– bi

Also, the time zone of the computer used for creating the ZIP file is easy to manipulate by setting the time and timezone manually on the computer before creating the ZIP file.

I’m not an expert in forensic analysis or cybercrime, but I’d bet my money on *motives* and *patterns of behavior* rather than superficial and easily manipulated digital data such as timestamps, IP addresses (could easily be proxies), or FTP server domain names.

My main complaint is with so-called news sources and reporters who draw conclusions from such things, as if they prove anything.

This coupled with the fact that the initial announcement was from a guy named “FOIA” (instead of “FIA”, which I’ve heard is the more common term in Britain), seems to mean that the attack involved outsiders.

Then again, perhaps Tim is right, and all this is just smoke and mirrors for distributing malware after all.

– bi

I found some key “dots” that cry out for “connecting”:

1. There was a previous data breach/leak in July 2009 or before. It appears that just one person was the recipient of the stolen data: Stephen McIntyre. The breach was due to an insider (“mole”) in the UK: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6634 (esp. comment #3)

2. McIntyre has been in a long-running battle with the UEA HCC/CRU over access to their data, their “code” (data analysis software), and even their emails http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3234. Here’s McIntyre’s philosophy and goals in this quest: http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 . Here’s a short summary of the conflict, published just a day before the recent breach hit the wires: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html

3. McIntyre was actively monitoring defensive actions by UEA HCC/CRU over the summer, including “massive data purges”: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673 (Is “Climate Audit reader Super-Grover” an insider, given the comment “worse than we expected”??).

4. McIntyre has just recently been denied in his appeal of the rejection of his most recent FOI. http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/

Putting these together, plus imminent start of the Copenhagen Climate Summit…

… it doesn’t take a detective genuis to see that the current data breach/theft/leak is probably just a continuation of this on-going war between these parties. It’s also likely that the same “mole” is also responsible or involved in this breach.

RUSSIAN BLACK HATS, MY ASS!

As far as I know, none of the mainstream or alternative news articles have connected these dots. Ditto for the blogs.

——————

Regarding the substance of debate, McIntyre and his collaborators have had a fair scientific hearing for *all* of their objections and criticism about data and models. This came in 2006 with a Congressionally-initiated National Academies of Science Panel. Here is McIntyre’s submission: http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf (very detailed, thorough, and substantive), and here is the NAS conclusion report (free download): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

————-

Postscript: I now believe that the frequency of ideology-based security/privacy attacks will be increasing dramatically in the coming years, even for organizations who don’t know that they are in the activist’s “cross-hairs”. These may be combination of insider/outsider attacks, and also involve social networks.

I found some key “dots” that cry out for “connecting”:

1. There was a previous data breach/leak in July 2009 or before. It appears that just one person was the recipient of the stolen data: Stephen McIntyre, who says he got them anonymously. The breach was due to an insider (“mole”) in the UK. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6634 (esp. comment #3)

(McIntyre is a skeptic of human-caused Global Warming, not a denier. He focuses on problems/weaknesses he sees in the data and methods.)

2. McIntyre has been in a long-running battle with the UEA HCC/CRU over access to their data, their “code” (data analysis software), and even their emails http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3234. Here’s McIntyre’s philosophy and goals in this quest: http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 . Here’s a short summary of the conflict, published just a day before the recent breach hit the wires: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html

3. McIntyre was actively monitoring defensive actions by UEA HCC/CRU over the summer, including “massive data purges”: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673 (Is “Climate Audit reader Super-Grover” an insider, given the comment “worse than we expected”??).

4. McIntyre has just recently been denied in his appeal of the rejection of his most recent FOI. http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/

Putting these together, plus imminent start of the Copenhagen Climate Summit…

… it doesn’t take a detective genuis to see that the current data breach/theft/leak is probably just a continuation of this on-going war between these parties. It’s also likely that the same “mole” is also responsible or involved in this breach.

RUSSIAN BLACK HATS, MY ASS!

As far as I know, none of the mainstream or alternative news articles have connected these dots. Ditto for the blogs.

——————

Plenty of bloggers, including McIntyre, have suggested that the hacker/leaker would be protected by UK whistleblower laws. Given the rejection of the FOI request, and denial of appeal, that seems extremely unlikely because this leak is just an end-run around the FOI rejection. Others have suggested that this is a justifiable political act, like the leak of the Pentagon Papers. Time will tell…

——————

Regarding the substance of debate, McIntyre and his collaborators have had a fair scientific hearing for *all* of their objections and criticism about data and models. This came in 2006 with a Congressionally-initiated National Academies of Science Panel. Here is McIntyre’s submission: http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf (very detailed, thorough, and substantive), and here is the NAS report (free download with registration): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

————-

Another takeaway message: I now believe that the frequency of ideology-based security/privacy attacks (a.k.a. “hacktivism“) will be increasing dramatically in the coming years, even for organizations who don’t know that they are in the activist’s “cross-hairs”. These may be combination of insider/outsider attacks, and also involve social networks. (Longer articles/reports on hacktivism are here, here, here, and here.)

This goes to an underlying problem that has not been resolved in the overlap between scientific circles and the broader public discourse: Agenda-driven factions are able to effectively filibuster reality-based action.

Standards need to be set such that claims advanced by individuals or groups with a demonstrated *systemic* track record of intellectually dishonest behavior (fact-denial, truth-distortion, opinion/fact conflation, etc.) needn’t be taken seriously on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, the veracity of the emails should be investigated. But so should the implications of them if they are genuine. It would be unacceptable to simply unquestioningly accept cherry-picked conclusions about an entire field of research based on the actions of a few individuals.