Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

floridatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#21

Post by cpncrunch »

watwut wrote: post #15
cpncrunch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the first article, you will see that it does in fact support the facts I presented: [1] The state epidemiologist asked her supervisor to temporily remove the data: "“Per Dr. Blackmore, disable the ability to export the data to files from the dashboard immediately. We need to ensure that dates (date fields) in all objects match their counterpart on the PDF line list published,”" [2] Rebekah assumed this…

And the raid? Supervisor sent the raid you claim?

No

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#22

Post by colechristensen »

heisenbit wrote: post #18

How can the state claim the access was unauthorized when it shared password between users and also published it on a document on its website? The former may be irresponsible but is commonly excused but the latter?

If I leave a pie on the windowsill, it is still wrong to take it even if it’s easy.

Bad security practices doesn’t mean it is open season for any activity. Being fired and logging back on to work computers is really hard to defend as not knowingly wrong.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#23

Post by heisenbit »

cpncrunch wrote: post #11
HexagonalKitten wrote: post #7

This is a pretty bad article. Their expert isn't: "Butler, at the University of Florida, said making an IP address that appears to come from elsewhere isn't that complicated." And the legal analysis is weak, but that's apparent from the title: "Experts: evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy" Yes, search warrants are to search for evidence. If the evidence wasn't flimsy they'd have had an ar…

>This is a pretty bad article. The main problem I have with the article is that it's factually incorrect about it being easy to spoof an ip address in a situation like this. It's easy to send off a fake ip address if [1] your ISP permits spoofed ips (which it shouldn't) and [2] you don't care about a response. But in this case the user had to actually log into the system, which is pretty tricky to do with ip spoofing…

The state may well have had her wifi password from her work laptop she may have used at home at one time. The technical difficulty would be driving to her home then. If it is still possible I would try to secure logs from that device.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#24

Post by aaomidi »

colechristensen wrote: post #22
heisenbit wrote: post #18

How can the state claim the access was unauthorized when it shared password between users and also published it on a document on its website? The former may be irresponsible but is commonly excused but the latter?

If I leave a pie on the windowsill, it is still wrong to take it even if it’s easy. Bad security practices doesn’t mean it is open season for any activity. Being fired and logging back on to work computers is really hard to defend as not knowingly wrong.

That's not what the parent is asking tho. They're saying how do you actually pin it on them.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#25

Post by colechristensen »

This is complete BS.

The complaint alleges that 1750 messages were posted on an communications system urging employees to blow whistles.

Those messages were linked to an IP address which Comcast pointed at Jones’ home.

Is that enough for a conviction? No, it’s not hard to establish reasonable doubt with that.

But that’s damn well enough for a search warrant to sieze electronics from somebody’s home. Being fired for insubordination, she had motivation, the terrible security practices gave her opportunity, and IP logs are a clear piece of evidence that it could be her.

That’s a pretty solid ground for granting a search warrant.

Hanging up on officers and denying them entry for twenty minutes is a good way to make them nervous about your intentions as well.

IPs can be spoofed? Sorry it would take a hell of a lot of sophistication for that to be what happened or outright evidence falsification on the prosecution. Is it more likely that a somewhat troubled woman logged in to work computers to try to stir up trouble or that a sophisticated act of framing occurred?

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#26

Post by TheFinalDraw »

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #7

This is a pretty bad article. Their expert isn't: "Butler, at the University of Florida, said making an IP address that appears to come from elsewhere isn't that complicated." And the legal analysis is weak, but that's apparent from the title: "Experts: evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy" Yes, search warrants are to search for evidence. If the evidence wasn't flimsy they'd have had an ar…

I get your points, but I disagree with your contention that the fact that all users of the system used a shared username and password doesn’t complicate the case. We’ve established that an IP address is not strong evidence for identifying an individual. IP address != authentication. What _could_ have established strong evidence tying the alleged unauthorized access to an individual’s identity would have been _actual_ authentication of the _specific_ user. But they don’t have that, either, since they shared one set of credentials.

You said, “they have an IP address which points to a specific one of those users,” but that’s not actually the case. They have an IP address which has somehow been related to the accused (though how is unclear to me since you note above there’s no linkage of IP/customer/date) — maybe they know she sent an email from that IP address at some point around the time of alleged crimes. But in any case, without providing evidence that the IP address is _only_ associated with the accused, and _not_ with any others with similar opportunity and motive (for example, any others with access to the shared username and password who might want to access the data for similar reasons, or wanted to frame the accused for hacking and put an end to the her very public/politicized efforts), then they don’t really have strong evidence of anything - basically only enough _not_ to rule the accused out of the probably large pool of possible suspects. How many other current or former employees had access to the shared username and password? When were they last changed? How many others who _weren’t_ ever authorized to access the system but could have compromised/gained access to these credentials since then? How many times have they been written down and left on a sticky note in some public or semi-public place? Do they ever have controls in place to prevent guessing/brute forcing the credentials (with one login for shared between all users, automatic account lockouts or resets seems very unlikely).

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#27

Post by colechristensen »

aaomidi wrote: post #24
colechristensen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I leave a pie on the windowsill, it is still wrong to take it even if it’s easy. Bad security practices doesn’t mean it is open season for any activity. Being fired and logging back on to work computers is really hard to defend as not knowingly wrong.

That's not what the parent is asking tho. They're saying how do you actually pin it on them.

You ask the ISP who owns the IP who was using it at a specific time, when it turns out to be your former employee’s home, you ask for a search warrant to sieze her computers as evidence. Then you try to match logs on a device with logs on your servers, and additional evidence perhaps as well in order to establish beyond reasonable doubt that this woman did indeed do what is being accused.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#28

Post by sneak »

colechristensen wrote: post #25

This is complete BS. The complaint alleges that 1750 messages were posted on an communications system urging employees to blow whistles. Those messages were linked to an IP address which Comcast pointed at Jones’ home. Is that enough for a conviction? No, it’s not hard to establish reasonable doubt with that. But that’s damn well enough for a search warrant to sieze electronics from somebody’s home. Being fired for i…

The seeking of a (potentially plausible) search warrant by the state to silence a publisher that is publishing things the state doesn't want published is the issue here, not the relative merits of the search warrant itself.

The state was using this as retaliation, not to further the investigation of a crime. That's just the cover story. Even if they make the hacking charges stick, this isn't about hacking at all, it's about publishing.

It's astounding to me to see people regurgitating unsubstantiated cop claims with no evidence.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#29

Post by nobody9999 »

colechristensen wrote: post #19
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #3

Everyone knows the evidence and information supporting the raid was nonsense. She refused to bend the knee to a conservative administration while people were dying, and the political machine decided to lash out.

Everyone? Having not read the court filing that granted the search warrant I know nothing about the information supporting the seizure. I know that she tried to make an emotional appeal on social media, I know that she has been accused of really sketchy behavior with a coworker, and I know that people who read her messaging are going to jump to conclusions about her being wronged with no information besides her being…

>Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?

I can think of several reasonable reasons why she might do so:

1. To contact the court WRT the validity of such a search warrant;

2. To contact an attorney to obtain legal advice WRT how to respond to an attempt to enter and search her home;

3. To remove her small children (who obviously have no involvement) and protect them from the police;

4. To put on appropriate clothing so as to be fully dressed when police enter her home.

I'm sure there are a myriad of other reasonable reasons she might have delayed answering her door.

I don't know if any or all of the above (or any other) reasons are relevant, but it seems to me that such a delay doesn't imply wrongdoing on her part.

Re: Experts: Evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy

#30

Post by colechristensen »

sneak wrote: post #28
colechristensen wrote: post #25

This is complete BS. The complaint alleges that 1750 messages were posted on an communications system urging employees to blow whistles. Those messages were linked to an IP address which Comcast pointed at Jones’ home. Is that enough for a conviction? No, it’s not hard to establish reasonable doubt with that. But that’s damn well enough for a search warrant to sieze electronics from somebody’s home. Being fired for i…

The seeking of a (potentially plausible) search warrant by the state to silence a publisher that is publishing things the state doesn't want published is the issue here, not the relative merits of the search warrant itself. The state was using this as retaliation, not to further the investigation of a crime. That's just the cover story. Even if they make the hacking charges stick, this isn't about hacking at all, it'…

If she did do it, logged on to a work system after being fired to spam a communications system encouraging people to blow whistles... I guess I don’t really care if the motivation to prosecute is political. That’s a pretty clear cut case of a crime being committed.

The defense about the justification for the warrant being dubious is just false. Unless somebody wants to claim the evidence is fabricated, don’t go searching for “experts” to come up with nonsensical refutations.

Post reply on HN