Hacker News Reader

Exactly, some bad iframe could load CP files and not display them, later if someone checks the network logs they can "prove" you visited and watched those urls.

Combine this with the very specific ad targeting that is possible to pull of(like the guy that managed to make FB to show his ad to his roommate) and you get an easy and remote way to frame people

It's also a strict liability crime, so intent doesn't matter. The evidence can't be viewed except by very few people approved by the justice department, so CP might just be pictures of a 17th year old that the person didn't even know was underage.

you obviously didn't read the indictment. The claims are not some vague image found in his browser cache, but Gigs of graphic and disturbing content with metadata (i.e. titles) that clearly indicate it as CP.

I realize these claims != guilt, rather that a lot of these comments are arguing how easy it would be to get caught up in existing laws. That's not what's claimed here; if true this guy is a collector.

50+G of encrypted data, specific references to 6yo, 8yo in file names and confirmation by a LEO witness that the videos match the filenames. The videos presumably can be viewed in part (by the judge?) in some sort of closed session if the defence requests it?

A hidden iframe was used to install an encrypted VM on the defendants computer, with an encrypted file on it, accessible using a password Only the defendant knew?

There are also extensive file system logs indicating a history of use. That was faked too?

And the IRC logs, those are fake?

Come on man.

Or option 3, he was assigned to infiltrating a kiddie porn ring. Maybe to set him up. Many plausible explanations, but no proof of anything but his crimes.

It is extremely within the CIA's ability to plant a VM on a computer. It is not established that the password was known only to "the defendant," as if the CIA alleging that is the case makes it true.

Extensive file system logs are also easy to generate. They could also be legitimate access logs but the VM itself was compromised by the CIA.

IRC logs are literally a text file. It would be extremely easy to fake those as well.

Do you really think the CIA is incapable of doing something like this? Hell, if I were able to obtain the password used to encrypt the VM (easily within the realm of possibility with CIA resources) I could do each one of these things myself.

The CIA has many extremely clear motivations to set this up, and they absolutely have the means to do so. They have also in the past been caught doing far, far worse. In addition the Vault 7 leaks contain instructions for doing exactly what many suspect here -- planting something like CP covertly in order to frame someone.

Come on, man.

I was not referring to the article but to the parent comment, my point is if someone monitors your traffic then it is very easy for any tech person to put bad links in your logs.

There was a case, I do not remember in what country where a guy was accused of child pornography because of his IP address and later was found that someone in police made a typo and they had the wrong IP.

Maybe the traffic logs are not enough to put you in jail but the accusation itself could destroy you and your family.

If you look at the indictment it details that they found encrypted files on his computer, then used a password obtained from his cell phone to decrypt the files.

If this is a setup, it's beautifully orchestrated.

Maybe he had encrypted files with a password on his cell phone, the CIA just added the CP files later and ofcourse changed the created/modified dates of those files.

One of the leaks describes methods for doing just this.

I was afraid to open the comments here. Very happy I was wrong.

If you're going to go to all that effort to hide your tracks and frame someone, risking your own conviction for downloading and distributing illegal porn, and the umpteen other crimes you're committing, I feel like you're going to have a good reason ... which reason is going to put you on a list of suspects for framing the person.

You're going to need resources too, if you want access without leaving a trace, TBH I can't see how you can do it remotely (ie at a distance) without cracking the targets upstream ISP. Otherwise their logs of incoming connections from whatever anonymous relays you've used are going to implicate an external attacker, which would tend to corroborate the targets innocence.

In the case of "Josh" other people's links show IRC chats where the other end is confirmed from capture of another perp. Also that his personal phone has the passwords on; that he said the encrypted data was his and that no-one else had access. If the evidence presented is true it seems pretty hard to setup without him being party to the whole thing.

If i recall correctly there was a virus that did that. If you got infected it would visit sites that had cp on it and would download cp to the infected computer. Even if you deleted the virus the cp would still remain.

The indictment goes into some detail on this: https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schult...

The guy is clearly guilty.

That's not how justice works. The indictment is the prosecutor's claims, not established facts that have survived subject to cross-examinations. The listed evidence could be fake, could be real but linked to the accused, or could be real and linked.

I didn’t say it was. What I am saying is that, assuming the evidence is as described (and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise short of theoretical exercises in “well it could always be faked”), the description of the VM is awfully convincing.

It strains credulity to think that the government planted an encrypted VM with an encrypted file with a password known only to the defendant, faked the entire usage logs, and faked an extensive file system logs to match a pattern of use that would be incredibly difficult to do correctly. It’s just not believable, nor is there any suggestion as to government motive that would risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught.

We can play theoretical exercises all day, but the fact is that the evidence as described is incredibly damning.

> risk such an incredible violation of the law if they were caught

No consequences. No one pays attention. No fear.

I arrive at the opposite conclusion from reading that. Someone smart enough to work in black hat security should know how fucking illegal CP is, how aggressively its investigated, and know not to flagrantly talk about it on an irc channel and host it to randos online. At the very least they would use tor and figure it out for themselves.

News flash: people who are skilled in one area often are not skilled in others, and people who show good judgement in their professional life do not always show it their personal life.

It should also be noted that he did take precautions, many of them, and the VM was only found after they seized his computer for a separate matter. Without that there is no indication they would have ever found it.

You certainly wouldn't want that guy in charge of doing anything covert! Is it trying to say he used his real name in IRC too (or is that interpretation for the file)!?

Good point, I missed that.

The indictment says he used the username 'Josh'.

Speaking as someone who lived in a place that would boil dissidents alive in the 00's: That's the most beautiful part of this.

If you know anything about downloading hugely illegal material you will keep your mouth shut because the claims there are completely laughable, but you don't want to admit you've been downloading hugely illegal material that would get you jailed/killed.

To the average person it sounds reasonable because they are an idiot.

To anyone with half a brain even downloading the pdf without doing it through tor, copying it to an air gapped machine, and reading it there is such a huge breach of security you wouldn't be out of prison if you ever did it.

So your argument is that the entire thing is faked? Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake? Because his defense team will tear that evidence apart and will find that mistake if it's there (e.g. any inode activity during a time he has an alibi... very easy to find).

And that you find that more believable than that someone could just happen to be both a security expert and a pedophile?

Do you realize he wasn't caught because of his security lapses? The found the VM because they raided his house for a separate matter. Every indication is that, with the exception of using a password he stored on his phone (which, read the indictment, he clearly realized during the interrogation that he had made a mistake), the government would have never found this VM of his.

He did take the steps you suggest, and it didn't matter, because they raided his house, and he made a single, and easily understandable mistake: he stored the password he used for the VM somewhere where someone could access it digitally. If he had just memorized the password, they would have very likely never broken that encryption.

> Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake?

At this point, we don't know that it will. That's making the argument out to be stronger than it is.

Slow your roll, Judge. I think you're probably right, but don't you want to at least hear what the defense has to say?

Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”

Solid argument, mate.

Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilty.

So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history.

Is that better, mate?

I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do.

Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a plant? Sure. Could the government be lying? Sure. And that is why we have a justice system.

But just because something is possible, or you can come up with an explation of why something may exist, doesn't mean it's probable, and doesn't mean it's likely.

And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways, I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born, and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges.

By the way, do actually have any evidence whatsoever that would imply the government planted that VM, other than some theoretical argument? Because for all your bluster about rationality, I don't see you presenting a shred of evidence to suggest that this didn't go down exactly how it was presented in the indictment.

And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways

Did you miss me specifically saying that I didn’t buy into the shilling thing? Please don’t claim that I said or implied something I went out of my way to disavow.

I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born

Holy shit, you know how old I am?

and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges.

I think the opposite is true, but I’ll tell you what, I’d never reach either conclusion with so little information available and it all coming via one side. A prosecutor looking for an indictment isn’t an unbiased viewpoint, just like a defense attorney speaking on behalf of their client isn’t.