> There's not much you can do about it, as sibling comment mentions it's a known gap. There is some work [0] in this space on the investigative side to trace the leak's source, but again the only way it would work is if you can obtain a leaked copy post hoc (leaked to press, discovered through some other means, etc.).

Those kinds of watermarks seem like they'd fail to a sophisticated actor. For instance, if that echomark-type of watermark becomes widespread. I supposed groups like the New York Times would update their procedures to not publish leaked documents verbatim or develop technology to scramble the watermark (e.g. reposition things subtly (again) and fix kerning issues).

With generative AI, the value of a photograph or document as proof is probably going to go down, so it probably won't be that big of an issue.

Unless your employer is Google and all those photos are uploaded to its servers

As sibling comment mentions, with OCR and video tooling these days I'd imagine you could whip up something pretty easily that can comb through several minutes of video footage and convert it to text/PDF/etc.

A leaker with a smartphone on a tripod capturing video while they scroll through files etc. could probably deal significant damage without much effort.

Yup. It’s like saying Company X which develops the iPhone smartphone.

It’s either extreme incompetence or cheeky disclosure while also technically not naming the company.

> On the night before the pair traveled to Iran in December 2023, Samaneh allegedly took about 24 photos of Khosravi’s work computer screen containing Company 2′s trade secrets, including *its* Snapdragon SoCs.

Keep reading.

I imagine the receiving party is an Iranian intelligence agency, due to the interest in sigint adjacent technology (Mobile cryptography).

That probably makes it espionage, not of the corporate kind

>People loyal to their country tend to stay there.

You'd be surprised. If I were to emigrate because of economic reasons (which is by far the most popular reason to emigrate) my loyalty would stay with my paychecks. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. What binds me to my new country? My history, my character, my race, my religion…? Guess not.

Many modern immigrants to America are purely economic. The rich are fine with this because they profit, but the labor class suffers.

Some immigrants are loyal to their country.

A company hires immigrants.

It's possible the company has hired immigrants loyal to their country.

Logically, it works like that.

> People loyal to their country tend to stay there.

Not necessarily true. Source: I have friends and family who came to the US from Russia and are still loyal to Russia. When the topic comes up, they tell me they would fight for Russia in a hypothetical US/Russia war.

It's entirely possible to love your country and still seek out a better life elsewhere for practical reasons.

Edit: To clarify, this isn't universal. Some folks who came over absolutely hate the country of their birth, some still love it, while others are ambivalent. But you can't make a blanket statement like "people loyal to their country tend to stay there" when there are stark financial and quality of life advantages to moving from one place to another.

> When someone immigrates to the US it should be clear to them that their loyalty belongs to the US.

But your example cites a "natural born American", not an immigrant?

This is satire right? You're comparing stealing intelligence for Iran to... playing sports in the Olympics?