6 ms·

Source FBI statement: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-on-alleged-compromise-of-fbi-laptop http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-relea

Source FBI statement: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-on-alleged-compromise-of-fbi-laptop http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-on... There's just too much wiggle room in that statement for it to inspire any confidence.

ralfd 14y ago
"The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data."
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  The thing that really makes me wonder is why not come out and say that a) they do/do not an agent named Christopher Stangl and b) If they do, that his equipment is secure.
  - Bud 14y ago
    Because they do, and it isn't.
  - lwat 14y ago
    Agent Christopher K Stangl: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=512364171294 http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=512364171294
    - tlrobinson 14y ago
      The fact that the agent's name and position are already publicly available might suggest that AntiSec simply used his name to appear more credible. Or they targeted him because he was publicly known.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Yes, I know, saw his LinkedIn profile too. Not that either of those could be faked but lets not go there. I was agreeing with the comment that this denial was a very weak statement from the FBI. There were specific facts in the accusation which the FBI chose not to directly contradict, which I found somewhat odd on their part. That doesn't help the FBI convince me that they weren't caught with their floppy out if you know what I mean.
- rhizome 14y ago
  As I've learned from the TV show "The Newsroom," ask the follow-up! Have they looked for evidence? Could the data have been on an FBI agent's personal laptop rather than an "FBI laptop?" Do they consider data in the class of Apple UDIDs to be "private?"
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  > At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised Yes, there is. It's on pastebin. They need to say why the evidence is false.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    No, there isn't. The pastebin info "says" it was a compromised laptop. You or I have no idea if that is true or not.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
      Evidence is just stuff. It's not some magic object sprinkled with truth and certainty pixie dust. The connection between a given explanation and any evidence is a probabilistic inference (Bayes Rule actually). You always have to weigh the likelihood of the evidence occurring due to other reasons, be it accident or fraud. Considering that a number of folks with large UDID lists have stated they've found intersections, it seems the data itself is the real deal. The only thing that's left is to debate the likelyhood of how they got it. At the moment the burden is on the FBI. It'll take time to find the truth. Even if the FBI release was written in good faith, they're a large organization, and it takes time to figure out what's going on.
      - meric 14y ago
        Yes, also if someone leaks 1 million people's private data onto the internet I'd think it would be FBI's responsibility to investigate how that happened.
    - ams6110 14y ago
      If it really is from a compromised FBI laptop, you can assume they nabbed more than just this one file. All they would need to do is release another file that would be much harder to deny as "evidence."
    - genwin 14y ago
      Considering the FBI's anti-American history, they don't deserve the benefit of doubt.

ralfd 14y ago

"The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data."

ChuckMcM 14y ago
The thing that really makes me wonder is why not come out and say that a) they do/do not an agent named Christopher Stangl and b) If they do, that his equipment is secure.
- Bud 14y ago
  Because they do, and it isn't.
- lwat 14y ago
  Agent Christopher K Stangl: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=512364171294 http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=512364171294
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
    The fact that the agent's name and position are already publicly available might suggest that AntiSec simply used his name to appear more credible. Or they targeted him because he was publicly known.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Yes, I know, saw his LinkedIn profile too. Not that either of those could be faked but lets not go there. I was agreeing with the comment that this denial was a very weak statement from the FBI. There were specific facts in the accusation which the FBI chose not to directly contradict, which I found somewhat odd on their part. That doesn't help the FBI convince me that they weren't caught with their floppy out if you know what I mean.
rhizome 14y ago
As I've learned from the TV show "The Newsroom," ask the follow-up! Have they looked for evidence? Could the data have been on an FBI agent's personal laptop rather than an "FBI laptop?" Do they consider data in the class of Apple UDIDs to be "private?"
jpdoctor 14y ago
> At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised Yes, there is. It's on pastebin. They need to say why the evidence is false.
- sigzero 14y ago
  No, there isn't. The pastebin info "says" it was a compromised laptop. You or I have no idea if that is true or not.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
    Evidence is just stuff. It's not some magic object sprinkled with truth and certainty pixie dust. The connection between a given explanation and any evidence is a probabilistic inference (Bayes Rule actually). You always have to weigh the likelihood of the evidence occurring due to other reasons, be it accident or fraud. Considering that a number of folks with large UDID lists have stated they've found intersections, it seems the data itself is the real deal. The only thing that's left is to debate the likelyhood of how they got it. At the moment the burden is on the FBI. It'll take time to find the truth. Even if the FBI release was written in good faith, they're a large organization, and it takes time to figure out what's going on.
    - meric 14y ago
      Yes, also if someone leaks 1 million people's private data onto the internet I'd think it would be FBI's responsibility to investigate how that happened.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    If it really is from a compromised FBI laptop, you can assume they nabbed more than just this one file. All they would need to do is release another file that would be much harder to deny as "evidence."
  - genwin 14y ago
    Considering the FBI's anti-American history, they don't deserve the benefit of doubt.