I'm saying we do not have any way to verify the details.
Where is the court document?
Isn't this a forensics expert that testified in court? Why aren't they named? Wouldn't most forensics "hackers" be elated to be quoted?
From the article:
> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.
It seems like a strange grey zone to have a hacker that uncovers all the information but will not testify in court, etc. I don't see how this wouldn't introduce chain of custody problems, etc. for the evidence which is why he would ultimately be testifying. Perplexing.
EDIT - Meh, whatever. If you guys want to read articles that have zero proof and believe whatever they say because some anonymous hacker is quoted, etc. go for it. I don't get paid to educate anyone here.
I'm saying we do not have any way to verify the details.
Where is the court document?
Isn't this a forensics expert that testified in court? Why aren't they named? Wouldn't most forensics "hackers" be elated to be quoted?
From the article:
> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.
It seems like a strange grey zone to have a hacker that uncovers all the information but will not testify in court, etc. I don't see how this wouldn't introduce chain of custody problems, etc. for the evidence which is why he would ultimately be testifying. Perplexing.
EDIT - Meh, whatever. If you guys want to read articles that have zero proof and believe whatever they say because some anonymous hacker is quoted, etc. go for it. I don't get paid to educate anyone here.