3 ms·

It's not really the Agent's job to make such legal determinations? If I was doing forensic analysis on a server under such circumstances I would have made note

by Rapzid 12y ago

It's not really the Agent's job to make such legal determinations? If I was doing forensic analysis on a server under such circumstances I would have made note and reference to that as well. Again, the IP address leak isn't the real evidence anyway and I don't see how the FBI is on the hook to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they got the IP address the way they said they did. His attorneys are spinning a yarn and poking the FBI's story because it's their job, but I think we should not be suggesting the FBI is guilty of something and must be required to prove their innocence. If the FBI have the logs they should answer in kind, however I don't believe the absence of such logs is going to or should help his case any.

ynniv 12y ago
That's a lot of different things. Perhaps you could focus on one and try again. If I was doing forensic analysis on a server under such circumstances I would have made note and reference to that as well. The footnote is not forensic, and not evidence, and there's no good reason for it to be there. I doubt you are a forensic investigator so it isn't relevant what you think you would have done, but if you were a good one I suspect you would have kept packet logs of everything you saw.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  That's really just two things. I apologize if you had trouble discerning that, but I'm not inclined to try again. But thanks for asking and making it clear my opinion doesn't matter ;)
  - ynniv 12y ago
    I count eight different statements. No ones unsubstantiated opinion matters, but all are welcome to argue a position.
nitrogen 12y ago
I don't see how the FBI is on the hook to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they got the IP address the way they said they did. That seems kind of important to protect against illegal methods of obtaining evidence. It's not enough to say the evidence could have been obtained legally; it must actually have been obtained legally.

by Rapzid 12y ago

ynniv 12y ago

That's a lot of different things. Perhaps you could focus on one and try again. If I was doing forensic analysis on a server under such circumstances I would have made note and reference to that as well. The footnote is not forensic, and not evidence, and there's no good reason for it to be there. I doubt you are a forensic investigator so it isn't relevant what you think you would have done, but if you were a good one I suspect you would have kept packet logs of everything you saw.

Rapzid 12y ago
That's really just two things. I apologize if you had trouble discerning that, but I'm not inclined to try again. But thanks for asking and making it clear my opinion doesn't matter ;)
- ynniv 12y ago
  I count eight different statements. No ones unsubstantiated opinion matters, but all are welcome to argue a position.

nitrogen 12y ago

I don't see how the FBI is on the hook to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they got the IP address the way they said they did. That seems kind of important to protect against illegal methods of obtaining evidence. It's not enough to say the evidence could have been obtained legally; it must actually have been obtained legally.