|
On October 02 2020 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure? You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them. Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI.
Yes and no. I work on classified systems. There are compulsory data retention periods for *everything*, even the most useless logs. At the secret level it's 5 years for us.
So when you give your equipment back to your IT personnel, usually it's as-is, except maybe in cases where they were working only on network drives/mailboxes/syslogs etc where we can do the retention remotely. However when devices are sent to be destroyed afterwards, by the IT personnel, then yes, they are 100% wiped (7 or 15 passes depending on the levels).
In the US there is the need to keep data for FOIA requests, and for keeping government records at all, and probably some other reasons due to the investigative nature of the thing.
|
On October 02 2020 02:41 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure? You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them. Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI. Yes and no. I work on classified systems. There are compulsory data retention periods for *everything*, even the most useless logs. At the secret level it's 5 years for us. So when you give your equipment back to your IT personnel, usually it's as-is, except maybe in cases where they were working only on network drives/mailboxes/syslogs etc where we can do the retention remotely. However when devices are sent to be destroyed afterwards, by the IT personnel, then yes, they are 100% wiped (7 or 15 passes depending on the levels). In the US there is the need to keep data for FOIA requests, and for keeping government records at all, and probably some other reasons due to the investigative nature of the thing. fortunately the article mentions In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said all of the data contained on the phones was intentionally backed-up prior to the phones being wiped. So, all data was backed up and stored as per data retention rules and then they were wiped.
|
Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote:
Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. no, you know exactly what we are defending because I just spelled it out for you, go read it again and take your time.
|
On October 02 2020 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote:
Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. no, you know exactly what we are defending because I just spelled it out for you, go read it again and take your time.
I’d hate so see any logs you generate, if you go about writing “accidentally” for wipes, and the important thing is that the data was backed up previously.
|
|
|
TBH that's pretty standard. Hardware is always re-used at a company level all the time if the device is still within the support period, and sometimes outside of it. IIRC laptops at my company are always re-used if there's more than 4 months remaining in the support period.
If you have a mandatory retention period for data that should be backed up, whether it's emails or pictures/communication, IT should have a standardized process to do it. The device is wiped, and added to inventory for re-issue. An intern for instance might join and leave within 4-8 months and there's no point in buying hardware like laptops and trashing it after.
The wiping itself is not a problem, the only problem would be if there are missing/irrecoverable backups.
|
This is a document that has just been made available before a hearing on Tuesday about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement.
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/White_Supremacist_Infiltration_of_Law_Enforcement.pdf
Here's the findings:
(U//LES) Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in
strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities,
current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals,
particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer
their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they
sympathize.
• (U//LES) The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the
areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to
investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement
sources and personnel.
• (U//LES) White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is
a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable
to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could
see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist
infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and
passive tolerance of racism within communities served.
• (U//LES) The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law
enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to
the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold.
The more evidence comes out the more it becomes clear (if it somehow wasn't already) where the real threat lies in the US.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 05:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 05:07 Jockmcplop wrote:This is a document that has just been made available before a hearing on Tuesday about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/White_Supremacist_Infiltration_of_Law_Enforcement.pdfHere's the findings: (U//LES) Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in
strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities,
current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals,
particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer
their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they
sympathize.
• (U//LES) The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the
areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to
investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement
sources and personnel.
• (U//LES) White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is
a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable
to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could
see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist
infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and
passive tolerance of racism within communities served.
• (U//LES) The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law
enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to
the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold. The more evidence comes out the more it becomes clear (if it somehow wasn't already) where the real threat lies in the US. Did it happen to mention how much Antifa infiltration into law enforcement there was?
Has that ever been an issue anywhere at any time? I have never heard of any credible left wing infiltration of police in any country but historically right wing groups have frequently been an issue.
|
Yeah I don't think that's a thing. The scope of this document is limited to white supremacy anyway.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 05:56 JimmiC wrote:
That is what I figured. But given the massive play antifa gets in the media and on these threads I thought it would be interesting to contrast the 0 to what the white supremists are up too.
It's a given though. Antifa by doctrine doesn't like state-mandated police for... obvious reasons. You won't find any groups associated with Antifa that are pro law-enforcement. The entire reason they come together is the feeling that the state isn't doing enough to stop fascism.
|
It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead.
edit:
Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign.
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
I wonder how much subterfuge it takes for white supremacists to infiltrate the police :rolls eyes:
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:
It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead.
Totally anecdotal. I was actually at an anarchist cafe years ago here in pdx where an animal liberation group was holding a meeting/event and they threw out 2 suspected cops, which then revealed themselves to be cops. It’s crazy what police get up to lol.
|
On October 02 2020 06:43 WombaT wrote:
I wonder how much subterfuge it takes for white supremacists to infiltrate the police :rolls eyes:
The joke goes that police don’t do nudie calendars like their firemen counterparts because they wouldn’t be able to cover up all the fashy tattoos 
|
On October 02 2020 06:48 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:
It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. Totally anecdotal. I was actually at an anarchist cafe years ago here in pdx where an animal liberation group was holding a meeting/event and they threw out 2 suspected cops, which then revealed themselves to be cops. It’s crazy what police get up to lol.
CPUSA probably has more dues paying members from law enforcement than actual communists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
