FAQs: INTERPOL and the laptops
I finally had time to go through INTERPOL’s report on the FARC laptops. Although the entire document is 102 pages, the meat of it is only the first 39 pages, and is followed by appendices with photos of the laptops, thumb drives, copies of letters requesting INTERPOL’s help, etc.
Given all the questions floating around, I thought I would do a list of FAQs based on the report.
Did the Colombian government tamper with the files?
No. Much has been made about the fact that the Colombian government “did not conform to internationally recognized principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement.” All this means, however, is that they accessed the data directly and did not make “write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits” (p. 8).
Further, “INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities” (p. 33).
Did INTERPOL verify the authenticity of the documents?
No. “The verification of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by INTERPOL does not imply the validation of the accuracy of the user files, the validation of any country’s interpretation of the user files or the validation of the source of the user files” (p. 9).
This will definitely be the central point for those who argue that the documents are fake or doctored, and were created by the Colombian and/or
As Adam Isacson points out in a good post, even authentic documents reflect the biases, goals, etc. of the writers, which may not make for reliable versions of events. It depends on the document in question.
Why do some documents have a time stamp of 2009?
“Based on analysis of the characteristics of these files, INTERPOL’s experts concluded that these files were originally created prior to 1 March 2008 on a device or devices with incorrect system time settings. The appearance of these files on exhibits 30 and 31 indicates that they were either created while the exhibits were connected to a device with incorrect system time settings or the files were later transferred – after their initial creation – to exhibits 30 and 31 and the 2009 timestamps were transferred with the files” (p. 33).
What does that mean for understanding when certain documents were created?
“Based on the above, INTERPOL’s experts concluded that Colombian authorities should not rely on the time stamping of the files with future dates in these three exhibits (28, 30 and 31)” (p. 34).
So no one knows when those particular documents were created, and in general it calls into question the ability to create precise timelines with any of the documents.
Where did the analysis take place and who did it?
The actual analysis of the data took place in Southeast Asia and was conducted by technicians from
How much data is there?
“In non-technical terms, the volume of 609.6 gigabytes of data would correspond to 39.5 million filled pages in Microsoft Word and, if all of the seized data were in Word format, it would take more than 1,000 years to read it all, at a rate of 100 pages per day.” (p. 26). Quite a few, though, are just normal things anyone has on their computer (e.g. Microsoft Office programs).
13 comments:
As Adam Isacson points out in a good post, even authentic documents reflect the biases, goals, etc. of the writers, which may not make for reliable versions of events.
That's a key point that I've made to many people (and wrote about here). These documents aren't doctored and are from the FARC. However, that means they reflect the FARC's vision of the world.
It takes a certain level of insanity to live in the jungle for 40 years, make millions from drug trafficking and still believe in fighting a losing revolution.
The FARC may believe they will receive arms and money from Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution, but the FARC also believe they are going to overthrow the Colombian government and install Communism. We know the second shows they live partially in a fantasy world, so it's possible the first part is the same.
One key with these documents is corroboration with other sources, which has happened with some of the photos.
Much has been made about the fact that the Colombian government “did not conform to internationally recognized principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement.”
Really, Greg? From what I've seen in U.S. media, nobody has brought up this point at all. To say that "much has been made" of it is highly misleading. The obvious fact of the matter is that major media are tripping over themselves to draw the most insidious picture they can muster on the basis of very questionable "evidence." They're not gonna let a few little inconvenient details get in the way of the project at hand.
"From what I've seen in U.S. media, nobody has brought up this point at all. To say that "much has been made" of it is highly misleading."
No it's not. Greg didn't say specifically who was kicking up such a fuss. I'm guessing he meant pathetic Chavista jagoffs like yourself.
You know that, when Paul is on your side, there's something wrong.
To say that a few leftists like myself have attempted to make an issue of improper handling of the laptops is vastly, vastly different than to say that "much has been made" of such improper handling. Apparently Greg has forgotten which country he lives in. In this country, the left can't make "much" of anything because (1) the left is very small and (2) it has virtually no access to major media.
The only people in this country who are in a position to make "much" of their selectively-chosen interpretations are those who serve the interests of the powerful. Leftists can't make "much" of anything in America.
Arrogant
"In this country, the left can't make "much" of anything because (1) the left is very small and (2) it has virtually no access to major media."
Crazy talk but whatever. Justin is obviously upset the world isn't beating a path to the doors of the Dorm Room Revolutionary.
Arrogant
Why? Because I point out the obvious fact that Greg doesn't know his own country's political culture from his asshole?
Call me "arrogant," then. What matters is that I'm right.
The issue of the "mishandling" of the equipment was explained in the report.
1. Proper procedures for handling the computer hardware does not involve simply backing up the data as some have suggested. It involves using highly specialized equipment to take “write-protected images " of the content of the drives. One police branch in Colombia has it in Bogota.
2. Colombia claimed "unusual" and "exigent" circumstances led to the time delay and the data being accessed by an intelligence officer. That means they went through the files, possibly made backups.
3. Exigent and unusual circumstances can mean:
i. The reasonable possibility of the laptops carrying time-sensitive information on impending FARC attacks, upcoming arms or drug transactions, movement and location of hostages, movment or location of senior FARC commanders.
ii. The fact the laptops were found in a remote jungle area and equipment was not accesible.
4. the fact that no files were modified or created in those two days, adds weight to Colombia's contention
3. Exigent and unusual circumstances can mean:
i. The reasonable possibility of the laptops carrying time-sensitive information on impending FARC attacks, upcoming arms or drug transactions, movement and location of hostages, movment or location of senior FARC commanders.
Let me put "exigent and unusual circumstances" into plain English for you, Boli Boy.
They needed to launch a propaganda war against Ecuador and Venezuela. That's what was "exigent" to them.
Let me put "exigent and unusual circumstances" into plain English for you, Boli Boy.
They needed to launch a propaganda war against Ecuador and Venezuela. That's what was "exigent" to them.
Wow, you really are clueless.
In plain english genius:
It means you kill a top Communist guerrilla, the biggest fish nailed in decades. Find computers. You open them immediately because of the chance you get info on location of Betancourt or other 700 hostages. Or find that the terrorists were going to bomb a target, kill a government target, or launch a raid on a village. Or something might giveaway where Tirofijo or Mono Jojoy are, or locations of units.
See, the legitimate and elected Colombian government has the right to take such actions, and is right to do so. Because it is fighting against 10,000 or so Communist-guerrilla scum who want to illegally destabilize and overthrow the government and install Marxist-Leninist tyranny, making them the worst armed threat to Colombian democracy.
See, the legitimate and elected Colombian government has the right to take such actions
Uh, actually, the Colombian government had no right to bomb and invade Ecuadorian territory, and the Organization of American States (OAS) said as much.
The Colombian government certainly has the right to combat the FARC, but it (and its allies) would have no right in any real democracy to murder trade unionists with impunity, to stifle independent journalism, etc. etc.
Alvaro Uribe is the furthest thing from a democrat that we have in South America today.
No, you are arrogant because you exaggerate your own worth in an overbearing way.
By the way, you are also wrong
Post a Comment