So I wrote this submission over 3 weeks ago suggesting that the alphabet agencies PURPOSELY leaked the Vault 7 tools in order to provide an "alternate theory" cover for when rich elites get arrested for CP on their PCs. At the end of the post I suggested that the FBI or some other alphabet agency would eventually come out and ADMIT that these Vault 7 tools came from them.
Now the CIA and FBI are admitting they indeed have these tools even if under the guise of "performing a manhunt." Pompeo and Comey are proving to be nothing but stupid fools for letting themselves get pushed around by these criminals.
Look for this new defense tool to be used in CP cases. Basically, to catch these guys now will require actual footage of known persons, and/or personal testimony from multiple witnesses, and/or hard forensic evidence like DNA or fingerprints or traffic cams. Just finding CP on a PC won't be prosecutable any longer.
view the rest of the comments →
Jobew1 ago
i'm with you, but how will the defense work? meaning, will some elite say that the CIA (or other similar org) planted the CP? obviously that won't work. if you're saying that the defense will be that some random (or Russian) hackers have the same ability that the CIA has, yeah i think that will be the story and this hypothetical "defense" has been brewing a while now since the story that the russians hacked the election. yes, these latest events - vault 7 leaked tools and the "fb killer"-- circumstantially strengthen the "i've been hacked defense" but not that much imo. so i think there may be more to the fb killer psyop
Scirel ago
It doesn't have to be the CIA, or "the Russians" that "planted" it - it could be a "random hacker," or a "business competitor," or a "political enemy," or whatever. It no longer matters.
My larger point is that it would behoove a lawyer to, in a court of law, PROVE that the capability to plant files on a computer even exists in the first place. That has always been the hurdle. This admission by the CIA/FBI now gives lawyers the capability to argue this point and offer a plausible alternate theory about how files ended up on their client's computer in order to surmount the "reasonable doubt" bar.
Now, for instance, if & when files are eventually discovered on Alefantis' server, he could use this defense, for instance.
Before, the FBI would drop a case before admitting that they had these tools (see the article I linked to in my previous post). But what changed? Cui bono?
Jobew1 ago
didn't the FBI drop the case you mention because they didn't want to explain how they obtained the evidence (not just that they had the tools?) I understand re the "random hacker". It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- interestingly if someone uses the defense, logically there would be pressure to catch the hacker because someone was in possession of CP -- almost would create the need for a patsy
ThePuppetShow ago
They didn't want to reveal their exploit for TOR. People still believe TOR is safe. The government created TOR so they can likely decrypt it. Would they really release a truly anonymous service for their enemies to use? I think not.
Jobew1 ago
gotcha
Scirel ago
Good points. I'm obviously conflating the "refusing to explain how they obtained the evidence" with "we have these tools to plant files." The article also talked about how the FBI actually ran Dark Web sites with malware-embedded CP on them in order to sting people, but methinks that since they were asked for ALL the source code, that disclosing the ability to covertly plant files was what they were really trying to protect. Trying to read between the lines a bit.
But now they have effectively declassified Vault 7, so I am thinking this FBI/CIA ranting has all been kayfabe, and this was the goal all along.
Thanks.
Jobew1 ago
Could well be regarding the "ability to plant files"... keep up the good work