It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
BI director James Comey has had a rough week or so: First he was accused of rigging the election for Donald Trump when he revealed on October 28 that the FBI was investigating new emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and now he’s accused of rigging it against Trump by revealing today that none of those new emails contained anything that would result in criminal charges. But to hear the Trump campaign tell it, that week sounds even harder for Comey: They seem to imagine that the FBI director spent the intervening days poring over those hundreds of thousands of emails himself, one by one.
“You can’t review 650,000 emails in eight days,” Trump said Sunday in a campaign speech in Michigan hours after Comey’s latest update to Congress came out. “You can’t do it, folks. Hillary Clinton is guilty.” Trump supporter General Michael Flynn did the math on Twitter:
But fortunately for Comey’s eyesight—and for Clinton’s presidential campaign—Trump is wrong: the FBI can review hundreds of thousands of emails in a week, using automated search and filtering tools rather than Flynn’s absurd notion of Comey reading the documents manually. “This is not rocket science,” says Jonathan Zdziarski, a forensics expert who’s consulted for law enforcement and worked as a systems administrator. “Eight days is more than enough time to pull this off in a responsible way.”
One former FBI forensics expert even tells WIRED he’s personally assessed far larger collections of data, far faster. “You can triage a dataset like this in a much shorter amount of time,” says the former agent, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid any political backlash. “We’d routinely collect terabytes of data in a search. I’d know what was important before I left the guy’s house.
In this case in particular, forensics experts say, investigators’ jobs might even be particularly easy: Because the new collection of emails under investigation were taken from the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton Aide Huma Abedin, only a portion of those emails would be messages sent to or from Clinton or anyone else on the campaign rather than those sent to or from Weiner’s contacts. Simple filtering by “to:” or “from:” could cut out hundreds of thousands of messages.
Next, the agents could filter out duplicate emails from those they’d already analyzed in their months-long investigation earlier this year. According to multiple media reports, the vast majority of emails the FBI examined over the last week were, in fact, duplicates. Those copies could be spotted by their message ID, points out Zdziarski, a unique alphanumeric identifier for each email. Or if any duplicate messages somehow had different message IDs—say, because they had been copied into replies or forwarded—the FBI agents could use a forensics tool like Encase or AccessData Forensics Tool Kit to make cryptographic “hashes” of full messages or chunks of them. That hashing process converts portions of text into shorter character strings that uniquely represent the text: running a hash function on that same text will always produce the same short string of characters, but any tiny change in the text produces a different hash string. And that allows a program to quickly compare and match text samples.
Where they searching for child porn, or were they searching for corruption.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ATSAlex
And Santa can deliver toys to all the children in the world in one night...
If you were the FBI director would you be done too?
The option is ruining the election for the Clintons, some say they are sore losers.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cygnis
But it is pretty trivial to filter messages to and from a particular email server. Which is what the investigation is/was about.
You'll have to ask Comey about that. It would seem that he thinks not.
Hillary didn't have a .gov address her whole time as Sec. of State. I do believe that was a violation of NARA, which is part of Federal law, unless I am mistaken?
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Cygnis
That's why it would be interesting to now what phrases and words the looked for.