Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks CIA Files: The 6 Biggest Spying Secrets Revealed By the Release of 'Vault 7' (independent.co.uk)
Earlier today, WikiLeaks unleashed a cache of thousands of files it calls "Year Zero," which is part one of the release associated with "Vault 7." Since there are over 8,000 pages in this release, it will take some time for journalists to comb through the release. The Independent has highlighted six of the "biggest secrets and pieces of information yet to emerge from the huge dump" in their report. 1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers. The U.S. intelligence agency has been involved in a concerted effort to write various kinds of malware to spy on just about every piece of electronic equipment that people use. That includes iPhones, Androids and computers running Windows, macOS and Linux.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure. Encrypted messaging apps are only as secure as the devices they are used on -- if an operating system is compromised, then the messages can be read before they are encrypted and sent to the other user(s).
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations." Many of the documents reference tools that appear to have dangerous and unknown uses. One file, for instance, shows that the CIA was looking into ways of remotely controlling cars and vans by hacking into them.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
6) More information is coming. The documents have still not been looked through entirely. There are 8,378 pages of files, some of which have already been analyzed but many of which haven't. And that's not to mention the other sets of documents that are coming. The "Year Zero" leaks are just the first in a series of "Vault 7" dumps, Julian Assange said. You can view the Vault 7 Part 1 'Year Zero' release here via WikiLeaks. The Intercept has an in-depth report focusing on how the "CIA Could Turn Smart TVs Into Listening Devices."
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure. Encrypted messaging apps are only as secure as the devices they are used on -- if an operating system is compromised, then the messages can be read before they are encrypted and sent to the other user(s).
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations." Many of the documents reference tools that appear to have dangerous and unknown uses. One file, for instance, shows that the CIA was looking into ways of remotely controlling cars and vans by hacking into them.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
6) More information is coming. The documents have still not been looked through entirely. There are 8,378 pages of files, some of which have already been analyzed but many of which haven't. And that's not to mention the other sets of documents that are coming. The "Year Zero" leaks are just the first in a series of "Vault 7" dumps, Julian Assange said. You can view the Vault 7 Part 1 'Year Zero' release here via WikiLeaks. The Intercept has an in-depth report focusing on how the "CIA Could Turn Smart TVs Into Listening Devices."
There is no surprise...
When I got my TV I bypassed the Mic and am feeding it "never gonna give you up" in a continuous loop. Glad my effort was not wasted.
1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers.
That's part of the spying thing and has been for at least the last 2-3 decades.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure.
Logically follows.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them.
Smart device insecure; news at 11.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations."
Explored and...? That's it? Okay.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments.
Author doesn't know what an 0-day is good for.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I'll bet serious money this enrages Trump and he threatens to arrest and detain Assange.
Point 3 is just dropping yet another reason on top of the large pile of reasons why I'll never ever buy a 'Smart TV'.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
I'm pretty good with Windows and Linux desktops... there are steps I can take to check for spyware/malware and deal with them if found.
But my Samsung TV, I haven't the foggiest idea. I don't know how to type commands into it or even what kind of an OS it runs.
The government's been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the forties. They've infected everything. They get into your bank statements, computer files, email, listen to your phone calls... Every wire, every airwave. The more technology used, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you. It's a brave new world out there. At least it'd better be.
As great as the internet's free flow of information has been for the average human, there is another entity that has benefited even more...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I'm safe. Turns out buying a Windows Phone was a good choice after all.
If you didn't know this kind of thing was going on, you weren't paying attention. The job of the intelligence agencies is to... gather intelligence, particularly the kind that people don't want collected and kill foreign enemies covertly. This is why they are not allowed to act inside the US. Every other intelligence agency on the planet does exactly the same thing. If you think otherwise you are living in a fantasy land bubble.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
locking up a rival candidate would be really bad for democracy, no matter how much she deserved it.
locking up(or shooting) CIA operatives who interfered with democracy, however, would be great for democracy.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure" is what makes running security-minded programs on non-free, user-subjugating, always-untrustworthy, proprietary OSes a joke. People get a sense that they're safer from malware then they really are and they think they get to keep their proprietary conveniences as well. Openwashing will not help you.
I know it's a lot of work to learn new things and change your views and your behavior. I understand that software freedom is differently political than what you're encouraged to adopt, and software freedom requires you to consider more than what's listed in virtually every features & money-based ad campaign from monied proprietors. And I get that coming to terms with the consequences of software freedom runs directly contrary to believing that you don't need to think any further than what proprietors and their "open source" friends tell you to think about (because no proprietor frames their offerings in terms of the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, hence proprietors are more likely to sanction the open source movement which eschews these values and even celebrates partnering with proprietors like Red Hat's recent uncritical commentary on Microsoft's software and Microsoft's new campaign regarding "Linux"—no mention of GNU which might bring software freedom to mind). But in the real world you need to stop trusting proprietary systems to keep you safe, respect your privacy, or other practical consequences of software freedom. Proprietary software wasn't designed to do that and therefore that software never will do that job. There is no middle ground which allows you to run proprietary software while retaining the benefits of software freedom. It's time to value software freedom for its own sake.
Even if all published software were free, exploits like these are possible because all complex software has bugs. Perfect security is not the issue. The issue is who gets to control their own computer and how we treat each other. Even after these exploits are published by WikiLeaks and people have had time to consider them and protect against their adverse effects, proprietors will still have power over users who run their proprietary software. Users won't be able to tell what other exploits are out there and therefore it will be harder to protect against them. The difference between proprietary subjugation and software freedom becomes more clear: Free software users will be able to run, inspect, improve, and share improvements with others making that software more able to prevent future attacks. But proprietary software users won't be allowed to do the due diligence they need in order to help themselves no matter how technically skilled they are or how willing to repair things they are. No computer user deserves to be treated that way. It will take a lot of work to get people to understand why they too should care about software freedom even if they're non-technical (like most computer users are). So I urge you to understand software freedom for its own sake and to try to help others understand as well.
Relatedly, the Free Software Foundation's "Respects Your Freedom" campaign has some new hardware on the list. I recommend buying some and using it, even if it's not up-to-date with the latest capabilities and seemingly expensive for what's offered. We need more people to invest in free replacements for proprietary, locked-down, user-subjugating systems. We need to make investments in our own collective future by funding the free products available today so we can have modern, highly-capable, and fully user-controllable POWER8, RISC, etc. systems which will respect the owner's control.
Digital Citizen
Not locking her up is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Not investigating and then, if necessary, pressing charges and letting a court decide is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
She was investigated, and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.' Hillary Clinton is, contrary to popular opinion, innocent in the eyes of the Law.
Forgetting about the presumption of innocence is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Fucking selectively moral hypocrites who have already decided not to accept what their own fucking law enforcement agencies have investigated and declined to prosecute is bad for the concept of the Rule of Law. You can complain about political factors weighing on the decision; you can complain about ineptitude and willful blindness. You can complain about any fucking thing you fucking want. But you cannot dispense with essential components of the legal/judicial system whenever its suits you.
You can't claim she's guilty in the absence of a trial and still pretend to uphold the rule of law. So either shut up about the rule of law, or stop claiming she should be locked up, because you can't do both at once.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
*wanking motion*
Food for thought: Michael Hastings was apparently investigating the C.I.A. when he died in what sounds like a suspicious car crash. Officially, foul-play was ruled out. Quote from Wikipedia: "Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack". He was quoted as saying "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers — including the United States — know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings'] car — and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."" (This quote is from 2013.) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
Can someone give us the Cliff Notes on what we need to sudo rm -rf ??? Is it just routers being targeted...?
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I'm gonna invest in popcorn futures...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I've been going over this most all day (I'm retired, so I got fuck-all else to do on a rainy day).
From what I can tell, the biggest takeaway is that a hacked phone is not secure. Encryption is still OK, and Signal and WhatsApp are still secure as far as we can tell. Everything else has already been known. Also, it's a good idea when vendors patch vulnerabilities, apparently. Who knew?
EFF has written some interesting stuff about Vault7 today, on their webpage and Twitter account.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Because it was on every sitting presidents watch since the formation of government?
As far as the electronics hacking goes, ever since electronics became a thing.
Hell, Nixon got caught up in early electronic eavesdropping,
This isn't new knowledge, just confirmation of what has been suspected all along.
Vault 7 sounds like a great title for a new TV series...
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
I did, have you? Cause Al Franken didn't even ask the question but Sessions said point blank he had no contact with the Russians. It was an unforced error since that wasn't what Franken was asking as Franken was just trying to find out what Sessions would do with any evidence he might find.
Apparently, a first grader has a better understanding of "Context" than you do. Frankin's question was specific to Trump surrogates communicating with Russian officials. Here is a working analogy for the genuinely handicapped who can't understand the context.
Senator Al Frankin: We have reports that people like you were firing guns into a crowd, and that you were near the crowd.
Jeff Sessions: Senator Frankin, I was there but never fired a gun.
Buffoons : We have reports that while hunting in the woods a few months ago, Attorney General Sessions did in fact fire a gun. He is a liar! PERJURY!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.'
You're assuming that the only reason no reasonable prosecutor would take the case is her innocence.
No, for fuck sakes, I'm saying that you can't defend the rule of law, and then jump straight to a guilty verdict without passing through these interim steps.
My entire point is that it's perfectly fair to complain about the lack of consistency in prosecutorial decision-making. It's perfectly fair to question the FBI's investigative techniques. It's perfectly fair to discuss at length and in detail all of the countless deficiencies that exist in the American criminal justice system. People spend lifetimes doing just that.
But you do NOT get to say, 'That bitch is guilty' when she's never even gone to trial. Not if you stand for the rule of law.
Say, she should be prosecuted, she should be re-investigated, say that what she's doing is dodgy as fuck. I'm right beside you there. Say that she and her husband are conscience-free, calculating sociopaths. Say that she's insincere. Say whatever the fuck you want. But you still don't get to say she's guilty until she's convicted. Not if, as the poster did, you claim to support the rule of law.
Too many people think presumption of innocence is a trivial thing, that it only applies when trials run right. That's not true. Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're innocent of the crime. There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
This matters to me because, as a journalist, I regularly see people accused of horrible crimes, and I see the human toll of people who are put through the ringer of social opprobrium. I've seen what happens when vigilante justice prevails, and trust me, you don't ever want to see it happen.
We have the rule of law because we as a society agree to play by the rules. That means that you stop making exceptions when someone that you don't like benefits from those rules. It sucks sometimes, but there it is.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
... innocence is not a legal concept.
Presumption of Innocence is a formal concept in Common Law.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
It's more sinister than that.
Consider a one year old child today who may grow up to be a politician, high-level businessman, civil servant, inventor, etc.
That child is going to grow up with his communications logged, messages recorded, phone conversations intercepted, and what's more all his porn interests, mistakes in teenage years, drug taking, cheating, law breaking, foolish racist or bigoted or cruel utterances, web searches, fucking everything.
Then when they're making something of themselves they get a knock at the door and someone comes in with a big file.
The end consequence of this project means that the intelligence agencies will become our permanent rulers. Not even democracy can overturn them because democracy's players, our politicians, have and do make mistakes, mistakes which are captured by the agencies. And any revolution would be thwarted before it even began.
Again, you are presuming, based on your limited information, that she's guilty.
The reason we have trials, rather than relying on the snap judgement of people like you, is that *all* the evidence is brought out, explored, and argued over. Until that is done, you cannot rightly presume anything other than innocence.
The Feds did their investigation, came up with more evidence and counter-evidence than you will ever know about, and judged that in total, it wasn't enough to even make a reasonable case. You can claim to disagree with the Feds' judgement all you like, if you think someone will listen; you can demand the investigation be re-opened, or insist that she go straight to trial, but you *still* need a trial and court decision, because you don't have all the facts.
Of course, requiring political opponents to be re-investigated until something turns up is a practice normally associated with oppressive regimes, and opens your own preferred politicians to the same treatment, so maybe be careful what you wish for.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
What is it with the quality of reporting now?
No, this does NOT make signal, etc completely insecure - this means they need to specifically target one end of the conversation, before
it happens - why is always likely to be possible.
What is DOES NOT mean is that they can auto-vacuum up all the conversations for later 'analysis', as they can do with just about every
other form of internet base communication. THAT is a critical difference. What it means is when you get on the wrong side of an ever
expanding range of government bureaucrats, they can trawl through less of your life to look for a suitable 'punishment'.
Of course they would LOVE everyone to think encrypted communication is useless, because they more people wouldn't bother......
Bears a close resemblance to a false flag reporters.....
And no, I dont need to post that AC, because being sensible about your personal communications is sensible, not illegal.
That is nonsense. The IT guy that wiped her server, after the investigation began, posted on this very site asking for advice on how to destroy the evidence.
He posted on Reddit, not here, and his inquiry didn't read to me like an attempt to destroy evidence. He was trying to figure out how to redact email addresses from a large corpus of archived messages. This is standard practice during electronic discovery and document production, and isn't a sign of anything nefarious.
Jeb Bush performed the same scrubs on his email archives, after first releasing them unredacted and causing an uproar because they were full of constituents' personal data.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Do you see now why truth matters?
1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers.
It's basically, if it's Internet connected, it's probably vulnerable to some degree. But I wanna see the CIA remotely invading my unconnected Windows 7 PC used for maintenance purposes. Unless they get a warrant and physically get to my computer, they can't.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure.
Wrong. Encryption is used on these device to protect messages DURING transit and it's not only from the CIA or for criminal purposes. So yeah, it's still secure if you are not being actively targeted by the CIA, and if you keep your devices outside the reach of malicious actors.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them.
This just adds up to not buying smart TVs at all, or at least don't connect them to the Internet. Several big brands like Samsung, LG, Vizio among others have been caught red handed harvesting information using smart TV functions for all sorts of purposes, so this recommendation came before the CIA papers leak.
It might not have shown up in papers just yet, but this also applies to your IoT devices and whatnot. Do NOT get a Google Home, Alexa or whatever always listening device you can avoid it. Your privacy will be put at risk as potentially your security also will.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations."
Hackers are also into this, and it'll remain an issue as long as car manufacturers continue to ignore major security flaws in their systems. Just so people know, most cars these days are wholly insecure. Hacking could come with something hard to accomplish like connecting a device into the electronic diagnostic systems on you car, needing physical access, to shoving malware on your Android based car system and taking control remotely from there. Unfortunately, it's one of those cases where a fatality will need to happen for car manufacturers to be blasted for malpractice and change their ways.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments.
This, along with several other cases like the iPhone thing and the more recent of a pedophile being released because a government agency didn't want to release the tools used for his arrest to the public just shows how governmental agencies are not focused on security and worries on the public, they are focused on power. This is the core issue with NSA, CIA, FBI and other public agencies promoting erosion or privacy: they want the power to spy on everyone and anyone, which gives them control to do anything.
All of the revelations and the spying programs governmental agencies have reveals one big problem in itself: the US will soon become a country where something like Watergate, or something more recent like the Snowden leaks, could never happen. How long do people think that an empowered state that is able to spy on everyone including journalists (which btw, the current government sees as "the enemy") will use these tools to actively persecute, blackmail and shut up anyone who has something negative to say about the administration? You are basically diving into a well disguised totalitarian regime. And with morons currently running the country it's going to be very hard to convince them that these powers have nothing to do with making police work easier, or going after terrorists, and all to do with these agencies having enough power to do just about everything they want.
There already have been plenty of reports on police mishandling public cameras and using tools for stuff like stalking people, going after ex-girlfriends and stuff like that. Going from there to actively blackmailing people, using the information collected for their own profit, all the way into covering scandals and shutting off corruption case investigations is not a joke. Yes, no one is interested in your boring life and your boring messages or e-mails, but there is a reason why privacy is the cornerstone of democracies. If you don't fight for it and lose, the consequences will come crashing down soon enough, and then there's nothing you can do anymore.
Everything described is EXACTLY what the CIA is expected to do. It is literally their job to spy on other people.
If Wikileaks publishes something along the lines of the CIA using these tools on people within the US, then that would be something that is notable (and illegal).
Now the NSA having these tools is more problematic, as they are tasked with both spying on others for USA's economic gain, but it is also their job to secure America from foreign espionage, so keeping software vulnerabilities (which pretty much all of these tools depends on) secret aids in part of their job, but hinders the other... The CIA doesn't have this issue.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
Does that not display a high degree of hubris? I'd say that if a government agency discovers a security flaw in something then they have to immediately assume that "hackers from other countries or governments" either already have it or will independently discover it soon. I really don't think it's something for which you have a big window of exclusive use.
There is no innocent in the rule of law, as you like to pretend to understand it. If this is too difficult for you to understand, realize that a court verdict is guilty or not guilty, it is never a finding of innocent.
Particularly patronising tone you've managed there.
innocent
adjective: innocent
1. not guilty of a crime or offence.
Turns out the definition of 'innocent' contains the words 'not guilty'. If you'd been less of a dick about it, you wouldn't look quite so stupid now. Oh well.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's found in the court of public opinion. That's why we have courts that are abstracted from populist views and are compelled to examine the evidence in a case tried by peers. The court of public opinion has been responsible for many massacres.
Rule of law is western society's greatest achievement.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
...I think the revelation that they've appropriated other security services hacking tools so they can attack a system and leave false footprints would be a bit of a bombshell.
-Styopa
I think the biggest revelation is the fact that the CIA can, indeed, hack a car and potentially assassinate the driver: http://yournewswire.com/wikile...
Interestingly, Michael Hastings died when his car suddenly accelerated out of control and crashed, killing him instantly. He was currently investigating the director of the CIA, John Brennan!
Coincidence???????
???
??
?
Slashdot Flashback time...
In Soviet America, TV watches you!
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're innocent of the crime. There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
I've been following, and mostly agreeing with, your marvelous string of rant(s) on this topic, but here I must pick a very important epistemological nit.
When I drove to work today, I exceeded the legal speed limit, as I do every day. I am therefore in reality guilty of violating the laws restricting the speed I am permitted to drive my car. This guilt persists whether or not I am stopped, observed, ticketed, taken to court. It persists whether or not I am stopped, go to court, and pay a lawyer a large sum of money to have the case thrown out or to convince judge or jury that my excess speed was within some legal uncertainty associated with its measurement, whether or not there was a technical error in my citation that makes it null and void. Being guilty in reality of violating a law is quite independent of the courts, arrests, prosecutions, and verdicts. Did I commit the crime? Yes (just like pretty much every human alive driving today). Have I been "declared guilty" by a court? Absolutely not, got away with it just like almost every human alive who exceeds the speed limit today will get away with it, some of whom will exceed it by a lot. Yesterday I (accidentally, seriously) ran a red light. Didn't get caught, didn't harm anyone, but I'm absolutely guilty of doing it and am still kicking myself for letting myself get too distracted at the intersection as I could have hurt someone. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
So let's correct your statement above:
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're presumed to be innocent (in the eyes of the law). There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
NOT THE SAME as saying you ARE innocent in reality, only that as far as the law goes, you have the benefit of any doubt (and various legal protections against others acting on their own as if you were guilty). This is true even if Colonel Mustard is found in the pantry holding the wrench, is arrested without being Mirandized, confesses everything and leads the police to a wealth of absolute proof that he did it, that he planned to do it, that he is glad he did it, that he is guilty, guilty, guilty of doing it -- but all of that evidence is thrown out and consequently the jury declares him (not innocent, but) not guilty. At which point he could write a book: "I Did it in the Pantry with the Wrench, and I'm Glad", by Colonel Mustard, Esq, and could admit it on Oprah and he'd still be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law for the rest of eternity because of the double jeopardy clause.
Outside of this small but important exception, I agree with what you are saying. And it matters! Those rules that might get Col. Mustard a walk even though he is guilty as hell might protect Miss Scarlet who is intimidated into admitting that she did it in the kitchen with the knife but really was in the Library with Professor Plum. They prevent many a miscarriage of justice where a DA aggressively prosecutes somebody for political reasons on inadequate or trumped up evidence. It's not like we don't routinely convict the innocent because the person accused happens to be black or hispanic even WITH the protections we have...
That doesn't stop people from "convicting" O.J. Simpson of murder in their own minds even though he is declared "not guilty" in a trial. It doesn't stop him from (maybe) BEING guilty even though he was acquitted. It doesn't stop people from convicting Hilary Clinton and/or Donald Trump in their own minds of everything from murder down to simple child molestation and rape and (while we are obligated to presume their innocence in all legal matters including not defaming them by asserting their ce
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
More like the prequel to Fallout IRL
I am saying the public needs answers
They got an answer, from the feds. It's not definitive, but it's indicative at least, and far more informed than public speculation.
I am saying major crimes were committed
This is exactly my point. Major crimes are alleged. The difference is crucial. Someone could indeed be charged and get their day in court, but whether major crimes were actually committed is still not proved, let alone who by.
I am not disagreeing with the feds judgement
It does kinda sound like you are (which is fine). And I'm right with you on the whole "too powerful for the law to apply" thing - politicians more than anyone must be subject to the law.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?