For me, I just have always assumed that electronic communications are easier to compromise than old traditional ones. In the end, you connect to an ISP and packets can be inspected. OK, you might have encryption, but there have been too many schemes cracked or broken. So, why ever think that electronic comms can ever be secure? In the extreme, if the spooks get your encrypted data and they really believe that the data contains the "ticking bomb", they'll just torture you until you give up the key. So, you're still stuffed. Why give them even that much?
More over, the one big issue I have to electronic communications, is that it is very hard to know if you are under surveillance. The old methods give you a better chance to discover that you are being watched. It is also easier to hide the fact that you are communicating at all.
The clincher for me was that a while ago an "amusing" story appeared in a British news paper. Essentially it "exposed" MI6 spies in Moscow using actual drop boxes to pass along information. Now, if MI6 are still using pre-WWII methods, that has to tell you something, right? They don't trust the electronic methods.
So, if secure communications really mattered to me, life or death type mattered, then I'd be looking at things like one time pads, drop boxes, people, etc. Of course a lot of it depends on what you are trying to communicate, how many people are involved, and frankly how much money you have to use.
One thing I do know, electronics would be something I would work very hard to avoid.
Lastly, if I were going to whistle blow to a journalist on this scale, the first thing I would establish would be several methods of communication. Times, places, codes, etc. I suspect that, given the nature of this exposure, that will have been done, and none of it will be electronic.
But remember my bit about knowing if you are being watched. Electronic, I have no idea, unless, IIRC, we get quantum about it. Old skool, chances are better. I, or a friend can observe my drop box or exchange, and so on.
Im not saying there are no good electronic methods, I am saying that ultimately I'd be more comfortable not using them. Remember too, I am talking ultimate paranoia, life and death.
In the end of course the weakest link of all is the humans operating any system. I mean, the whole PRISM thing was blown by a human.
The other thing in my mind is that these days spooks expect and are geared up for electronic comms, not so human comms. Budgets slashed, less "watchers", and men on the ground. Going olde skool is a sort of curved ball.
Also, I know paper. I can verify hiding places. I can watch people move. I am not good enough to review, completely and confidently, code and encryption software. I would have to trust programmers I dont know, in a climate where we believe the likes of GCHQ, NSA, etc have back doors and cracks. We are given to understand that these people are all over electronic comms. As far as I know, they have not penetrated writing paper and hiding holes. They are not invisible either. Maybe you and others are good enough to verify all the software, encryption and networking software and hardware sufficiently enough to trust your life to it. I know I'm not.
In short, if my life is on the line, I would go with what I know best. I know paper better than deeply complex mathematics and programming.
Besides, given the revelations, why even bother to risk it? Even before all this, I would laugh my nuts off at terrorists who were caught and convicted using electronic evidence. I thought them idiots for even touching a computer to arrange terrorism. I assume that now, they wont be so stupid. It was nice and easy for the authorities to plunder their computers and and electronic trail. Now their job just got harder.
