Bishop Hill has the press release from from Norfolk Constabulary (H/T Leo H)
Norfolk Constabulary has made the decision to formally close its investigation into the hacking of online data from the Climate Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich.
The decision follows a comprehensive investigation by the force’s Major Investigation Team, supported by a number of national specialist services, and is informed by a statutory deadline on criminal proceedings.
While no criminal proceedings will be instigated, the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.
Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Superintendant Julian Gregory, said: “Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.
“The international dimension of investigating the World Wide Web especially has proved extremely challenging.
“However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
The security breach was reported to Norfolk Constabulary on 20 November 2009, following publication of CRU data on the internet from 17 November onwards.
An investigation was launched by the joint Norfolk and Suffolk Major Investigation Team, led by Det Chief Supt Gregory, with some support from the The Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, the National Domestic Extremism Team and the Police Central e-crime Unit, along with consultants in online security and investigation.
The investigation, code-named Operation Cabin, focused on unauthorised access to computer material, an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which has a three year limit on proceedings from the commission of the original offence. It has been concluded by Norfolk Constabulary, in consultation with The Met, that due to outstanding enquiries this is now an unrealistic prospect.
Norfolk Assistant Chief Constable Charlie Hall, Protective Services lead, said: “Online crime is a global issue. While law enforcement agencies continue to develop our response to emerging threats, it falls upon individuals and organisations to be alert to this and and take steps to mitigate risk as far as is practicable.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be nice to see the evidence for a remote hack.
For irony’s sake, I say someone submit a FOIA request for access to the investigation’s records just to see what their evidence is of “a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files”. Quite convenient to say they know it was a horrible, heinous, and sophisticated crime, but not a clue who did it. Plays too easily into the tin foil hat brigade’s tendency to see Big! Oil! behind everything.
Well, I posted this in tips and notes over a half hour ago. Related article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18885500
REPLY: I saw that, and thank you, but I’d already seen Bishop Hills post and the press release…and I try not to cite Richard Black/BBC due to their spin. – Anthony
nuclearcannoli says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:02 am
For irony’s sake, I say someone submit a FOIA request for access to the investigation’s records just to see what their evidence is of “a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files”.
Seconded!
I suspect there isn’t any evidence, and they’ve just given up, uttering something they believe people will swallow.
To bad the investigation into the unlawful hacking will not be completed. Several investigations have been completed as to the scientists and their work involved in this unlawful hacking and these investigations have shown the scientists to abide by the highest ethical standards. This stands in stark contrast to those who unlawfully steal and misquote emails. The distinction is astounding and shows the difference between those involved in scientific inquiry and those who are not.
REPLY: LOL! Investigations? you mean whitewashes conducted without any difficult questions being asked by unbiased investigators, don’t you Mr. Flesch? – Anthony
” I try not to cite Richard Black/BBC due to their spin.”
Absolutely understandable!
Someone from the inside who was smart enough not to get caught could have done it from the outside since they would already know the passwords and security setup.
That way it would look like it was not an inside job. Basically, no one knows who did it. It had to be someone who did not believe the CAGW hard sell AND/OR someone who does not like liars, the politicization of science, and the wanton disregard of FOI requests.
Bring on Climategate 3.
“Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.”
Hmmmmm — three years, with expert support, and they couldn’t track down a hacker? A bud who works for a Three-Letter Organization told me last year the longest it had ever taken him to trace a hack to the originating computer was a week.
Something’s not ringing true in the Official Statement…
Was there any attempt to gather such evidence, or is there no evidence of this because no such evidence was sought?
“This stands in stark contrast to those who unlawfully steal and misquote emails.”
You mean Peter Gleick? 😉
Like your style Big D in TX. I work in media and communications in the UK and I can tell you that the journalistic reputation of the BBC has never been so low in the last 50 years. Richard Black and his editors are an embarrassment to British journalism – even the flagship Today programme on Radio 4 has lost its way on global warming. Simple example: Christopher Monckton is one of the world’s leading authorities on CAGW – and he has never appeared on the BBC and definitely NOT on the Today programme. They would not dare.
“Miracles” don’t leave much evidence.
Agree with others… what proof do they have it was a remote hack and/or wasn’t done by someone inside CRU…
“Technically” they could call someone using a laptop on wireless inside CRU a “remote hack”. Will be interesting to see if any real facts come out.
I would like to hear any of the evidence from which the Norfolk Constabulary are basing their unsupported propaganda claim. Not once in the last three years have they released any information to validate this position or their hunt for a boogeyman. I also second the FOI request. The police should be held accountable for their actions and if they have no evidence then they are derelict in their duties to the public with their irresponsible statements on this case.
A – mazing. There are no lengths to which the truth will be denied. Shame on UK and it’s whole so-called practised investigative processes.
It’s a twap I tell you ! They don’t really know anything, granted, they are just hoping, waiting for that pending release of the password for that last stack of damning emails.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
This is the only positive statement in the whole release. They could find no evidence for an inside source. That could merely mean no one at UEA admitted it, and they could find no traces of unauthorized access at UEA. That allows them to absolve UEA staff.
Then, as they could find no evidence inside UEA, they conclude the culprit was outside the University.
As they could find no evidence of an unauthorized access from outside UEA either, then that must mean the external culprit used v-e-e-r-r-r-y sophisticated methods to get in. Methods so sophisticated, they left no trace.
Hence, they can conclude, “the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack … carried out remotely via the internet”
Short version: We couldn’t find any evidence at all. As no one in the University confessed, we are relieved to note that UEA staff are all innocent (and Phil Jones is a put-upon saint). Therefore, the attacker must have been a malign outsider. One so extremely clever that he left behind no trace of his crime..
It’s perfect grist for the big-oil-right-wing-despoilers conspiracy mill.
The Norfolk result will climb the eNGO proof charts to take its high place with the three inquiries that proved no decline-hiding wrong-doing by Phil Jones & co., and the Penn State inquiry that proved Michael Mann is driven-snow innocent.
Translation: The real origin of the leak is too embarassing. We are droping the investigation and sticking with our cover story.
Jimmy Haigh. says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:21 am
“Bring on Climategate 3.”
=========================
This could well do so!
sceptical, your tongue seems to be lodged firmly in the cheek at the wrong height.
Haaa, Haaaa, Haaa,
Mr. “sceptical” at July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am notes:
“The distinction is astounding and shows the difference between those
involved in scientific inquiry and those who are not.”
Yep, well Mr. Sceptical sure appears to gleick folk!
Defining “gleick” as to lie, deceive, bully, etc, so as to advance a delusional, noble cause, quixotic quests and receive bigger and fatter grants from cronies filling the goberment trough.
♪♫ ♪♫ Have you been gliecked today? ♫♪ ♫♪
LOL in Oregon
As Norfolk plod couldn’t find their arse with both hands, it was always going to be a long-shot that they would turn up anything. As the commission of the act for climategate 1,2 & 3 was done at the same time presumably, I suppose Foia will soon be off the hook for the rest of the e-mails. I’d better get some popcorn in.
There was no desire to identify the culprit(s) for to do so would have resulted in some kind of charges and a likely show trial. This would have reopened all the issues that Climategate revealed, a result that the UK government does not want.
So there never was a chance that the perpetrators would be identified and caught.