3 ms·

Notice how that none of the reports mention how the sanctity of the chain of custody of the hard disk has been preserved. The forensics lab in Pune, which is t

• matthewdgreen 5y ago
  They didn’t identify it? Or they are claiming it’s not present? Those are two wildly different claims. Presumably if both labs did their documentation correctly, it should be easy to compare hashes and see whether they examined different filesystems, which would be a prerequisite for any claim that the malware was added at some point following the initial government custody chain.
• elliekelly 5y ago
  Are you suggesting the consulting firm planted the planted evidence? FTA, I gather the chain of custody goes: police seized the hard drive, made a copy, and provided the copy to the defense attorney who (correctly) engaged outside experts investigate. State labs can (and do) make mistakes and miss evidence. State prosecutors can (and do) fail to turn over exculpatory evidence. The whole point of a trial is that we the people and the defendant don’t just have to take the state at their word. We can ship evidence off to a lab of our liking and, if the results differ from the state’s lab, ask them about it in open court. That’s _exactly_ how the system works. The charges must be proven by the government, not merely asserted.
  • msravi 5y ago
    The defense team contended that the evidence in question was planted by the NIA to target the "activists". But even by the Arsenal report, that malware was installed some 22 months before the outbreak of violence - which means the malware, even if it did exist, was installed a lot earlier than when the investigative agency entered the picture. Besides, the NIA has proof in the form of video evidence of the seizure and procedures followed thereafter that establishes the chain of custody of the hard drive in question. Also, the laptop's contents are not the sole evidence based on which the charges have been framed. Are the hashes of the drives examined by Arsenal the same as that examined by Pune FSL? Were they tampered with before being provided to Arsenal? Why are these reports put out without sufficient technical details establishing chain of custody?
    • rualca 5y ago
      > But even by the Arsenal report, that malware was installed some 22 months before the outbreak of violence No, not really. Amnesty International stated that the targeted activists were subjected to the malware email campaign between January and October 2029, whose aim was to deploy NetWire on the activists's computers. Afterwards, once successfully deployed, said malware was used to plant evidence on the acrivists computers.
      • msravi 5y ago
        > Afterwards, once successfully deployed, said malware was used to plant evidence on the acrivists computers. When?
        • rualca 5y ago
          For an answer to that question please read the article. I mean, you're here dumping all sort of denialist posts but you didn't even bother to read the article that lays out all the facts and findings?
          • msravi 5y ago
            I have read the arricle, and more. OTOH, you're deliberately seeking to mislead by being vague on the "afterwards." I'm going to stop responding to your diatribe devoid of facts.