PSYOPS against Venezuela ?

[DC]

When im wrong i normaly have no problem with it.
you seem to have far more troubles with it.

but anyway.

What is the evidence?

 

[funk de fino]

When im wrong i normaly have no problem with it.
you seem to have far more troubles with it.

I have shown you to be wrong numerous times in this thread and you will not admit it.

If I am wrong I will admit it. Show me what I got wrong in this thread.

but anyway.

What is the evidence?

Ask Uribe or Interpol. I am not interested, I just wanted to show you were making false claims again.

 

[DC]

btw, didnt you claim the Colombian authorites did make Images?
they didnt, the Interpol did that.

can you admit to be wrong?

 

[DC]

I have shown you to be wrong numerous times in this thread and you will not admit it.

If I am wrong I will admit it. Show me what I got wrong in this thread.



Ask Uribe or Interpol. I am not interested, I just wanted to show you were making false claims again.

would you really read the report you would know that asking Interpol will not help, as they did not take a look at the evidence. they just checked if the data was doctored. but the experts didnt even understand spanish and the alleged evidence was in spanish

 

[funk de fino]

btw, didnt you claim the Colombian authorites did make Images?

I do not know if you are being purposely dense or you are too stubborn to sdmit you are wrong. I have shown you in the report that the Colombian Police made the images after they recieved them from the first responders.

The procedures used by the Colombian Judicial Police for recording, documenting, photographing and labelling, imaging (29) and copying each of the exhibits were found by INTERPOL’s experts to conform to internationally recognized principles for the handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement, thus ensuring that none of the data contained in the seized exhibits had been altered, damaged or destroyed during the handling of the evidence.

It is absolutely clear that the Colombia National Police’s computer forensic experts conformed to the fundamental principle that law enforcement should not, under ordinary circumstances, directly access seized electronic evidence. Instead, law enforcement should make a physical image of the data on the computer hardware in question, using a write-blocking device to avoid having any impact on the operating system files of the computer and to avoid the necessity for a detailed and time-consuming examination of the seized electronic evidence in order to prove that there was no tampering with or effect on the actual content of the user files at the time that direct access occurred.

they didnt, the Interpol did that.

See above

can you admit to be wrong?

Not when it is you who is wrong.

 

[funk de fino]

would you really read the report you would know that asking Interpol will not help, as they did not take a look at the evidence. they just checked if the data was doctored. but the experts didnt even understand spanish and the alleged evidence was in spanish

They have the data. It seems it is you who has not read it. Or if you did, your poor english led you to misunderstand it.

 

[DC]

I do not know if you are being purposely dense or you are too stubborn to sdmit you are wrong. I have shown you in the report that the Colombian Police made the images after they recieved them from the first responders.







See above



Not when it is you who is wrong.

well Interpol said:

Access to the data contained in the eight FARC computer exhibits
between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March
2008 at 11:45 a.m., when they were turned over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos
Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally
recognized principles for handling electronic evidence by law enforcement.

INTERPOL’s computer forensic examination confirmed Colombian law enforcement’s own
admission that access to the data contained in the eight seized FARC computer exhibits
between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March 2008
at 11:45 a.m., when they were handed over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos
Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally recognized
principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement. That is,
instead of taking the time to make write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits before
accessing them, they accessed the exhibits directly.

 

[DC]

They have the data. It seems it is you who has not read it. Or if you did, your poor english led you to misunderstand it.

Interpol said:

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. It is well established that for
law enforcement purposes, factual findings concerning the truth or accuracy of the content of
any item of evidence are made in the context of a judicial process at the national or
international level and/or by a specially appointed commission with jurisdiction over the
matter in dispute.

 

[funk de fino]

well Interpol said:

Are you stupid? This was before it was handed to the Colombian Juidicial police experts. Please improve your english comprehension.

Access to the data contained in the eight FARC computer exhibits
between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March 2008 at 11:45 a.m., when they were turned over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally recognized principles for handling electronic evidence by law enforcement

After that initial mistake by the first responders they said this.

The procedures used by the Colombian Judicial Police for recording, documenting, photographing and labelling, imaging (29) and copying each of the exhibits were found by INTERPOL’s experts to conform to internationally recognized principles for the handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement, thus ensuring that none of the data contained in the seized exhibits had been altered, damaged or destroyed during the handling of the evidence.

And below is an explanation of what happened before they got them. Not after.

INTERPOL’s computer forensic examination confirmed Colombian law enforcement’s own admission that access to the data contained in the eight seized FARC computer exhibits between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March 2008 t 11:45 a.m., when they were handed over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally recognized principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement. That is, instead of taking the time to make write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits before accessing them, they accessed the exhibits directly.

Then they said the below about when they became the property of the experts from the Juidicial dept police

Finding 2a: Access to the data contained in the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police between their receipt at 11:45 a.m. on 3 March 2008 and their handover to INTERPOL’s computer forensic experts on 10 March 2008 conformed to internationally recognized principles for handling electronic evidence by law enforcement.

Plaease keep up, you are just digging yourself in even deeper.

Now admit your mistake.

 

[DC]

Are you stupid? This was before it was handed to the Colombian Juidicial police experts. Please improve your english comprehension.



After that initial mistake by the first responders they said this.



And below is an explanation of what happened before they got them. Not after.



Then they said the below about when they became the property of the experts from the Juidicial dept police



Plaease keep up, you are just digging yourself in even deeper.

Now admit your mistake.

well after they accesed the data directly, they maybe did folow all the things to follow. but they have already accesed the data directly......
that was the point, they did acces the data directly, and this is NOT how evidence is handled normaly, like interpol said.
what they did after that doesnt mather.

 

[funk de fino]

Interpol said:

And pray tell what is that supposed to do to my claim that they have the data?

Nothing, thats what.

Interpol have the data. I said noting about what they can or would use it for.

It quickly became apparent that the IRT could not complete its work during the initial deployment period to Colombia because of the volume and complexity of the data to be examined. The data contained in the eight seized FARC computer exhibits amounted to approximately 609.6 gigabytes, which if converted to full-page text documents would equal 39.5 million pages. It was estimated that the forensic examination would take approximately four to six weeks, with the two experts each independently examining images of four of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits.

So

Given the scale of the task, the INTERPOL Secretary General and the Colombian authorities agreed that the computer forensic experts would continue with the actual forensic examination in their usual workplaces in Southeast Asia. This decision added to the complexity of INTERPOL’s work. Firstly, the Secretary General had to secure the agreement of the Commissioners of the Australian Federal Police and the Singapore Police Force to extend the secondment of both experts for the period necessary to complete their work. Secondly, agreement had to be obtained from the competent Colombian police and prosecutorial authorities that data classified as “ULTRA SECRETO” could be possessed by non-Colombian law enforcement officials outside of Colombia. Thirdly, diplomatic and logistical arrangements needed to be made to transport this classified data from Colombia to Southeast Asia.

Interpol took the data outside the country. They have the data.

 

[DC]

INTERPOL’s computer forensic examination confirmed Colombian law enforcement’s own
admission that access to the data contained in the eight seized FARC computer exhibits
between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March 2008
at 11:45 a.m., when they were handed over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos
Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally recognized
principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement. That is,
instead of taking the time to make write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits before
accessing them, they accessed the exhibits directly.

after they violated the normal proces, they folowed the rules.

 

[DC]

And pray tell what is that supposed to do to my claim that they have the data?

Nothing, thats what.

Interpol have the data. I said noting about what they can or would use it for.



So



Interpol took the data outside the country. They have the data.

so Interpol has "evidence" against Chavez supporting FARC, and they do?
Nothing......
Colombia has "evidence" against Chavez supporting FARC and they do?
Nothing......

they have no evidence at all

 

[funk de fino]

well after they accesed the data directly, they maybe did folow all the things to follow. but they have already accesed the data directly......
that was the point, they did acces the data directly, and this is NOT how evidence is handled normaly, like interpol said.
what they did after that doesnt mather.

You are a liar. The point was that you said they did not make images. They did and it clearly states it in your own link. Admit you were wrong.

No-one is denying that previous to this the computers were accessed. This does not mean that the evidence is not accepted in court. Another claim you got wrong.

Interpol admit the problems and so do the Colombians. This is a common problem which is why Interpol said they had made recommendations for more training. It is something that is not well known.

Those goalposts will fall apart if you keep shaking them about mate.

 

[DC]

You are a liar. The point was that you said they did not make images. They did and it clearly states it in your own link. Admit you were wrong.

No-one is denying that previous to this the computers were accessed. This does not mean that the evidence is not accepted in court. Another claim you got wrong.

Interpol admit the problems and so do the Colombians. This is a common problem which is why Interpol said they had made recommendations for more training. It is something that is not well known.

Those goalposts will fall apart if you keep shaking them about mate.

its to late after

That is,
instead of taking the time to make write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits before
accessing them, they accessed the exhibits directly.

 

[funk de fino]

after they violated the normal proces, they folowed the rules.

And you falsely claimed they had not. The initial team did not follow the process the Colombian juidicial police did. You dont think it was them who raided the camp do you?

Stop dancing sunshine. You made a false claim

 

[funk de fino]

so Interpol has "evidence" against Chavez supporting FARC, and they do?

No, they have data from the PC.

Nothing......

They cannot do anything

Colombia has "evidence" against Chavez supporting FARC and they do?
Nothing......

So?

they have no evidence at all

They have data. I have claimed nothing more.

 

[funk de fino]

its to late after

That is,
instead of taking the time to make write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits before
accessing them, they accessed the exhibits directly.

You were wrong, the first responders could not even make images, they did not have the software. This happens all the time. The whole point Interpol, was making was that this should be better communicated in future so that it does not happen again. Whatever the data said it had not been modified or added according to Interpol.

When a padeophile puts his PC into a repair shop and the shop technician boots it up and looks at it and sees child porn does this mean that the evidence on the PC is no good in court?

No. It does not. Ask Gary Glitter.

You have hilarioulsy given us a source that you did not read fully and did not understand that has proved you wrong. Best laugh today. All you had to do was admit you made a couple of silly mistakes and incorrect claims and it would have been left to the others to argue the toss about the evidence. Insetad you just dug a bigger hole for yourself

 

[DC]

btw, ehre does the report say that the Colombian authority made ghost images of the data?
cant find it in the report.

 

[DC]

You were wrong, the first responders could not even make images, they did not have the software. This happens all the time. The whole point Interpol, was making was that this should be better communicated in future so that it does not happen again. Whatever the data said it had not been modified or added according to Interpol.

When a padeophile puts his PC into a repair shop and the shop technician boots it up and looks at it and sees child porn does this mean that the evidence on the PC is no good in court?

No. It does not. Ask Gary Glitter.

You have hilarioulsy given us a source that you did not read fully and did not understand that has proved you wrong. Best laugh today. All you had to do was admit you made a couple of silly mistakes and incorrect claims and it would have been left to the others to argue the toss about the evidence. Insetad you just dug a bigger hole for yourself

lol when a cop finds a murder waepin, but he has no gloves to take them, will he just take them with his naked hands?

why do the colombians do that?

when they dont have the software, they should not acces the evidence, or it will be worthless infront of a court.