Just curious as to why these hackers are competent enough to hack multi-billion dollar industries but not competent enough to at least hide their employer if not themselves?
Just curious as to why these hackers are competent enough to hack multi-billion dollar industries but not competent enough to at least hide their employer if not themselves?
The prosecutors and agencies involved can only string together evidence in an attempt to convince a non-technical jury (or tribunal) to see things that aren't there explicitly, but could be implied.
For example, a machine with photos of me and some of my financial documents might be used to hack someone, and my MAC address and IP show up in the "hacking evidence".
Depending on how motivated the prosecutors are to charge me personally, you will either see me in trouble, or you won't. In my opinion, if you aren't politically well connected, your ability to evade indictments and eventually convictions is non existent in the face of someone as powerful as the DOJ
Are you saying that in the case of this Yahoo hack, this is the evidence that has been obtained? Or is this a general link about what authorities are able to do?
Because if so, then yes, I personally would say this is enough to reach a guilty verdict. They deserve it if they were dumb enough to show their face and receive on the books payment from a shady authority.
But too often, someone's machine is implicated with the kind of flakey technical evidence that is used to extort a confession or a plea bargain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence_(intelligen...