91–100 of 187 posts
Prosecute the messenger; leave the criminal conspiracy untouched.
What criminality? Unless the CIA was using the tools against targets in the US, there's no US law broken. Every country does it.
While I won't justify anything this person allegedly did.. it seems open to speculation whether the child pornography stuff was actually legitimate, or some sort of targeted attack. (whether to destroy his character/career or keep him under judicial watch / within the country)
Your rights go out the door, and your digital life probed endlessly.
While I won't justify anything this person allegedly did.. it seems open to speculation whether the child pornography stuff was actually legitimate, or some sort of targeted attack. (whether to destroy his character/career or keep him under judicial watch / within the country)
I read the IRC logs, and I'm skeptical that anyone not deeply versed in the lingo, tone, and character of that scene could fake them. It's not impossible, but it was pretty convincing to me.
Oh really, and did you ask how it is that IRC logs from 2009 just happened to be sitting in someone's back pocket?
It is actually quite obvious from the conversation that "STURM" is a CI or other operative who is trying to entrap "JOSH".
If this guy was breaking the law back in 2009 why did the CIA hire him exactly?
Maybe we should be investigating how law enforcement and intel agencies use child exploitation and child pornography to entrap people, and how many of the people involved in those ops have "inclinations" that trend in that direction.
Then we might find some real criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slow your roll, Judge. I think you're probably right, but don't you want to at least hear what the defense has to say?
Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the part about the VM he was (allegedly) hiding?
"Yes your honour, we totally found this." "No your honour, we lost the evidence since then."
Mr. Schulte had been charged last year in New York with possession of child pornography Very interesting! It almost seems like the pornography charges against him was a way to punish him but without prosecuting him for the actual leakage. Perhaps the government wanted to still point the fingers at someone else or avoid embarrassment?
States, even relatively benevolent ones, take any steps necessary to secure national secrets, even extra legal ones. Take the likelihood that a leaky contractor coincidently is a pedophile. One who works in security yet encrypts stuff with the same cellphone password everywhere. Balance that with the possibility that a motivated state actor could plant such files on a pc or alter logs on a server they are monitoring.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”
Solid argument, mate.
So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history.
Is that better, mate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I arrive at the opposite conclusion from reading that. Someone smart enough to work in black hat security should know how fucking illegal CP is, how aggressively its investigated, and know not to flagrantly talk about it on an irc channel and host it to randos online. At the very least they would use tor and figure it out for themselves.
Speaking as someone who lived in a place that would boil dissidents alive in the 00's: That's the most beautiful part of this. If you know anything about downloading hugely illegal material you will keep your mouth shut because the claims there are completely laughable, but you don't want to admit you've been downloading hugely illegal material that would get you jailed/killed. To the average person it sounds reasona…
And that you find that more believable than that someone could just happen to be both a security expert and a pedophile?
Do you realize he wasn't caught because of his security lapses? The found the VM because they raided his house for a separate matter. Every indication is that, with the exception of using a password he stored on his phone (which, read the indictment, he clearly realized during the interrogation that he had made a mistake), the government would have never found this VM of his.
He did take the steps you suggest, and it didn't matter, because they raided his house, and he made a single, and easily understandable mistake: he stored the password he used for the VM somewhere where someone could access it digitally. If he had just memorized the password, they would have very likely never broken that encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be right about some Swedish quid pro quo here, but Sweden is actually not a member of Five Eyes.
I think FVEY was used as an example of collaboration, not because the poster thought Sweden was part of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think the CIA would be able to fake the lingo, tone, and character of the scene? I mean, they certainly have access to a ton of real IRC logs about the subject, would probably be pretty easy to swap out some usernames.
The IRC logs are minor pieces of evidence. It’s the VM that is hard to explain away.