Ronan Farrow reports: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Ronan is a smart guy. But he doesn't understand technical issues. There is no way that the leaker or Ronan know the docs were deleted. Just because the leaker can't access them it doesn't mean they are deleted in the system. And the system won't display a message to basically confirm existence of records for obvious security reasons.

Database software has layers of security protection on access control. It uses access control to restrict access. The data will also be stored in multiple places so it's not even possible to delete records from all places. (One of the reasons that you use your own server to store data, is you can delete them permanently).

Database software also has extensive auditing capabilities. His activities (logging in, searching, viewing, printing, etc) were logged. This leaker is probably already caught by the trail he/she left. It is illegal to search the database without authorization. You can't log on to government databases, start searching your neighbors, Michael Cohen from Canada, etc, and send them to NY Times. This leaker is facing serious legal trouble.

Serious Q - Do you have direct knowledge of how the FinCen database works? Seems like Ronan did his homework and due diligence on this story.
Also, couldn't Mnuchin do Trump a solid and pull a report or two?

^^poster here - would seriously like to hear from the poster with the seemingly detailed knowledge of the FinCEN database. You claim that Farrow and media outlets don't understand the underlying technical issues regarding the FinCEN database and the protocols on accessing, searching, deleting and hiding records. What you posted seems to describe fairly generic security protocols for database software that is widely used, even within other government agencies. Isn't this database set up differently?

[Anonymous]

^^ That PP is one of the right-wing IT nerd blowhards. He knows nothing. He’s a Trumpchump and a liar. No more and no less.

[Anonymous]

Slate isn’t any rightwing source.... Avenatti may have a dilemma......

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/why-michael-avenatti-might-be-compelled-to-reveal-his-source.html

If there is a criminal investigation of the leak, Avenatti could be among the first people investigators will look to for information. Therefore, Avenatti may soon find himself to be a witness against his own source.

Avenatti says that he will refuse to name his source. According to Avenatti, journalists don’t have to disclose their sources, and “attorneys don’t have to disclose their sources either” because they are “covered by the work-product doctrine.” Avenatti’s argument, however, has no apparent basis in law.

The Supreme Court has declined to recognize that journalists have a constitutional right to maintain the secrecy of confidential sources, and Congress has not enacted a shield law to provide such protection. Accordingly, journalists can be compelled to name their sources. Furthermore, in past criminal investigations, prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists when they deemed it necessary to identify sources.

In any event, Avenatti does not claim to be a journalist and instead grounds his purported right to shield his source on the attorney work-product doctrine. That doctrine, however, offers no apparent protection for Avenatti here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Ronan is a smart guy. But he doesn't understand technical issues. There is no way that the leaker or Ronan know the docs were deleted. Just because the leaker can't access them it doesn't mean they are deleted in the system. And the system won't display a message to basically confirm existence of records for obvious security reasons.

Database software has layers of security protection on access control. It uses access control to restrict access. The data will also be stored in multiple places so it's not even possible to delete records from all places. (One of the reasons that you use your own server to store data, is you can delete them permanently).

Database software also has extensive auditing capabilities. His activities (logging in, searching, viewing, printing, etc) were logged. This leaker is probably already caught by the trail he/she left. It is illegal to search the database without authorization. You can't log on to government databases, start searching your neighbors, Michael Cohen from Canada, etc, and send them to NY Times. This leaker is facing serious legal trouble.

Serious Q - Do you have direct knowledge of how the FinCen database works? Seems like Ronan did his homework and due diligence on this story.
Also, couldn't Mnuchin do Trump a solid and pull a report or two?

^^poster here - would seriously like to hear from the poster with the seemingly detailed knowledge of the FinCEN database. You claim that Farrow and media outlets don't understand the underlying technical issues regarding the FinCEN database and the protocols on accessing, searching, deleting and hiding records. What you posted seems to describe fairly generic security protocols for database software that is widely used, even within other government agencies. Isn't this database set up differently?

Have you ever used any kind of database or govt database? PP is exactly right -- these records were obviously just restricted from general access, and Mueller already has them. Farrow has done some good reporting but I think this was a stinker. Possibly the leaker was attempting to immunize himself as a whistleblower by trying to claim he had a reasonable belief the law was being broken.

[Anonymous]

DP. Possibly. But I wouldn't assume that a secure government database works the same way as a regular database.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Possibly. But I wouldn't assume that a secure government database works the same way as a regular database.

I would expect a secure database with such sensitive information to be even **more** restrictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slate isn’t any rightwing source.... Avenatti may have a dilemma......

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/why-michael-avenatti-might-be-compelled-to-reveal-his-source.html

If there is a criminal investigation of the leak, Avenatti could be among the first people investigators will look to for information. Therefore, Avenatti may soon find himself to be a witness against his own source.

Avenatti says that he will refuse to name his source. According to Avenatti, journalists don’t have to disclose their sources, and “attorneys don’t have to disclose their sources either” because they are “covered by the work-product doctrine.” Avenatti’s argument, however, has no apparent basis in law.

The Supreme Court has declined to recognize that journalists have a constitutional right to maintain the secrecy of confidential sources, and Congress has not enacted a shield law to provide such protection. Accordingly, journalists can be compelled to name their sources. Furthermore, in past criminal investigations, prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists when they deemed it necessary to identify sources.

In any event, Avenatti does not claim to be a journalist and instead grounds his purported right to shield his source on the attorney work-product doctrine. That doctrine, however, offers no apparent protection for Avenatti here.

http://www.wohlfruchter.com/sites/default/files/doc/wohl-confidential_informants-fordham_j._corp.__fin._l.pdf