Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on drive supplied by cops

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by rpo3po on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @11:33PM (#9378766)

At this point, there is absolutely no evidence, beyond the defense attorney's claim, that the malicious software neither existed prior to him handing it over to the police department, nor that it was installed after the fact, by the defense attorney. It is just as likely that, in either of those possibilities, this is a self-inflicted attempt by the defense attorney to discredit the police. Arstechnica, and every comment that I've read, both there and here on YC, reach conclusions based on a potentially, and just-as-likely-false, premise: that the act of the software installation occurred as a result of some action or inaction of the police. False premise = potentially false conclusion. Brains, people, brains. Use them, please.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by hurin on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @11:42PM (#9378783)

Maybe the Arstechnica article is biased towards the defense attorney's side of the story - but I definitely don't see the primary issue here as being law enforcement officers installed said software (as you pointed out, this is yet an unproven hypothesis - though quite a likely one perhaps). At least for me the substantiated and proven issue is that the CID Special Investigations Unit refused to investigate whether such a thing occurred.

> Brains, people, brains. Use them, please.

Adding insults to your comment does not make for a better discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by rpo3po on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @11:53PM (#9378801)

The answer, which I'm confident that you know, based upon your allowance that perhaps the attorney is making a falsified claim, is that there is nothing, at that point. Charges for different crimes require different levels of evidence. Charges for the same crimes, committed in different circumstances (motive, for example) require different evidence (and intention). Charges in different locales require different levels of evidence. All these facts, and plenty more, are far beyond the scope of an uninformed Arstechnica columnist.

Edit: the fact that someone saw fit to down vote this comment is proof of idiocy, in and of itself. Just because you don't understand how the criminal justice system works, is no fault of mine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by DanBC on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @02:59AM (#9379300)

You're being downvoted for weirdly aggressive attitude and for the insult which you refused to remove.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by rpo3po on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @11:48PM (#9378792)

Is it an insult or a plea for reasoning? No, I have a Bachelor's degree in CJ, but outside of that, if the primary issue is the determination to pursue charges, then what happens if there are no actions which precipitate charges?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by Crito on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @01:48AM (#9379093)

> "Is it an insult or a plea for reasoning?"

The former. Possibly also the later, but definitely the former.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by rpo3po on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @11:56PM (#9378806)

And, potentially biased, from the Arstechnica side?? That's an understatement, to say the least. I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that nearly every, if not every writer on the Arstechnica payroll, is absolutely biased toward the defense side, in this case, and just about every other one. Scrape their site and return the pro-law enforcement vs negative-law enforcement articles, and there will absolutely be an enormous bias present.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by sp332 on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @12:02AM (#9378816)

If law enforcement is on average generating more negative newsworthy incidents than positive ones, then the unbiased thing to do is to publish a proportionally higher number of negative articles. You'd have to weight the incidents by importance and see if they are more likely to publish less important negative articles and less likely to publish more important positive articles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by rpo3po on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @12:11AM (#9378835)

This, too, begins with a false premise: that journalists are equally likely to seek out positive and negative stories, and to give both of them equal importance. That is a naive assumption, unfortunately, and the facts of reporting - bad events make for good copy - prove it entirely false.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by sp332 on Thursday April 16, 2015 @01:04PM (#9389245)

It's not false, just oversimplified. I swept all that complexity under the word "newsworthy".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by megablast on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @01:44AM (#9379082)

This is incredibly easy to prove. Count all the good stories that have happened, and all the bad. Compare the ratios to different publications.

Of course, it is a lot harder to prove if you are saying something different than the truth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawyer representing whistle blowers finds malware on driv... by wtbob on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @07:03AM (#9380083)

> This is incredibly easy to prove. Count all the good stories that have happened, and all the bad. Compare the ratios to different publications.

I think that's likely to be a lot more difficult than you think: how does an independent observer know what the count of good and bad events is, rather than the count of good & bad published events? The trouble is that if an event isn't published, it's practically invisible to an observer.

This is a related issue to the fact that many sensational crimes are less common today, but perceived to be more common due to over-coverage in the media.

[ Parent | on HN ]