(no title)
Rotdhizon | 3 years ago
If he actually did get caught with what they say he did, then sure he deserves to go down but it's weird how hyper focused they are on painting this guy as the devil in his personal life. It seems like it's because their isn't any real evidence present to nail this guy. It's all circumstantial and worse, in ways that could very easily be planted/faked.
no-dr-onboard|3 years ago
The workplace hostility, the various office personas, the drudgery, humiliation and bureaucracy even the VM that's triple encrypted isn't unusual for even the most benign cybersecurity researcher. Ironically, the lapse in OPSEC isn't either. Time and time again, people who are doing bad things always seem to have a lapse in OPSEC that is routinely double underlined in these types of articles.
And of course, the last typical bit is the Child Sexual Abuse Material being found. Isn't it something that when the NSA/CIA/FBI wants to take someone down they always seem to find CSAM? I'd hazard that this approach is used when the state's most "powerful and prominent police agency" isn't able to decrypt/bypass what they're truly after. Consider the frustrations they encountered with DPR[1]. another commenter quipped, "sprinkle a little CP in there and call it a day". After all, doesn't this fit the MO of the FBI/CIA when you consider the Stonewall investigations[2]? Find something that is absolutely anathema to the public, charge the suspect with that. Not surprised.
1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/how-the-feds-too...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
carapace|3 years ago
It's not mentioned in the WP article but automated planting of the aforementioned material on a target computer was one of the capabilities they sold.
sbarbarian|3 years ago
jaywalk|3 years ago
jjoonathan|3 years ago
That said, it sounds like they caught him fair and square with actual evidence (the backdoor, the access logs, and the versioning of the leak) and the mistrial was the result of a confused jury.
dahdum|3 years ago
Even ignoring his troubling sexual history and the chat logs, it sounds pretty legitimate.
UberFly|3 years ago
Ansil849|3 years ago
Yeah, this was my question reading this piece as well. This article overwhelmingly reads like uncritical character assassination. I think whether the guy was a giant dick to coworkers should be tangential at best, if not outright irrelevant, but definitely not the centerpiece of the story, and yet it is.
NoGravitas|3 years ago
buitreVirtual|3 years ago
x86_64Ubuntu|3 years ago
Just because they are focusing on his atypical and undesirable character attributes doesn't mean that it's not a credible work.
webmobdev|3 years ago
qikInNdOutReply|3 years ago