4 ms·

See my child comment for a more in depth response, but to your point I believe it is naive to assume intelligence agencies would not weaponize something as powe

by zionic 7y ago

See my child comment for a more in depth response, but to your point I believe it is naive to assume intelligence agencies would not weaponize something as powerful as a CP accusation.

duxup 7y ago
I think it is illogical to assume that it happened in any / every given case with no evidence. I would think that just given time someone has falsified such a thing before, I don't by into the idea that it makes sense to make that assumption for any or every given case.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Not every case. Nobody assumes a conspiracy when your neighbor down the road gets brought up on possession of such material. Despite easily having the power to, there's no motive for the federal government to go around framing random individuals of sex crimes. But a whistleblower? A thorn in the intelligence agencies' side who has exposed them and attracted their ire? You'd be a credulous fool to take that story at face value. The IC has a long and documented history of flouting norms like honesty and integrity. These are institutions whose entire purpose is to use deceptive, extra-legal methods to focus the power of government against anybody who poses a threat to it.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  The only rational, non-conspiracy nut commenting is getting downvoted.
compuguy 7y ago
Why would they need to do such a thing. The defendant broke his agreement with the CIA and the Federal Government by leaking classified information. It honestly seems incredibly stupid to falsify evidence that could torpedo an entire case....
- zionic 7y ago
  >Why would they need to do such a thing. In general or this case? In general: Because it's incredibly powerful. In this case? See below. >The defendant broke his agreement with the CIA and the Federal Government by leaking classified information. This has yet to be proven, and the defendant claims he is innocent. An alleged leaker claiming his innocence possessing unencrypted CP is incredibly convenient for the CIA. Almost too convenient. >falsify evidence that could torpedo an entire case Why when the risk to the gov is basically 0%. You run a kit to plant the files and metadata. The files are then "extracted" by a forensic tool, the "evidence" is now bulletproof. The only person who could conceivably challenge such a move would be a very wealthy person who knew they were innocent and chose to hire expert witnesses to analyze the planted data to prove it was faked. Even then... good luck.

by zionic 7y ago

See my child comment for a more in depth response, but to your point I believe it is naive to assume intelligence agencies would not weaponize something as powerful as a CP accusation.

duxup 7y ago

I think it is illogical to assume that it happened in any / every given case with no evidence. I would think that just given time someone has falsified such a thing before, I don't by into the idea that it makes sense to make that assumption for any or every given case.

homonculus1 7y ago
Not every case. Nobody assumes a conspiracy when your neighbor down the road gets brought up on possession of such material. Despite easily having the power to, there's no motive for the federal government to go around framing random individuals of sex crimes. But a whistleblower? A thorn in the intelligence agencies' side who has exposed them and attracted their ire? You'd be a credulous fool to take that story at face value. The IC has a long and documented history of flouting norms like honesty and integrity. These are institutions whose entire purpose is to use deceptive, extra-legal methods to focus the power of government against anybody who poses a threat to it.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
The only rational, non-conspiracy nut commenting is getting downvoted.

compuguy 7y ago

Why would they need to do such a thing. The defendant broke his agreement with the CIA and the Federal Government by leaking classified information. It honestly seems incredibly stupid to falsify evidence that could torpedo an entire case....

zionic 7y ago
>Why would they need to do such a thing. In general or this case? In general: Because it's incredibly powerful. In this case? See below. >The defendant broke his agreement with the CIA and the Federal Government by leaking classified information. This has yet to be proven, and the defendant claims he is innocent. An alleged leaker claiming his innocence possessing unencrypted CP is incredibly convenient for the CIA. Almost too convenient. >falsify evidence that could torpedo an entire case Why when the risk to the gov is basically 0%. You run a kit to plant the files and metadata. The files are then "extracted" by a forensic tool, the "evidence" is now bulletproof. The only person who could conceivably challenge such a move would be a very wealthy person who knew they were innocent and chose to hire expert witnesses to analyze the planted data to prove it was faked. Even then... good luck.