Slashdot Mirror


Suspect Identified In CIA 'Vault 7' Leak (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: In weekly online posts last year, WikiLeaks released a stolen archive of secret documents about the Central Intelligence Agency's hacking operations, including software exploits designed to take over iPhones and turn smart television sets into surveillance devices. It was the largest loss of classified documents in the agency's history and a huge embarrassment for C.I.A. officials. Now, The New York Times has learned the identity of the prime suspect in the breach (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): a 29-year-old former C.I.A. software engineer who had designed malware used to break into the computers of terrorism suspects and other targets.

F.B.I. agents searched the Manhattan apartment of the suspect, Joshua A. Schulte, one week after WikiLeaks released the first of the C.I.A. documents in March last year, and then stopped him from flying to Mexico on vacation, taking his passport, according to court records and family members. The search warrant application said Mr. Schulte was suspected of "distribution of national defense information," and agents told the court they had retrieved "N.S.A. and C.I.A. paperwork" in addition to a computer, tablet, phone and other electronics. But instead of charging Mr. Schulte in the breach, referred to as the Vault 7 leak, prosecutors charged him last August with possessing child pornography, saying agents had found the material on a server he created as a business in 2009 while he was a student at the University of Texas.

11 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Make a deal now or it's FPITAP! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fpmitap!

    1. Re:Make a deal now or it's FPITAP! by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fpmitap!

      PC Load Letter? WTF does that mean?

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  2. Yeah, they'd never frame him for that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, cuz it's not like they wouldn't PLANT child porn on his computer to incriminate him, would they?

    1. Re:Yeah, they'd never frame him for that... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even ignoring the possibility of a government frame job, if we accept the possibility that it was planted, who is to say that the CIA et al were the ones who planted it? If someone is talented enough to steal from one of the world's elite cracking teams, don't you think that person would also be smart enough to make sure someone else takes the fall for it?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Yeah, they'd never frame him for that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seeing as "... and we found kiddie porn" happens each and every single last time this situation comes up, there is no question it was planted.

      The worse part is, no matter how much one might disagree if it should be, the fact of the matter is that it's already an imprisonable crime for a clearance holder to disclose classified documents.
      They didn't even need to go with the already-so-tired goto of planting/claiming child porn!

      Actually the only reason I can think they would do this is that if they prove or frame this guy for releasing those documents, then they can't frame or accuse anyone else of doing the same thing in the future.
      This way they can lose this guy in the federal prison system and on paper not having caught the leaker. Then they can accuse someone else of that crime in the future, and still keep their boogie man.

  3. Planted evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the most likely explanation.

    1. Re:Planted evidence by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They also "found" a baggie of Longbottom Green behind his toaster.

      The state has a *serious* PR problem if that's the first think straight people like me think of.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. Could be. He says 50-100 has access. Also Tor by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That certainly could be. Also, he says that he gave 50-100 people access to his server, so they could share files. Any of those people could have dumped alt.binaries.porn.lolita there. His legal liability would be questionable.

    Or it could have been something like The Fappening and included pictures of people like McKayla Maroney or Liz Lee, who were under 18 at the time. There are a lot of ways a computer nerd could end up with a big stash of porn, possibly downloaded by a script, and have that large stash include a number of under 18 images, even if they didn't intend to.

    Published reports from early in the investigation also mention that he used Tor. Surfing around on Tor one might encounter illegal material without actively looking for it.

  5. Wrong order... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He did things in the wrong order. You go to a non-extradition country, and THEN you leak what you need to leak. Assuming he leaked anything and isn't just a fall guy for piss-poor security at the CIA.

    1. Re:Wrong order... by evanh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My guess is the CIA had a short list of likely suspects and when the documents were revelled those individuals were all given a poke. Anyone of that group that appeared to run would be arrested.

      The charges will, of course, be fabricated because there isn't any evidence for who leaked the documents.

  6. Re:Oh crap by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I wouldn't avoid jury duty. I actively WANT a chance to practice jury nullification and throw (a small amount of) sand in the gears of the sorry excuse of a justice system that exists in the US.