaries. The next safest would | be to just type it all out yourself in your own words, but | it's pretty darn difficult to do when you've got legalese. | Politico must have had reason to believe they're in the clear | there. Maybe they had two copies or they knew their source | got a shared copy that couldn't be traced. Journalists lose | sleep over this. | scarmig wrote: | I've always thought that the best approach would be to embed | some kind of steganographic identifier in the rendered text. | Small variations in the spacing or even kerning. | | The simplest way to get around that would be to retype the | whole document, which is a bunch of friction. But to counter | that, more invasively, the texts different people would get | could be different themselves. Sentences subtly reordered, | slight differences in word choice or spelling. Though that | makes collaboration more difficult. | | Less technical savvy but resourced organizations wouldn't | face difficulty using those approaches. It could just be a | bit that an IT admin toggles on the GSuite or MS Office admin | panel. | Manuel_D wrote: | You could use OCR, and reproduce it as all ASCII. | Apparently EVE Online guilds would start to put minor | variations in the text of memos, or even alter critical | information (like changing timing of convoys or attacks by | a few minutes) to weasel out informants. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Printers have done this since the 1980s | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code | scarmig wrote: | That's the watermark, which is well known. Low resolution | scans of the original document can counteract them (...I | think...), so I'm brainstorming (dystopian) alternatives. | sidewndr46 wrote: | I misunderstood the intent it seems. | tablespoon wrote: | > Sentences subtly reordered, slight differences in word | voice or spelling. Though that makes collaboration more | difficult. | | I think that would make collaboration impossible. If that | were standard practice collaboration would eventually | uncover that was occurring, and a leaker would compensate. | | IMHO that technique is only valid when the recipients can | be assumed to _not_ be in contact, or as an unusual thing | to identify a leaker when one is already suspected. | scarmig wrote: | > If that were standard practice collaboration would | eventually uncover that was occurring, and a leaker would | compensate. | | I don't think that's really the issue. Let's suppose you | have 64 employees with access to a doc. You can uniquely | identify them with 6 bits in the doc. A doc of a couple | pages would be more than enough to put in those bits, and | many more. Even if you had two collaborators who shared | docs for a word for word diff, they'd still miss half the | identifying bits, which reduces the potential culprit | pool to 8, and that's assuming zero redundancy. | | The issue I imagine is more usability. Someone identifies | one of those bits as content that should be changed: what | happens when they suggest the edit? | tablespoon wrote: | > Even if you had two collaborators who shared docs for a | word for word diff, they'd still miss half the | identifying bits, which reduces the potential culprit | pool to 8, and that's assuming zero redundancy. | | That's not really what I'm talking about. It seems like | you're focusing on identifying all the exact bits that | are being used to identify someone, _but that 's not | important_. What _is_ important is the recipients | figuring out that _someone_ is monkeying with the | documents in a systematic way to trace them. Once a | leaker knows that, instead of leaking the exact document | for publication, they 'd either leak reworded summary of | key points themselves, or require the journalist to only | publish something similar. | dorfsmay wrote: | Why not OCR the document to limit traceability? | ghaff wrote: | Fewer potential clues but also less credibility I expect. | | OCR also isn't going to be 100% though probably more than | good enough in this case. If you really want to implement | subtle tracking, you could make changes in the document | itself that differ by recipient. | zerocrates wrote: | Sure you could do that too. You mean, just release it as | text, I assume. It would certainly cut out a lot of | possible methods of fingerprinting, leaving actual changes | to the text only pretty much, which are probably not as | common outside some limited scenarios. | | I think the reason you don't do that is that things like | the formatting and so on being accurate lend credibility to | the document. | scythe wrote: | >If you color-scan a printed document at low-enough resolution, | will it corrupt the color-printer dot patterns or are they | resilient to that? | | I think that if you used Fourier analysis, you could identify | the frequency generally associated with the dot size, and | delete the signal in that band. This can also be used to | achieve excellent reduction of the Moire effect: | | https://www.getrevue.co/profile/shift-happens/issues/moire-n... | | https://ijournals.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/5.3106-Khanj... | | This has the advantage of also not reducing the image quality | as badly as when you try to blur the patterns away spatially. | fluidcruft wrote: | > If you color-scan a printed document at low-enough | resolution, will it corrupt the color-printer dot patterns or | are they resilient to that? | | It should be completely trivial to destroy any markings in the | PDF. Black and white text in particular once scanned can just | be thresholded and passed through filters. Heck it seems like a | trivial application of deep learning to obfuscate text. For | example, it would be interesting to train a transformer to | learn degradation from multiple print/scan cycles using the | same source using different printers and scanners so that it | learns how to fake all sorts of imprecision. | aksss wrote: | Some of Author's conclusions just seem like failures of | imagination: | | * "it must be someone who only had access to a stapled, printed | copy of the draft opinion (If the person had access to the | underlying digital file, they wouldn't have printed & stapled it | just to unstaple it.)" | | * "I don't think the leaker was an opponent of the opinion, | because there would be no tactical value in doing so." | | On the former, that assumes it's less risky to grab a digital | copy (copied to some medium plugged into some machine, likely | audited, maybe rights protected), than to smuggle out (and | smuggle back in?) a physical copy. The latter is super low-tech | and in an environment where (as demonstrated by Roberts' press | release) the trust level is super high, I wonder how hard it is | to smuggle out paper copies. There's all sorts of potential black | magic in a digital copy that the tech unsavvy may (rightfully) be | afraid of. So even if you had access to both, low-tech may be | best. | | On the latter, it's usually not wise to put your own rational | thoughts into the head of a suspect. You need to understand | *their* "rational" thoughts. It's not too hard for me to imagine | some perceived benefits that an opponent or proponent of the | opinion would see in the leak. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-04 23:00 UTC)