[untog]

Probably not, no, until they were about to be published. I imagine that the choice between "run an entire data centre ourselves, store everything there" and "use AWS, but keep high sensitivity stories on local machines" is an easy one.

After all, the client computer that connects to the CMS is just as, or more likely to be compromised. I wouldn't be surprised if the coverage (or at least parts of it) were edited on airgapped laptops.

[AlexCoventry]

> the choice between "run an entire data centre ourselves, store everything there"

If those were the only two choices, you might be right. But the resources needed for the actual CMS functionality sound modest enough to run independently of the main website.

> the client computer that connects to the CMS is just as, or more likely to be compromised

That's faulty reasoning.

[untog]

> That's faulty reasoning.

Why? It's an obvious potential point of compromise.

[AlexCoventry]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I read it as saying "We're going to get hacked via this other vector, anyway, so why bother?" I see your point, now.