5 ms·

The indictment goes into some detail on this: https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schulte https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Ada

by 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.
  - Cacti 8y ago
    So your argument is that the entire thing is faked? Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake? Because his defense team will tear that evidence apart and will find that mistake if it's there (e.g. any inode activity during a time he has an alibi... very easy to find). And that you find that more believable than that someone could just happen to be both a security expert and a pedophile? Do you realize he wasn't caught because of his security lapses? The found the VM because they raided his house for a separate matter. Every indication is that, with the exception of using a password he stored on his phone (which, read the indictment, he clearly realized during the interrogation that he had made a mistake), the government would have never found this VM of his. He did take the steps you suggest, and it didn't matter, because they raided his house, and he made a single, and easily understandable mistake: he stored the password he used for the VM somewhere where someone could access it digitally. If he had just memorized the password, they would have very likely never broken that encryption.
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.

by 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.
- Cacti 8y ago
  So your argument is that the entire thing is faked? Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake? Because his defense team will tear that evidence apart and will find that mistake if it's there (e.g. any inode activity during a time he has an alibi... very easy to find). And that you find that more believable than that someone could just happen to be both a security expert and a pedophile? Do you realize he wasn't caught because of his security lapses? The found the VM because they raided his house for a separate matter. Every indication is that, with the exception of using a password he stored on his phone (which, read the indictment, he clearly realized during the interrogation that he had made a mistake), the government would have never found this VM of his. He did take the steps you suggest, and it didn't matter, because they raided his house, and he made a single, and easily understandable mistake: he stored the password he used for the VM somewhere where someone could access it digitally. If he had just memorized the password, they would have very likely never broken that encryption.

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.