FBI refutes claims of hacked agency laptop, Apple UDID database

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 67
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    To protect a program - yes, of course they would. You really have no idea how this stuff works, do you?




    I agree, but you might be getting the F.B.I. confused with other, more clandestine agencies.


     


    Not sure what you are getting at, but no, I'm not confusing them.

  • Reply 62 of 67
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    Are people really thanking AntiSec for hacking this laptop and then distributing the personal information over the Internet so that anyone who has any ounce of ability can gather it and use it. Yeah, thanks guys, thanks a whole lot...
  • Reply 63 of 67
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,716member


    wouldn't it be funny if Google's ad network was the source?

  • Reply 64 of 67
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    noahj wrote: »
    Are people really thanking AntiSec for hacking this laptop and then distributing the personal information over the Internet so that anyone who has any ounce of ability can gather it and use it. Yeah, thanks guys, thanks a whole lot...
    They did not distribute personal information found among the csv file, they removed it...
  • Reply 65 of 67
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    The FBI has denied it, but the FBI has not refuted anything.  To refute the claims, the FBI would need evidence showing that the claims are false.  The FBI seems to have no such evidence.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    How is it possible to provide evidence of the negative?  It isn't because negative evidence does not exist.   Not saying anything about this particular data set one way or the other, but your statement is totally unsatisfiable.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 66 of 67
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    The FBI has denied it, but the FBI has not refuted anything.  To refute the claims, the FBI would need evidence showing that the claims are false.  The FBI seems to have no such evidence.



     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    How is it possible to provide evidence of the negative?  It isn't because negative evidence does not exist.   Not saying anything about this particular data set one way or the other, but your statement is totally unsatisfiable.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    Precisely. That demand was a consistent theme throughout this thread and other forums. The impossibility of the demand was lost on all of them.

  • Reply 67 of 67
    noahj wrote: »
    Are people really thanking AntiSec for hacking this laptop and then distributing the personal information over the Internet so that anyone who has any ounce of ability can gather it and use it. Yeah, thanks guys, thanks a whole lot...

    What can people do with a device name and UDID number? Nothing. and by doing this, they're showing the world what the FBI's up to. Think of it this way, there are hackers that make iOS exploits, so Apple will close them right? Anonymous is doing the same, except with RL agencies. and in the process they're illuminating the lies.
Sign In or Register to comment.