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.
Coincidentally also, it is very much sufficient for a jury to convict yet the accusation is ambiguous/obvious enough to deter other would be leakers.
I have no idea whether this is a good way to do things but it's a pretty widespread set of coincidences that would also happen to have a particular effect.
Not using a weak password is like security 101 first 5 minutes of the first class type of knowledge.
Im sure im not the only one buying this story.
P.S. The description does seem to describe a password manager: "Specifically, the Cellphone Examination identified various passwords that had been input by the user of the Cellphone to, for example, access the phone, applications on the phone, and/or certain websites."
We have wi-fi routers being used to passively see through walls, with enough fidelity to read lips and record finger movement.
Put someone under a microscope long enough, and every single password they use will reveal itself. Whether locked behind a manager app (sooner or later you'll snag the master password for it) or directly entered.
That’s terrifying. I had no idea that was possible despite it being published years ago and trying to keep track of technology like that: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7384744/
1. Schulte agreed as a condition of his pretrial house arrest not to own, possess, or use a computer or any other form of internet access. Surveillance showed internet connections from his house, accessing his personal email as well as the TOR network.
His attorneys argue that these connections were Schulte’s cousin (who lives with him) checking his email (and TOR?) on his behalf, which after all the Court never said he couldn’t do.
2. At his bail hearing, the prosecutor mentioned a photograph (apparently recovered from Schulte’s phone) showing an unconscious person (apparently Schulte’s roommate) being sexually assaulted (apparently in their shared bathroom). The identity of the assailant having not being established, this wasn’t taken into consideration at pretrial. But...
Since that hearing, the cops in Virginia followed up and have a reasonable suspicion that the person seen in a photograph on Schulte’s phone, sexually assaulting Schulte’s unconscious roommate, in Schulte’s house, might indeed be Schulte himself. So it sounds like he’s facing sexual assault charges in Virginia, as soon as his federal child-porn-cum-treason prosecution gets sorted out.
So... well, even if these additional allegations don’t change your perspective on his character, they proooooobably cut against any presumption of doubt based on dude’s mastery of opsec.
Sorry, when did they "turn out to be a setup?"
This matter of fact phrasing implies evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt exists which should be commonly known, so if you could cite that, it would be appreciated.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/05/19/europe/julian-assange-swede...
“Arrested on suspicion” (and “skipping bail”) being separate to that.
There are two women. One posted on Twitter the next day boasting about the awesome night she'd had with Assange. She later deleted the post but others had recorded it already. The other woman sent lots of text messages saying she wasn't raped and only reported Assange because she wanted him to take an std test, that the police had blown it up and seemed to want to get him.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes...
Moreover the women only filed these charges after they met each other and realised they'd both slept with him.
Look, I don't know why you're being so skeptical about this. False reports of rape are extremely common. Most credible studies I've seen peg it at 50% or higher. You should never take such an accusation at face value before a case has been won and in this case we don't even need a trial - the women both created documentary evidence they were lying and one even attempted to destroy it.
The burden of proof is on the commenter posting the claims.
The article linked in the parent merely is a description of Assange's own statement, his side of the story, which certainly has no more credibility than the alleged victim and the legal authority. For example, regarding Assange's claims about text messages, the article makes a point of saying, "The ABC has not seen the text messages."
> the women both created documentary evidence they were lying and one even attempted to destroy it.
Again, any credible evidence? Surely this story would be in the NY Times and other major publications.
> False reports of rape are extremely common. Most credible studies I've seen peg it at 50% or higher.
I don't agree and I've never heard of such a study. We also are not talking about 'reports' by alleged victims, but an indictment by legal authorities after they examined the evidence. Again, perhaps the parent can provide some the evidence they say they've seen supporting this extraordinary claim about rape accusations, because false claims on the Internet are certainly even more common.
The burden of the person who wants to learn rather than argue is to do research for themselves. I don't care whether you believe me or not - I mean, why would I?
It's the new "tax evasion."
https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schult...
He apparently saved IRC logs of their entire quest to obtain child porn....?
Using his name as a handle?
Impossible? No, but do you really think this is not questionable at all?
"No your honour, we lost the evidence since then."
You don't think they can't fake a VM?
It shouldn't be beyond the realm of believeability to this bad actors created these charges in retaliation.
Believing the intelligence community never bends the rules is the problem. That belief is the root disease.
1). A person willing to risk their life for what they believe is right is a pedophile.
2). The CIA plants evidence.
After having a look at the things we know the CIA did during my life time, Iran-Contra, I'd say 2 is vastly more likely than 1.
Their omniscient surveillance, combined with how many overlapping laws eveyone seems to have, means all they need to do is enumerate the crimes of someone they don’t like and run with it. So, for example, this particular enemy of theirs likes illegal porn? Next one will have something else.
This isn’t to say the CIA definitely didn’t plant anything, just that I think doing so is not the only option they will consider sufficient for their desired result.
Moral outrage based attacks have happened before; I’m told the FBI’s poison-pen-letter to MLK was being truthful when it claimed that he was adulterous, for example. While the idea that adultary could have such an impact is alien to me, the fact that it was attempted means the FBI thought otherwise at the time.
As for option 1? There’s a reason why we cant find them before they break the law. Whatever that reason is, it has to be compatible with someone like that being willing to do something like this.
Long to short, the majority would rather believe in the integrity of the intelligence community than the IC's willingness to take any road necessary (not just the high moral road).
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?