Why would physical copies of classified documents need to be retained when high speed scanners can create digital copies that are much easier to hide?
In: 1
Paper copies are 1000x more secure than digital copies. Even air gapped computers can be hacked.
Making scans of classified documents is a different sort of crime, also with some potentially serious penalties. When you want you defense to be “I did nothing wrong”, the fewer crimes you commit in the process the better.
My understanding as a lay person is that a lot of classified material is never digitalized at all, in order to avoid hacking attempts.
If document X is stored in a highly secure location, like the national archives, and the staff never makes a physical or digital copy, the document can never be secretly stolen or copied. Sure, the physical document could be stolen, but it would be extremely obvious who did the stealing, especially when an empty file folder is left behind in a secured room in a secure facility.
OTOH, a digital file can stolen remotely without affecting the original file. Not only does this mean that technically anyone (with sufficient tech ability/equipment) could steal it, but it would be much harder to figure out that the system had been breached and the document stolen.
Digital copies are much easier to duplicate, smuggle, and transmit. They’re much easier for a thief to hide from their proper owners. If your information is super sensitive, the best way to control who can access it is to prevent any digital copies from ever existing while physically controlling access to the physical document. We’re not trying to “hide” documents per se, we’re trying to control who gets to access them, which gets real complicated real fast with digital info. Physical documents with physical security is reliable in its simplicity.
>Why would physical copies of classified documents need to be retained when high speed scanners can create digital copies that are much easier to hide?
The general intention here is not to **hide** something but to restrict and control **access**.
That’s trivially easy with physical documents and impossible with digital files.
^(I believe that he wanted to retain and keep the originals. The originals are just “missing” then. Also, about digital copies, he’s just not that smart)
Write down your password on word document file on the computer. Ask yourself, how easy is it for someone to hack your computer and get the .docx file.
Now write your password on a sticky note and shove it up your arse. Ask yourself, how easy is it for someone to reach into your ass and retrieve the password without you taking the necessary step (i.e, clenching your ass) and stopping them from getting access?
Not all paper can be scanned or photo copied. Security paper works different than regular paper. You can buy it on Amazon it’s not hard to get ahold of. It is more expensive but it has advantages.
Scanning anything leaves a trail of meta data. Meta data is basically a digital finger print of the history of the file. Some interesting cases where meta data was used is BTK killer and Bill Clinton’s impeachment files. Both gotten by meta data.
Computers aren’t really secure in any sense. Yes you do things to make them safer but at some point you can find a weakness. Hardware, software, human error, social engineering, and any number of points of failure.
Because literally anything can be hacked or stolen if it’s digital. Paper copies can’t be hacked.
A document made of a specific paper, pre made header that certify it is a document made for secret service, typewrited so no one can alter it or make a fake one as you can check if the typewriter footprint is correct, and you add a signature at the bottom. You have phisical possession of it, if someone wants to get to it, the person has to phisically come to you and take it.
Vs
Something on a screen any decent high school student can falsify, tamper, copy and sell on internet, no traceability of how many copies there are, no way to prove it’s not fake or tampered. Basically, a fancy screenshot with no value.
I’m not an expert of secret services, but in my work I have been challenged by an authority auditor because the papers we got, printed and signed, were too clean (I mean physically clean) to have been actually used during the job those documents should have guided. And in fact, they were re printed cause my boss said they were too messy. The auditor spotted in a second it wasn’t the original material. We now comply and submit the dirty original documents. I hope this example underlines how much a proper hard copy is an evidence of facts compared to a digital scan.
Latest Answers