5 ms·

The go to ‘sprinkle some crack on em’ tool in the alphabet toolbox.

by AustinDev 4y ago

bostonsre 4y ago
He had state secrets on his machine.. why would they need to do this or what would they gain from doing this?
- jdmonty 4y ago
  Makes him look really scummy?
  - sedatk 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32090407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32090407
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Impeaching the witness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
  - brian_cunnie 4y ago
    IANAL, but I don't think they can introduce child pornography charge in the espionage trial--they severed the two trials, and the ex-CIA coder hasn't yet been convicted of child pornography (it's the later trial), so it doesn't fall under the "Prior Conviction" umbrella.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Fair point. There are other potential prosecutorial benefits. There's still the court-of-public-opinion element. Such a charge might give allies / witnesses for the defence pause to come forward. Facing multiple independent counts also increases pressure, costs, and distracts attention for the defendant against any one case. Given the defendant here is representing himself, that may be a major hurdle. (Last sentence here is a stealth edit FYI.) Whether the CP charges are justified or strategic I really can't say. The practice of digging up additional dirt on defendants in specific instances is a venerable tradition however.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  How would they know he had state secrets on his computer? And how could they convince a judge they knew he had those secrets without admitting to illegal activities themselves?
  - shreyshnaccount 4y ago
    he leaked them. he had to have them for him to leak them. if you're asking how they know he was the leak, idk
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >he had to have them for him to leak them A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched. Even if they knew he leaked them, there's no guarantee he would have them on his machine. Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,' that way he would still be punished if he was prepared.
      - hulitu 4y ago
        > A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched. And the prosecutors will put them back. Just like police inserts a small package in your backpocket when they arrest you.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        >Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,'
  - bostonsre 4y ago
    I would assume they would know by doing a standard legal investigation where they get a warrant from the judge and look. I don't know what evidence they gave in the warrant application in this case but usually they have to be more than a blind shot in the dark request.
- hulitu 4y ago
  It's a tradition at those 3 letter agencies. They know that some people love wistleblowers and they want to discredit them. Just look at wikipedia pages of those wistleblowers or spies.
sedatk 4y ago
If there was such a tool, why wasn't it used for others like Chelsea Manning?
- daenz 4y ago
  Not every leak and leaker is the same. If a tool/procedure like that existed, it would probably be used on people who could generate positive public perception of their actions. Apparently the "vault 7" leak was centered around how devices were hacked to spy on private citizens and consumers. The public has a soft spot for people who leak things that expose direct invasions of privacy. Chelsea Manning on the other hand leaked documents that I don't believe would influence public opinion of them very easily (diplomatic cables and different military things). If you were going to break the law (planting evidence) to smear the character of someone, smear the person who has a higher chance of the public siding with.
  - sterlind 4y ago
    then why wouldn't they have used it against Edward Snowden? he revealed a whole mass surveillance operation, along with misconduct by NSA agents, and there was a lot of popular support for him. I still agree they could have smeared him, but I don't think it's improbable that the porn was actually his. Pedophiles are skilled at opsec, keeping secrets and doing unsavory things, so their background suits working in IC if they can conceal their behavior. And if discovered by a foreign intelligence agency, they'd be easy to extort into spying. Vault 7 released a fair bit of code, didn't it? It would benefit state adversaries to leak that publicly, by burning exploits the CIA's using.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      How would it work with Snowden? "Yknow the guy who flew to Hong Kong and stated he deleted all his data? Turns out he still had one computer he forgot that just so happens to be jam packed with illegal porn." Much easier to trap him in Russia and claim he's a foreign agent.
    - newsclues 4y ago
smitty1e 4y ago
Living by the sword could result in dying thereby.
boringg 4y ago
I think all the comments miss that this comment is said as a joke. I don't think OP is meant that they literally did that - it would be a particularly dumb law enforcement move that would jeopardize the entire case.
- krapp 4y ago
  Plenty of people believe the government literally does that all the time, as a matter of routine.

The go to ‘sprinkle some crack on em’ tool in the alphabet toolbox.

bostonsre 4y ago

He had state secrets on his machine.. why would they need to do this or what would they gain from doing this?

jdmonty 4y ago
Makes him look really scummy?
- sedatk 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32090407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32090407
dredmorbius 4y ago
Impeaching the witness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
- brian_cunnie 4y ago
  IANAL, but I don't think they can introduce child pornography charge in the espionage trial--they severed the two trials, and the ex-CIA coder hasn't yet been convicted of child pornography (it's the later trial), so it doesn't fall under the "Prior Conviction" umbrella.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Fair point. There are other potential prosecutorial benefits. There's still the court-of-public-opinion element. Such a charge might give allies / witnesses for the defence pause to come forward. Facing multiple independent counts also increases pressure, costs, and distracts attention for the defendant against any one case. Given the defendant here is representing himself, that may be a major hurdle. (Last sentence here is a stealth edit FYI.) Whether the CP charges are justified or strategic I really can't say. The practice of digging up additional dirt on defendants in specific instances is a venerable tradition however.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
How would they know he had state secrets on his computer? And how could they convince a judge they knew he had those secrets without admitting to illegal activities themselves?
- shreyshnaccount 4y ago
  he leaked them. he had to have them for him to leak them. if you're asking how they know he was the leak, idk
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >he had to have them for him to leak them A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched. Even if they knew he leaked them, there's no guarantee he would have them on his machine. Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,' that way he would still be punished if he was prepared.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched. And the prosecutors will put them back. Just like police inserts a small package in your backpocket when they arrest you.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        >Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,'
- bostonsre 4y ago
  I would assume they would know by doing a standard legal investigation where they get a warrant from the judge and look. I don't know what evidence they gave in the warrant application in this case but usually they have to be more than a blind shot in the dark request.
hulitu 4y ago
It's a tradition at those 3 letter agencies. They know that some people love wistleblowers and they want to discredit them. Just look at wikipedia pages of those wistleblowers or spies.

sedatk 4y ago

If there was such a tool, why wasn't it used for others like Chelsea Manning?

daenz 4y ago
Not every leak and leaker is the same. If a tool/procedure like that existed, it would probably be used on people who could generate positive public perception of their actions. Apparently the "vault 7" leak was centered around how devices were hacked to spy on private citizens and consumers. The public has a soft spot for people who leak things that expose direct invasions of privacy. Chelsea Manning on the other hand leaked documents that I don't believe would influence public opinion of them very easily (diplomatic cables and different military things). If you were going to break the law (planting evidence) to smear the character of someone, smear the person who has a higher chance of the public siding with.
- sterlind 4y ago
  then why wouldn't they have used it against Edward Snowden? he revealed a whole mass surveillance operation, along with misconduct by NSA agents, and there was a lot of popular support for him. I still agree they could have smeared him, but I don't think it's improbable that the porn was actually his. Pedophiles are skilled at opsec, keeping secrets and doing unsavory things, so their background suits working in IC if they can conceal their behavior. And if discovered by a foreign intelligence agency, they'd be easy to extort into spying. Vault 7 released a fair bit of code, didn't it? It would benefit state adversaries to leak that publicly, by burning exploits the CIA's using.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    How would it work with Snowden? "Yknow the guy who flew to Hong Kong and stated he deleted all his data? Turns out he still had one computer he forgot that just so happens to be jam packed with illegal porn." Much easier to trap him in Russia and claim he's a foreign agent.
  - newsclues 4y ago

smitty1e 4y ago

Living by the sword could result in dying thereby.

boringg 4y ago

I think all the comments miss that this comment is said as a joke. I don't think OP is meant that they literally did that - it would be a particularly dumb law enforcement move that would jeopardize the entire case.

krapp 4y ago
Plenty of people believe the government literally does that all the time, as a matter of routine.