Why would Fox News send digital data by courier?

I just read an article of Fox's website about the recovery of the information that UPS lost. Frankly, I'm baffled.

I'd assumed that it was a package of original printed documents that they wanted to vet. Turns out they were shipping A USB FLASH DRIVE via UPS.

I do not understand!

If I wanted to convey digital files across the country, it'd never occur to be to ship them by courier on a flash drive. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of digitizing. Digital transfer of data is a no-brainer.

I'd definitely employ redundancy. You know Fox News has bandwidth and clouds pace. You upload the data redundantly to two or three storage spaces then give your recipient access. That download and it's all transferred

Just seems like sending a flash drive by courier is kind of a non sequitur.

Anybody have any idea what that was all about?

a reply to: incoserv

It really doesn't make sense.

E-mail is pretty much instant.

Let's see those files.

Hectic could have just put it on box.com and send a file link to the file that's all unless there's video on it.

a reply to: incoserv
I'd say they were trying to drum up some fake drama to try and legitimize it. Acting freaked out that it was lost but, whew (wipes sweat from brow), good thing it was recovered!!!

Like you said, if it was really that important why mail it and why no back-up?

a reply to: incoserv
I read about it somewhere tonight. Had to do with Security MD5 something or other.

Consider the major sites Onedrive, Dropbox, Google drive are all run by or have hands in them by Deep state operators. They can't be trusted.

Now, sure, there is Mega, and proton mail, but.. Nothing....online.... is secure..

NOTHING... if it goes over the net, it can be intercepted and changed.... deleted..

Funny, it's gone in reverse. If you wanted to keep things secure, you backed them up online. Now it's the opposite, if you wanna keep it secure, you take it offline and never put it on the cloud. It's contrary to the whole cloud idea, as who else has access to your data once it's on the cloud site?

"The cloud is secure!'

To me, it makes sense why they sent a physical copy.. un-altered and un-manipulated.. but wait.. who did UPSPAC donate money to? fec.gov will tell you.. NOTHING is safe..

a reply to: daskakik

There were backups, but when arguing legitimacy.. originals are key..

Try it with your original birth cert vs a 'copy'..

a reply to: Cygnis
Not sure what it is that they had, but they must have been copies as well.

As for secure, I'm pretty sure Fox has deep enough pockets to send someone with the drive wherever it needed to go, if it was really that important. The cloud may not be secure but neither is dropping a thumbdrive in an envelope and losing sight of it.

Shockingly...Fox News don't own their own servers and would need to rely on Google Dropbox sharedrive and even better ups...

Let's all believe what we need to believe to boost our self-esteem, or at least keep the burgeoning partisanship and populist logic alive!
Maga2020 and beyond.
#newRome 🇺🇸😊😊😍

Believe your TV and news sources. And remember, the other side, whichever it is, is against you and trying to kill you.

a reply to: Cygnis

To ensure security, you could PGP-mail some MD5-hash of the original data.
That would take NSA-level hardware to decrypt and even then it would take massive amounts of time.

Much easier to hack the Foxnews internal network (for a threeletteragency). Or to bribe someone in the middle.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Shockingly...Fox News don't own their own servers

Name one media company that does.
Hell , name me one company that does.
There are a few , yet IT is their business.

a reply to: incoserv

Code. Red. Hardcopy non digital.
Hotsy.

S&F

Honeypot .
What else ?

a reply to: incoserv

Nothing about this story makes sense.

Who would take a laptop with such illegal and sensitive information on it and just drop it off at a repair shop and just leave it there? I can't see how he could have just forgotten about it, and there are too many ways he could have retrieved the laptop.

Where I work, we have firewalls that won't even allow us to receive email or access to and from some sites, because the security is so tight. I work in a small local government office. I can't believe the federal government servers would be lax enough to have all this hacking going on, that makes me have to believe that a lot of what is being pumped out is extremely suspect.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Nothing about this story makes sense.

Of course it doesn't.

But this time I'm going to let you guys figure it out. Remember: when nothing makes good sense, you're assuming the wrong goal.

TheRedneck

You don't need to work in infosec long to see why this happened.

Assuming no drama intended, this was either because some old guy in management said so or because of data protection policy.

The internet is just as dirty as DC these days, it's not unusual for your communications to be intercepted

a reply to: a325nt

Assuming no drama intended, this was either because some old guy in management said so or because of data protection policy.

I agree, it looks more like a ploy than an accident.

Why we keep falling for this nonsense is beyond me. This whole government, including the election, is a horrible joke. I have seen nothing related to the government in over a year that has generated any trust, fostered any sense of security, or generated any pride in government in its present state.

We are looking more and more like Idiocrasy every day. Surely we can do better than this. I know, don't call me Shirley.

I can think of 2 reasons:

1. Fox didn't trust their cloud storage/email providers; fear of data being compromised
2. Some kind of legal concern about hosting the data

Hardly any companies operate their own server infrastructure anymore. Even then, there are no guarantees of privacy/security unless one is very careful.

The $64,000,0000 question is: did Fox encrypt the contents of the thumb drive when they shipped it. Otherwise, consider the data leaked (i.e. open parcel, clone thumb drive, put it back in new envelope, "Oh HERE it is! Must've just misplaced it").

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Cygnis

To ensure security, you could PGP-mail some MD5-hash of the original data.
That would take NSA-level hardware to decrypt and even then it would take massive amounts of time.

Much easier to hack the Foxnews internal network (for a threeletteragency). Or to bribe someone in the middle.

MD5 is ONE WAY hash, and a very weak one at that; it is not used encrypting data between parties.

Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but couldn't they have digitally sent it, so it could be reviewed by Tucker, and then also mailed it?

If you found the digital copy had been manipulated once the original arrived, then you could investigate who was behind the hack and have even more evidence of nefarious behavior?