For the purpose of espionage, is it more beneficial to have access to the original classified documents versus its copies?

Question

As far as I understand, the illegal access to classified documents in the US is regulated by the Espionage Act. This old act has since been amended to cover electronic copies of classified information.

However, I still do not understand why spies would prefer the original paper versions of any classified documents versus, say, photocopies or electronic scans of those?

From a naïve perspective, a spy tasked to get access to classified materials would have access to those documents for a brief period of time to make copies as quickly as possible, put the papers back where it belongs and to conceal the very fact of accessing it. The last thing this person would do is collect a stockpile of classified document that literally extends from floor to ceiling, like Trump is accused of:

_{Image: US Department of Justice, via BBC}

This is confirmed by historical evidence:

• Atomic spies like Morris Cohen used radio, Klaus Fuchs used sketches and photo copies, etc. I did not find any publicly available evidence suggesting that those spies literally sent original classified documents to the KGB.

• Hosts on Russian state propaganda outlet openly claim that "Moscow is already studying" the documents they recently got access to. (I assume they are studying the copies as the originals seem to be with the FBI).

This raises the question:

Why would a spying party need the genuine paper originals (with numbered pages, pen-written signatures, and wet seals)? How would this be better (for the spying party) than the scanned contents plus the confidence that the document is genuine?

---

Related questions

• Why are paper copies of Presidential records supposed to be important given that digital copies are extremely easy to make?
• What's the point of controlling the physical posession of classified documents?

Answer 1

Who and what you can trust is a fairly well-known issue when it comes to spying.

If you think about it, it's exposed to a lot of the same issues that security of the information traveling on the Internet is exposed to.

Because it's a well-known espionage technique to let false document be discovered by an adversary to mislead that adversary. The party involved in the deception may not even be the party that owns the originals. It maybe a 3rd party attempting to influence another 3rd party.

Anything that's not the original is easier to fake.

The original can be verified to be genuine by forensic examination (analyzing paper content, chemical composition of the ink, known imperfections in the stamp, traces of chemical exposure of the paper to the air, fingerprints, etc).

Ok, "verified" is too strong a word. It can be used to increase confidence.

The originals won't necessarily have all this information. But any extra information adds to the certainty that it is genuine.

Answer 2

From the perspective of espionage, why would the spying party need genuine paper originals with numbered pages, pen-written signatures, and wet seals?

They wouldn't.

How this would be better (for the spying party) than the scanned contents plus the confidence that the document is genuine?

It wouldn't.

The question seems to be considering the following line of reasoning:

• Trump stockpiled lots of documents
• Stockpiling documents is something that a spy wouldn't do
• Trump, therefore, must not be a spy
• Trump, therefore, must not have violated the espionage act.

To which the response is: of course Trump isn't a spy. But lots of things that are made illegal by the espionage act are things that you wouldn't expect a spy to do, but rather are things that could make a spy's job easier, whether intentionally or otherwise, such as handling information carelessly or even just retaining it in one's possession without authorization.

Also note that the law was written not only before the development of electronic information storage but also before the classification system existed, so most of the crimes defined by the law do not have the classification status of the information as an element. Instead, most sections of the law use phrases such as "any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defens."

Answer 3

I don't think anyone believes that Trump was or is engaged in literal espionage. The most likely reasons for Trump taking these documents are:

1. Vanity: Trump wanting what amounts to unique collectibles that he could show off privately to impress people
2. Economics: Trump wanting to retain access to information that he might profit from through foreknowledge or leverage
3. Narcissism: Trump wanting to preserve the conceit that he is still (in fact) the rightful president, with rightful access to national secrets

Whatever the reasons he might have wanted the documents, the issue was compounded by Trump's overweening sense of entitlement. He is accustomed to taking what he wants — guided only by his own internal moral compass, such as it is — and using money, lawyers, courts, and lots of public screaming to fend off anyone who dares to challenge his right to take. It's a particular teleological form of (a)moral reasoning in which rules only apply to those who cannot manipulate, escape, or overwhelm them. It's all he's ever known.

But form the perspective of the Justice Department, rules are universals that apply to everyone, and Trump violated them. To them this is the same situation as the Air National Guardsman who posted classified documents on an internet chat site, just for the entertainment of his friends. That Guardsman wasn't actively engaged in espionage either, he just put classified materials in a place where actual spies could have comparatively easy access to it. His selfishly innocent intentions didn't save him from prosecution, nor should Trump's.