8 ms·

> Mr. Schulte had been charged last year in New York with possession of child pornography. The fact that they found child porn on his computer is the scariest

> Mr. Schulte had been charged last year in New York with possession of child pornography. The fact that they found child porn on his computer is the scariest part. Almost any technical person could frame almost anyone else with CP possession. It's just a matter of putting some files on a computer and/or faking some logs, browser history, etc. It would be incredibly trivial for the CIA to put CP on his computer and then use that as a method of getting him into custody. A rogue agent could do it without anyone else knowing. The frightening aspect of CP possession is that there's basically no one willing to even hear out a person charged with the crime. It's the perfect thing to frame someone with precisely because it's so revolting and hard to disprove. CP possession laws should be changed to put much more onus on the state. It possibly should not even be a felony to merely posses simply because of how hard it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Production of CP is clearly the main problem and far easier to be confident in prosecuting.

acct1771 8y ago
One of the leaks describes methods for doing just this. I was afraid to open the comments here. Very happy I was wrong.
anonymous5133 8y ago
If i recall correctly there was a virus that did that. If you got infected it would visit sites that had cp on it and would download cp to the infected computer. Even if you deleted the virus the cp would still remain.
Cacti 8y ago
The indictment goes into some detail on this: https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schulte https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schult... The guy is clearly guilty.
- gowld 8y ago
  That's not how justice works. The indictment is the prosecutor's claims, not established facts that have survived subject to cross-examinations. The listed evidence could be fake, could be real but linked to the accused, or could be real and linked.
  - Cacti 8y ago
    I didn’t say it was. What I am saying is that, assuming the evidence is as described (and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise short of theoretical exercises in “well it could always be faked”), the description of the VM is awfully convincing. It strains credulity to think that the government planted an encrypted VM with an encrypted file with a password known only to the defendant, faked the entire usage logs, and faked an extensive file system logs to match a pattern of use that would be incredibly difficult to do correctly. It’s just not believable, nor is there any suggestion as to government motive that would risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught. We can play theoretical exercises all day, but the fact is that the evidence as described is incredibly damning.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      > risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught No consequences. No one pays attention. No fear.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  I arrive at the opposite conclusion from reading that. Someone smart enough to work in black hat security should know how fucking illegal CP is, how aggressively its investigated, and know not to flagrantly talk about it on an irc channel and host it to randos online. At the very least they would use tor and figure it out for themselves.
  - Cacti 8y ago
    News flash: people who are skilled in one area often are not skilled in others, and people who show good judgement in their professional life do not always show it their personal life. It should also be noted that he did take precautions, many of them, and the VM was only found after they seized his computer for a separate matter. Without that there is no indication they would have ever found it.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    You certainly wouldn't want that guy in charge of doing anything covert! Is it trying to say he used his real name in IRC too (or is that interpretation for the file)!?
    - mikec3010 8y ago
      Good point, I missed that.
    - retsibsi 8y ago
      The indictment says he used the username 'Josh'.
  - zeth___ 8y ago
    Speaking as someone who lived in a place that would boil dissidents alive in the 00's: That's the most beautiful part of this. If you know anything about downloading hugely illegal material you will keep your mouth shut because the claims there are completely laughable, but you don't want to admit you've been downloading hugely illegal material that would get you jailed/killed. To the average person it sounds reasonable because they are an idiot. To anyone with half a brain even downloading the pdf without doing it through tor, copying it to an air gapped machine, and reading it there is such a huge breach of security you wouldn't be out of prison if you ever did it.
- SaintGhurka 8y ago
  Slow your roll, Judge. I think you're probably right, but don't you want to at least hear what the defense has to say?
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”
    - Cacti 8y ago
      Solid argument, mate.
      - Semirhage 8y ago
        Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilty. So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history. Is that better, mate?
        Cacti 8y ago
        I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a plant? Sure. Could the government be lying? Sure. And that is why we have a justice system. But just because something is possible, or you can come up with an explation of why something may exist, doesn't mean it's probable, and doesn't mean it's likely. And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways, I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born, and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. By the way, do actually have any evidence whatsoever that would imply the government planted that VM, other than some theoretical argument? Because for all your bluster about rationality, I don't see you presenting a shred of evidence to suggest that this didn't go down exactly how it was presented in the indictment.
simion314 8y ago
Exactly, some bad iframe could load CP files and not display them, later if someone checks the network logs they can "prove" you visited and watched those urls. Combine this with the very specific ad targeting that is possible to pull of(like the guy that managed to make FB to show his ad to his roommate) and you get an easy and remote way to frame people
- djsumdog 8y ago
  It's also a strict liability crime, so intent doesn't matter. The evidence can't be viewed except by very few people approved by the justice department, so CP might just be pictures of a 17th year old that the person didn't even know was underage.
  - privacypoller 8y ago
    you obviously didn't read the indictment. The claims are not some vague image found in his browser cache, but Gigs of graphic and disturbing content with metadata (i.e. titles) that clearly indicate it as CP. I realize these claims != guilt, rather that a lot of these comments are arguing how easy it would be to get caught up in existing laws. That's not what's claimed here; if true this guy is a collector.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    50+G of encrypted data, specific references to 6yo, 8yo in file names and confirmation by a LEO witness that the videos match the filenames. The videos presumably can be viewed in part (by the judge?) in some sort of closed session if the defence requests it?
- Cacti 8y ago
  A hidden iframe was used to install an encrypted VM on the defendants computer, with an encrypted file on it, accessible using a password Only the defendant knew? There are also extensive file system logs indicating a history of use. That was faked too? And the IRC logs, those are fake? Come on man.
  - 8y ago
privacypoller 8y ago
If you look at the indictment it details that they found encrypted files on his computer, then used a password obtained from his cell phone to decrypt the files. If this is a setup, it's beautifully orchestrated.
- sumedh 8y ago
  Maybe he had encrypted files with a password on his cell phone, the CIA just added the CP files later and ofcourse changed the created/modified dates of those files.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
If you're going to go to all that effort to hide your tracks and frame someone, risking your own conviction for downloading and distributing illegal porn, and the umpteen other crimes you're committing, I feel like you're going to have a good reason ... which reason is going to put you on a list of suspects for framing the person. You're going to need resources too, if you want access without leaving a trace, TBH I can't see how you can do it remotely (ie at a distance) without cracking the targets upstream ISP. Otherwise their logs of incoming connections from whatever anonymous relays you've used are going to implicate an external attacker, which would tend to corroborate the targets innocence. In the case of "Josh" other people's links show IRC chats where the other end is confirmed from capture of another perp. Also that his personal phone has the passwords on; that he said the encrypted data was his and that no-one else had access. If the evidence presented is true it seems pretty hard to setup without him being party to the whole thing.

acct1771 8y ago

One of the leaks describes methods for doing just this. I was afraid to open the comments here. Very happy I was wrong.

anonymous5133 8y ago

If i recall correctly there was a virus that did that. If you got infected it would visit sites that had cp on it and would download cp to the infected computer. Even if you deleted the virus the cp would still remain.

Cacti 8y ago

The indictment goes into some detail on this: https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schulte https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schult... The guy is clearly guilty.

gowld 8y ago
That's not how justice works. The indictment is the prosecutor's claims, not established facts that have survived subject to cross-examinations. The listed evidence could be fake, could be real but linked to the accused, or could be real and linked.
- Cacti 8y ago
  I didn’t say it was. What I am saying is that, assuming the evidence is as described (and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise short of theoretical exercises in “well it could always be faked”), the description of the VM is awfully convincing. It strains credulity to think that the government planted an encrypted VM with an encrypted file with a password known only to the defendant, faked the entire usage logs, and faked an extensive file system logs to match a pattern of use that would be incredibly difficult to do correctly. It’s just not believable, nor is there any suggestion as to government motive that would risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught. We can play theoretical exercises all day, but the fact is that the evidence as described is incredibly damning.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    > risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught No consequences. No one pays attention. No fear.
mikec3010 8y ago
I arrive at the opposite conclusion from reading that. Someone smart enough to work in black hat security should know how fucking illegal CP is, how aggressively its investigated, and know not to flagrantly talk about it on an irc channel and host it to randos online. At the very least they would use tor and figure it out for themselves.
- Cacti 8y ago
  News flash: people who are skilled in one area often are not skilled in others, and people who show good judgement in their professional life do not always show it their personal life. It should also be noted that he did take precautions, many of them, and the VM was only found after they seized his computer for a separate matter. Without that there is no indication they would have ever found it.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You certainly wouldn't want that guy in charge of doing anything covert! Is it trying to say he used his real name in IRC too (or is that interpretation for the file)!?
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    Good point, I missed that.
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    The indictment says he used the username 'Josh'.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  Speaking as someone who lived in a place that would boil dissidents alive in the 00's: That's the most beautiful part of this. If you know anything about downloading hugely illegal material you will keep your mouth shut because the claims there are completely laughable, but you don't want to admit you've been downloading hugely illegal material that would get you jailed/killed. To the average person it sounds reasonable because they are an idiot. To anyone with half a brain even downloading the pdf without doing it through tor, copying it to an air gapped machine, and reading it there is such a huge breach of security you wouldn't be out of prison if you ever did it.
SaintGhurka 8y ago
Slow your roll, Judge. I think you're probably right, but don't you want to at least hear what the defense has to say?
- Semirhage 8y ago
  Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”
  - Cacti 8y ago
    Solid argument, mate.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilty. So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history. Is that better, mate?
      - Cacti 8y ago
        I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a plant? Sure. Could the government be lying? Sure. And that is why we have a justice system. But just because something is possible, or you can come up with an explation of why something may exist, doesn't mean it's probable, and doesn't mean it's likely. And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways, I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born, and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. By the way, do actually have any evidence whatsoever that would imply the government planted that VM, other than some theoretical argument? Because for all your bluster about rationality, I don't see you presenting a shred of evidence to suggest that this didn't go down exactly how it was presented in the indictment.

simion314 8y ago

Exactly, some bad iframe could load CP files and not display them, later if someone checks the network logs they can "prove" you visited and watched those urls. Combine this with the very specific ad targeting that is possible to pull of(like the guy that managed to make FB to show his ad to his roommate) and you get an easy and remote way to frame people

djsumdog 8y ago
It's also a strict liability crime, so intent doesn't matter. The evidence can't be viewed except by very few people approved by the justice department, so CP might just be pictures of a 17th year old that the person didn't even know was underage.
- privacypoller 8y ago
  you obviously didn't read the indictment. The claims are not some vague image found in his browser cache, but Gigs of graphic and disturbing content with metadata (i.e. titles) that clearly indicate it as CP. I realize these claims != guilt, rather that a lot of these comments are arguing how easy it would be to get caught up in existing laws. That's not what's claimed here; if true this guy is a collector.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  50+G of encrypted data, specific references to 6yo, 8yo in file names and confirmation by a LEO witness that the videos match the filenames. The videos presumably can be viewed in part (by the judge?) in some sort of closed session if the defence requests it?
Cacti 8y ago
A hidden iframe was used to install an encrypted VM on the defendants computer, with an encrypted file on it, accessible using a password Only the defendant knew? There are also extensive file system logs indicating a history of use. That was faked too? And the IRC logs, those are fake? Come on man.
- 8y ago

privacypoller 8y ago

If you look at the indictment it details that they found encrypted files on his computer, then used a password obtained from his cell phone to decrypt the files. If this is a setup, it's beautifully orchestrated.

sumedh 8y ago
Maybe he had encrypted files with a password on his cell phone, the CIA just added the CP files later and ofcourse changed the created/modified dates of those files.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

If you're going to go to all that effort to hide your tracks and frame someone, risking your own conviction for downloading and distributing illegal porn, and the umpteen other crimes you're committing, I feel like you're going to have a good reason ... which reason is going to put you on a list of suspects for framing the person. You're going to need resources too, if you want access without leaving a trace, TBH I can't see how you can do it remotely (ie at a distance) without cracking the targets upstream ISP. Otherwise their logs of incoming connections from whatever anonymous relays you've used are going to implicate an external attacker, which would tend to corroborate the targets innocence. In the case of "Josh" other people's links show IRC chats where the other end is confirmed from capture of another perp. Also that his personal phone has the passwords on; that he said the encrypted data was his and that no-one else had access. If the evidence presented is true it seems pretty hard to setup without him being party to the whole thing.