zlacker

>>minima+(OP)
All I wanted to do was read the memo and I couldn't find the link. I'm not sure if I missed it or what but this is a common problem I run into on "news" sites. They quote (often out of context) parts of something but give no links to the actual source.

>>chowar+M6
Probably because it was forwarded by email and the leaker's identity and job would be at risk.

>>anigbr+Hf
Redacting is a long accepted practice when revealing information but preserving secrets.

>>daenz+Th
Supposedly so is the practice of using subtle variations in spelling, word choice, word order, spacing, typography, etc. to identify recipients of documents.

>>nitrog+qj
Word choice works best, assuming the source is textual; simple alternation of synonyms gives 2^n unique versions in the number of replacement candidates, and it's not hard to automate. You ideally want to take measures to reduce the likelihood of a given recipient seeing anyone else's copy and thus having a chance to spot the variance, but there are ways to do that and in most cases it's not all that likely in the first place.

On the other hand, news outlets that receive leaks are typically well aware of these techniques and will act to frustrate them. When you see a leak reported on but not directly published, that's why. If you want to evaluate veracity, a good method is to look at any response made by the source. In this case, it's legit; if it weren't, the Amazon GC would say so. He's not going to lie in a way that discovery will make immediately obvious in any case that comes of this, so he made the world's worst excuse instead. The surprise is that he let himself be reached for comment at all - between that and the "yeah, I sure did goof it, huh?" style of what he said when he was, I wouldn't be too astonished to see a golden handshake eventuate in the fullness of time.