Ex-CIA Software Engineer Sentenced To 40 Years For Giving Secrets To WikiLeaks -...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/02/02/0136233/ex-cia-software-engineer-sentenced-to-40-years-for-giving-secrets-to-wikileaks?sbsrc=md
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Ex-CIA Software Engineer Sentenced To 40 Years For Giving Secrets To WikiLeaks
›
...that this guy who pissed off the government, was also a pedo, according to evidence provided by the government?
Like it just seems odd.
Ok whatever, forget about all that, how about this part of the summary:
"....and that they found the material in Schulte's New York apartment, in an encrypted container beneath three layers of password protection..."
Truecrypt (and these days Veracrypt I guess) offers triple encryption from a single passphrase. And of course, anyone can just nest containers. Can anyone do more journalism than the journalists and see what the baseline of this was? Did he just give them the passwords or did they just have the passwords from keylogging him or what?
-
-
TrueCrypt and VeraCrypt both have published source code, and third-party security audits have been published for both. Neither was found to have any significant flaws and there have been no serious indications of backdoors found in almost 20 years of their availability (first TrueCrypt and later VeraCrypt when it followed TrueCrypt's cancellation).
-
Could have just been a bad password, keylogger, $5 wrench...
The layers thing, Windows 11 encrypts your boot drive by default now, with the key stored in the TPM so it is transparent. So that's one layer, plus Windows login password, and Veracrypt. The usual exaggerated BS.
-
No, it doesn't. Win 11 doesn't encrypt your hard drive by default - it has the ability to do so, but not a default install setting.
-
It's the default, you have to disable it (e.g. with Rufus).
-
-
-
-
-
Per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Schulte, in front of the agents, opened the phone, put in the password, handed it over to them to make sure that nothing on the phone could be destroyed or altered and handed it right to the authorities. Afterward, through technical analysis, agents retrieved passwords from his cell phone that unlocked multiple layers of encryption on his desktop computer"-
>Schulte, in front of the agents, opened the phone, put in the password, handed it over to them to make sure that nothing on the phone could be destroyed or altered and handed it right to the authorities.
I read this as meaning that the whistleblower was allowed to watch the authorities to make sure that they didn't alter anything on his phone. Then I realized what system we live in and laughed.
-
-
That argument will work so well in court.
-
-
-
-
It doesn't really. You'd be insanely disappointed at just how prolific the possession of child pornography is around the world. Statistically speaking you're probably working with someone who has some form of incriminating data on their computer right now, the difference is the government typically only goes after those who are prolific in the sharing of it. A large number of possession charges happen during a search while investigating other crimes. Remember, the law doesn't discriminate between someone wh
-
One should consider, though, what is "kiddie porn" these days. Took a pic of your child during diaper change? Congrats, you not only possess kiddy porn, you produced some.
I wouldn't be surprised if you find "kiddie porn" of you in some old photo albums in your parents' home.
-
while I firmly believe that the article is speaking to actual pornography, I had a friend who was hauled up in court, he and his wife had take the obligatory naked baby laying on its stomach on a blanket pic and then took that film in to be developed at a loval CVS pharmacy... who once they were done developing the pics, called the police.
The judge threw the case out, but still this guy and his wife had to spend a day in court... explaining why they had the exact same baby pic (less the subject of course)
-
I'd be more likely to launch an investigation into the person doing the accusation than the person that had a picture of their child getting a diaper change.
It's a real red flag that someone found an image of a child getting a change was sexually interesting.
Malicious projection is a real thing - we so often see it in religious fundamentalists that rail against gays, yet are found enjoying sex with another of the same sex.
And recently, some of the same people who are worried about crossdressers influ
-
That's because you're a sane person.
Sanity is generally absent when hysteria takes over.
-
-
No not really. The only "kiddie porn" you just described is the opinion of the reader comments column of the Daily Mail. Most countries apply a decency clause to images. Your kid is getting a diaper changed, no issue. Your kid is photographed during a diaper change with their legs spread and you rubbing their genitals, be prepared to spend some time in an orange jumpsuit. Your photo of the diaper change is zoomed into their genitals, jumpsuit. You forcefully spreading their legs for the photo shoot (posing)
-
-
> Probably made the passphrases really long causing him to write them down. Don't underestimate just how stupid some people can be, no matter what job they have or who they work for. Idiots are everywhere.
Which is where using a couple of sentences from a book comes in handy. Bonus points if you use sentences from one or more books, in one or more languages.
I must also say the first thing I thought when I read the summary was "what a conincidence - leaks and pedo material". How convenient.
-
Correct. Prosecuting Kiddie pR0n is quite difficult. And while while most everyone zeros in on files on a person's computer, the things that get the conviction is association with other pedos, file sharing, especially with hashed files, and obvious pre-pubescent children in the image evidence.
There are just too many ways that images can get on a person's computer to eliminate reasonable doubt. Planting is one of them. A pattern of association and file trading is not.
-
"Statistically speaking you're probably working with someone who has some form of incriminating data on their computer right now"
This is why I deleted my still image porn collection. I didn't have records of identification for every model, and although I never tried to download images of underage models, I couldn't guarantee that the images were legal. I didn't want to someday be investigated for something and wind up getting in trouble for something I actively tried not to do, but accidentally did anyway.
-
-
What sense would extra charges even make? The espionage charges are decades themselves.
-
Trashing a target's reputation in an attempt to further compromise any public support of them is straight out of the playbook. No one in the government wants a martyr on their hands.
-
Why was this tactic not used on Snowden?
-
Using the tactic on Snowden would have strained credibility; also the question would have been asked, why do you employ such people? Snowden was an employee in good standing at the time of his flight.
In this guy's case, it was very believable. He left the government before being fired, had a problematic childhood history of what sounds like sexual assault and adult anger issues. Probably those very anger issues that caused him to leak to Wikileaks. I'm surprised his clearance wasn't jerked long before i
-
-
-
-
So I know the default setting in this situation is "the government secret cabal is out to get you" and this guy is a "warrior of justice" or some lame anarchist fantasy nonsense, but according to his actual case, he admitted to the pornography.
He admitted that he saw child pornography as a victimless crime [newyorker.com], primarily because he admitted to operating the server and letting people host whatever they wanted on it, and his charge is in distribution of child pornography, not actually committing it. However, some of the photos which include a passed out woman and a hand touching her were able to be deduced that it was him in the photos [newyorker.com].
In fact, when you read that New Yorker article on him, they found his own writings as well as colleagues of his from college confirming that he had a weird fascination with pornography. Not to mention chat logs with others about his server. And not to mention his server's directory used his own name which others he spoke to in the broader community he conversed with advised him to change and cover his tracks.
Oh and how did they get his passwords? Through his phone, which he unlocked and handed over to them per his own defense counsel and the court records [courtlistener.com].
So rather when you look at the facts of this guy, he seemed very cavalier with his activity, and maybe he really was just a dirtbag.
-
Wait, he set up a server? So what? People "inadvertently" set up servers all the time, why I remember one famous case a few years ago when a US Secretary of State "unintentionally" set up an email server to use exclusively for all her official emails - I say "unintentionally" because if she admitted having intentionally setting up a private email server for her official activities that would have been a crime...
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
-
People tend to view leakers/whistle-blowers based purely on whether they like the leaks.
If you primarily think the government is using the guise of national security to protect itself from scandal, and from exposure of unethical activities, then leaking is good.
If you primarily think there's serious consequences, like people dying, to the exposure of security secrets, then leaking is bad.
But if you think about the actual person doing the leaking it's less about ideology and more about their personal lives.
-
-
Like Julian Assange is a rapist of three women, each of whom illingly had sex with him but all said "stop!" when the condom broke?
-
-
Evidence? Early stages of BTC had no way of storing CSAM on the blockchain.
-
You're seriously asking for evidence from someone who claims that the evil, evil "satanists" are going to try to bury his The Truthz?
Evidence, logic and reason don't even get observer status in the club this goofball is in.
-
I just assumed it was an attempt at humor.
-
Dig through his posting history if you're into chasing rabbits into holes.
-
-
-
You can pay a fortune in TX fees to store a series of data in OP_RETURN codes.
I'm guessing $5K for a GIF on a busy day and that would require manual reassembly of each tx's data field.
-
Gee, and here I was thinking that ordinals were bad.
-
-
-
It was stored in the blockchain, which isn't part of a wallet, and the actual CSAM was limited to at most a handful of small images, with most of it being links to CSAM. If you have a wallet, you probably have at most a couple of megs of data, and that's basically the Bitcoin addresses and associated keys. The blockchain itself is currently over 500GB, and there is little need for most people to download significant portions of it, with even that just the most recent parts.
-
The blockchain is only barely distributed if most people can't download the whole thing. Cryptocurrency is based on lies.
-
You *can* download the whole thing - there's just no reason to actually do so unless you want to either determine how much BTC is actually in a very old wallet, or to trace the flow of payments to find out who actually paid for those drugs/weapons/slaves/etc.
Which basically means miners and intelligence agencies. There's no need for a normal BTC user to ever look at the blockchain unless they've forgotten how much is in their wallet. Any more than there's a need for traditional banking customers to go thr
-
-
-
I guess someone told them they were not capable of being wrong about their predictions of the future,
Ah yes. Satanists being wrong about their predictions for the future [imgur.com]
-
I have extended this offer to everyone announcing the rapture: I give you 10% of your net worth right now. And I get your net worth an hour after the rapture.
Yes, there will be a contract, I'm not an idiot...
No takers so far. Strange. Guess their faith ain't strong enough to put their money where their mouth is.
-
Okay, I'll take that deal. I predict the rapture will occur at 3pm GMT, April 1st, 3043.
Now fork over 10% of my net worth and have fun waiting around to collect.in 3043.
-
Wait 'til April 1st 2042.
-
-
I'm not so sure about that "I'm not an idiot" bit - are you sure you didn't misphrase something there?
Because I'd take you up on that deal in a heartbeat - it's win-win for me.
Either the rapture happens, and I don't need the money, or it doesn't happen, and I keep the money.
-
What? That makes no sense.
I'm worth, let's say $100K, you're saying you'll give me $10K now, I keep all my assets, and an hour after the rapture, you take possession of net worth.
So upon entering this agreement with you, I'm now 10% richer, and if the rapture never comes, you're out money with no return. If the rapture comes, and I am taken away, you get assets I no longer have use for.
Your bet is structured to benefit you assuming a) the rapture does come, and b) you aren't swept up.
You are the one betting
-
C'mon, buddy, it's obvious that the meaning is "after the alleged date of the rapture".
I didn't want to bore the audience with a text longer than what the average D&D veteran writes when he makes a "wish"...
-
-
So, if the rapture never occurs, you never get anything...? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
-
-
-
Definitely not paranoid at all.
-
Who are the satanists and where do they meet?
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK