3 ms·
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 inst
by 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 agoFor 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 agoI 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.