Skip to comments.
Child porn case dropped to prevent FBI disclosure
BBC ^
| 3/6/2017
| Staff
Posted on 03/06/2017 2:00:33 PM PST by Titus-Maximus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
To: Titus-Maximus
They do not want to disclose the means they used to spy on him, I bet.
21
posted on
03/06/2017 3:00:08 PM PST
by
madison10
(Bless you, Mr. DJ Trump.)
To: Titus-Maximus
I don't mean to hijack thread, but, based on what the FBI says it has going here, which they don't want to give up...
It would seem to me that the FBI should have been able to determine as an absolute fact whether Russia meddled in the election and the DNC leaks and wikileaks leaks or not.
They couldn't.
The unclassified DNI report of 12/29/2016 (which includes the FBI) gives a "high confidence" that it was the Russians.
""High Confidence" generally indicates that judgments are are based on high-quality information from multiple sources. High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.
Then, the Feds release this (which is supposedly how it was done):
How Russians Hacked
Yet the Feds are "confident".
"The use of common practices and methodologies is part of why the government is confident that both APT28 and APT29 are associated with RIS."
Still, no absolute fact it was the Russians.
And now we find out the FBI has tech tricks that can uncover & track anonymous surfing, yet still couldn't absolutely pin it on the Russians ?
22
posted on
03/06/2017 3:13:26 PM PST
by
stylin19a
(Terrorists - "just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there")
To: Titus-Maximus
23
posted on
03/06/2017 3:16:23 PM PST
by
wtd
To: bigbob
TOR was a DARPA project from the get go. They pushed it for “public” consumption to build enough traffic to hide agents’ communications.
24
posted on
03/06/2017 3:25:50 PM PST
by
antidisestablishment
( We few, we happy few, we basket of deplorables)
To: SoFloFreeper
Even if they choose not to prosecute, someone can anonymously leak the details about the perv for all to see. That’s about 90% of what the NYT does these days, so it’s got to be protected under the 1st Amendment, right?
To: bigbob
26
posted on
03/06/2017 6:50:22 PM PST
by
markomalley
(Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
To: Titus-Maximus
Are they protecting someone? They have broken TOR and don't want others to know how they did it - worth more to them than letting a few kiddie porn sickos off the hook.
The good thing is that the case was thrown out (even though the perp needs to be put away)- if they can't prove their data is valid, they shouldn't be able to use it - it becomes hearsay....
27
posted on
03/07/2017 3:31:14 AM PST
by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: stylin19a
28
posted on
03/07/2017 8:12:18 AM PST
by
Titus-Maximus
(It doesn't matter who votes for whom, it only matters who counts the votes - Joe Stalin)
To: stylin19a
29
posted on
03/07/2017 8:12:24 AM PST
by
Titus-Maximus
(It doesn't matter who votes for whom, it only matters who counts the votes - Joe Stalin)
To: Titus-Maximus
No, they are protecting how they were able to defeat an anonymizing network designed to conceal a user’s source IP. Criminal networks rely on TOR to conceal their traffic and if the FBI has figured out a way to skirt around it, it only makes sense that they would not want to disclose how they did it.
That is more valuable to them than proceeding with the case.
To: trebb
This is a bit of conundrum for the FBI, if they aren’t willing to reveal how they have compromised TOR to charge criminals, then how do they propose bringing them to trial?
It’s almost self defeating.
To: bar sin·is·ter
This is a bit of conundrum for the FBI, if they arent willing to reveal how they have compromised TOR to charge criminals, then how do they propose bringing them to trial? Exactly - they want to be able to bring charges w/o any proof that their info is reliable. Reminds me of the Dems - "It's not the provable facts, it's the seriousness of the charges"...
32
posted on
03/07/2017 12:21:55 PM PST
by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson