Posted on 04/09/2019 6:00:49 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
I signed a very, very stringent Non-Disclosure Agreement to learn what I have learned. Why should I break it to tell you things that you will only play with?
That's what I thought of the original article; someone was planting a fake story to make Trump look bad.
But why is the Secret Service strongly disputing the story? Were they left out of the loop? If so why? And if they were left out of the loop will it raise the suspicion of the secret service as to what's going on?
It's a curious case of two different narratives.
No, the Miami Herald's report seemed to indicate that a particular agent, Samuel Ivanovich, had carried out an incompetent forensic examination.
The Herald said this:
Secret Service agent Samuel Ivanovich, who interviewed Zhang on the day of her arrest, testified at the hearing. He stated that when another agent put Zhang’s thumb drive into his computer, it immediately began to install files, a “very out-of-the-ordinary” event that he had never seen happen before during this kind of analysis. The agent had to immediately stop the analysis to halt any further corruption of his computer, Ivanovich testified. The analysis is ongoing but still inconclusive, he said.
Sounds like amateur hour to me, but perhaps he specializes in digital forensics, and "his computer" was set up to do exactly this sort of analysis. If so, that information should have been in the article. Also, it seems odd that he apparently tried to analyze the original infected USB drive, and not a copy. Will the drive still be admissible in court as evidence?
“We interrogated them by holding a honey badger to their faces. Shane Dawson tried unspeakable things and was promptly euthanized.”
Maybe the actual events aren't that different but they're being reported differently; two people witnessing the same event from different angles and seeing things differently.
The original MH article seemed odd to me. What the SS agent was reported to have done was amateurish. Could an agent be that incompetent? (Sure, but I find it unlikely since he wouldn't have done this alone. Other agents with him must have known not to compromise evidence.)
So what's the true story?
Did some naive agent plug the flash drive into his own computer or was proper protocol followed?
It's strange there are two different narratives and I questioned the first one in the MH when I read it.
What really happened? Why the two different narratives? Why did the SS feel the need to give their version of events? Was the MH another false story planted by the media to make Trump look bad? If so, who planted the story and why?
That last point is a good one! Have you ever worked in Climate Science? Your reasoning sounds very familiar. In the immortal words of Phil Jones, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia:
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
agreed, dats stoopid
The MH's "narrative" might simply be the unintended result of terrible reporting by a computer-illiterate reporter. A reporter's incompetence can look like bias.
Another report said it was an analysis which revealed installation of file in “very out-of-the-ordinary” way, or event, and together this is contrary to some careless "lets see what's in this thing" by an ignorant employ. But you can choose to belief what you want.
Another report said it was an analysis which revealed installation of file in “very out-of-the-ordinary” way, or event, and together this is contrary to some careless "lets see what's in this thing" by an ignorant employ. But you can choose to belief what you want.
Thank you for making my point so succinctly! The two reports don't match and (as you could read in my comment) I did not choose which one to believe, rather I said "somebody is lying".
By the way, now that you mention it, if the "forensic examinations are conducted on standalone computers, equipped with specialized forensic software" then why would "The agent [have] to immediately stop the analysis to halt any further corruption of his computer." Isn't that exactly what "standalone computers, equipped with specialized forensic software" are for?
It seems to me, one report or the other report is true, but probably not both. I didn't choose which one to believe but you sir are most welcome to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.