Hacker News Reader

Comment by ralfd | Hacker News Reader

"The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data."

View on HN

> At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised

Yes, there is. It's on pastebin.

They need to say why the evidence is false.

We currently only have it on AntiSec's word that the information came from an FBI laptop, so technically their statement is true.

According to this blog, several organizations aggregate said information[1] so it's possible that one of them was hacked. I wouldn't expect AntiSec to frame the FBI, but then again they're not exactly buddy-buddy.

[1]http://corte.si/posts/security/apple-udid-survey/index.html

No, there isn't. The pastebin info "says" it was a compromised laptop. You or I have no idea if that is true or not.

Evidence is just stuff. It's not some magic object sprinkled with truth and certainty pixie dust.

The connection between a given explanation and any evidence is a probabilistic inference (Bayes Rule actually). You always have to weigh the likelihood of the evidence occurring due to other reasons, be it accident or fraud.

Considering that a number of folks with large UDID lists have stated they've found intersections, it seems the data itself is the real deal.

The only thing that's left is to debate the likelyhood of how they got it.

At the moment the burden is on the FBI. It'll take time to find the truth. Even if the FBI release was written in good faith, they're a large organization, and it takes time to figure out what's going on.

Yes, also if someone leaks 1 million people's private data onto the internet I'd think it would be FBI's responsibility to investigate how that happened.

Considering the FBI's anti-American history, they don't deserve the benefit of doubt.

If it really is from a compromised FBI laptop, you can assume they nabbed more than just this one file. All they would need to do is release another file that would be much harder to deny as "evidence."

The thing that really makes me wonder is why not come out and say that a) they do/do not an agent named Christopher Stangl and b) If they do, that his equipment is secure.

Because they do, and it isn't.

Agent Christopher K Stangl:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=512364171294

The fact that the agent's name and position are already publicly available might suggest that AntiSec simply used his name to appear more credible.

Or they targeted him because he was publicly known.

Yes, I know, saw his LinkedIn profile too. Not that either of those could be faked but lets not go there. I was agreeing with the comment that this denial was a very weak statement from the FBI. There were specific facts in the accusation which the FBI chose not to directly contradict, which I found somewhat odd on their part. That doesn't help the FBI convince me that they weren't caught with their floppy out if you know what I mean.

As I've learned from the TV show "The Newsroom," ask the follow-up! Have they looked for evidence? Could the data have been on an FBI agent's personal laptop rather than an "FBI laptop?" Do they consider data in the class of Apple UDIDs to be "private?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com