this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
925 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3514 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Extrasvhx9he@lemmy.today 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

In fairness their electronics were taken by the FBI so they at least had something besides Google. In hindsight the offsite backup would of protected them from both the FBI and Google if they stored them at a trustee's home

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Or the trustee would get their home raided and devices taken, too.

[–] Extrasvhx9he@lemmy.today 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah that's a possibility but that massively depends on the level of surveillance the journalist is under but lets assume moderate. With that in mind, the only method I can think of would be physically hiding the drive/s in the other house (more paperwork needed for the alphabet people) in a place that would still be accessible, with permission of the owner of course. Don't know how thorough raids are at looking for stuff but I can think of a couple places that may be sufficient if its poor to moderate job. Be screwed if they're combing the entire place though so the journalist would have to rely on encryption