Hello,
I am writing a book about about the 2016 US election meddling. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for my question but here goes.
Some background into my question -
In early July 2016, Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc alleged their servers were hacked by an outside entity and data from the servers was stolen. Crowdstrike, the cyber-security firm for the DNC wrote a detailed report about the breach. Some weeks later, Crowdstrike turned over the report to the Office of Director of National Intelligence for further investigation and several other intelligence agencies have used the information contained in the report for their own subsequent investigations.
However, none of these investigatory bodies outside of Crowdstrike have had access to the servers that they allege were hacked. There has been conflicting reports as to whether the intelligence communities have simply not asked to examine the servers or that Crowdstrike/DNC has refused to provide the servers for further investigation.
Of course there has been political consequences concerning the hack, investigation, and events that unfolded later and continue to unfold.
My question is how can an organization, the DNC, have an alleged criminal breach of information and not turn over any hard evidence to the investigative bodies yet simultaneously use the conclusions of their own report to further additional investigations and legal action, many of which have be advantageous to their political position.
So my lay analogy of the situation:
Let's say I was wealthy and have my own bodyguards. Someone breaks into my house and takes a bunch of things. The bodyguards do an investigation into what happened - they snap pictures, take fingerprints, etc etc. The bodyguards call the police but only allow the police to have a report of what they said happened and never let them investigate the home itself. Then I start saying "Bob" across town committed the burglary because I have all the evidence he did it. Crappy analogy, I know.
Thanks for taking a look at this. Any help on this would be appreciated.
I am writing a book about about the 2016 US election meddling. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for my question but here goes.
Some background into my question -
In early July 2016, Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc alleged their servers were hacked by an outside entity and data from the servers was stolen. Crowdstrike, the cyber-security firm for the DNC wrote a detailed report about the breach. Some weeks later, Crowdstrike turned over the report to the Office of Director of National Intelligence for further investigation and several other intelligence agencies have used the information contained in the report for their own subsequent investigations.
However, none of these investigatory bodies outside of Crowdstrike have had access to the servers that they allege were hacked. There has been conflicting reports as to whether the intelligence communities have simply not asked to examine the servers or that Crowdstrike/DNC has refused to provide the servers for further investigation.
Of course there has been political consequences concerning the hack, investigation, and events that unfolded later and continue to unfold.
My question is how can an organization, the DNC, have an alleged criminal breach of information and not turn over any hard evidence to the investigative bodies yet simultaneously use the conclusions of their own report to further additional investigations and legal action, many of which have be advantageous to their political position.
So my lay analogy of the situation:
Let's say I was wealthy and have my own bodyguards. Someone breaks into my house and takes a bunch of things. The bodyguards do an investigation into what happened - they snap pictures, take fingerprints, etc etc. The bodyguards call the police but only allow the police to have a report of what they said happened and never let them investigate the home itself. Then I start saying "Bob" across town committed the burglary because I have all the evidence he did it. Crappy analogy, I know.
Thanks for taking a look at this. Any help on this would be appreciated.
Criminal Investigations: Why Aren't You Required to Surrender Your Servers to the Police if You Allege Hacking
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire