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.
sceptical says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
====
Ethical and climate science do not belong in the same sentence.
I too would like to see some evidence for an external attack. As a professional in the area, I find that rather implausible, and consider an “inside man” job a much more likely scenario.
As for “sophisticated”, well, it’s usually not necessary to be awfully sophisticated to get into a University file server. Sorry, but it just isn’t. Too many tenured idiots complaining about “difficulty of access” to their ultra-important data sets and whatnot.
Computer security is a balancing act at the bet of times, and University environments tend to have lots of big thumbs on one pan.
temp says: “Will be interesting to see if any real facts come out.”
The facts have been carefully buried. What do you think they spent those three years doing?
I wouldn’t call the cops “impotent”.
I go with incompetent and complicit.
There is none so blind as he who will not see, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear!
The first part is probably a mindless first-pass guess on your part and can be forgiven; the second part however is either willful ignorance or stupidity since the “e-mails” are available for inspection, and since there is no cure for stupidity if that is the reason you can be forgiven for that as well …
.
Because the information was distributed via foreign Internet servers, they assume the acquisition of the information was done from outside the CRU via the Internet. Is that about it? As I recall, there was a hard drive involved that contained the emails and was part of the McKitrick FOI request. If correct, there would have been no trace of activity on the Internet indicating access to the internal servers from the outside. It could have been a simple copy of the hard drive used to distribute the information from an outside access to the Internet. The investigations were looking for something that wasn’t there.
“Bring on Climategate 3.”
I think it is a safe bet that something is coming soon. I’ll bet whoever is behind it is waiting for something profound to be put out by the Hockey Team or its supporters.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone NOT working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.
Conclusion: The Norfolk Constabulary is utterly unprepared to deal with such events.
It’s like the Higgs Boson; they are slowly narrowing down the range, where that rascally hacker could be hiding. S/he is now believed to be somewhere between 170 deg West and 170 degrees East; so far they have managed to eliminate that large area around the dateline, where New Zealand can often be found, when they bother to draw whole maps.
Any guesses on when another release of the emails will be? My guess. October 2012.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
Truly a semantic delight.
If someone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved would it be a crime? Is the copying and release of e-mails that should be subject to FOI by someone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia a crime?
Is there any evidence to suggest that everyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was NOT involved in the release of the information? (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)
I look forward to seeing their evidence that the aquisition of the files was “…carried out remotely via the internet”.
@ur momisugly nuclearcannoli: +1!
Firstly they 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” which means one thing: they have proof (apparently) that this was a hack, and not an inside “whistle blower” job.
But then they say: “The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries” which suggests they probably don’t have much evidence of anything at all.
So I agree with nuclearcannoli 100%: we need to ask specifically what this “evidence” is. I somehow suspect that police investigations will fall outside of the remit of the FOIA. This investigation is clearly firmly in the pocket of the establishment running the show. More whitewash bullshit. (Mods: Pardon my French, but it has to be said.)
We can’t think of another explanation, ergo, IT MUST BE CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels!
We have no evidence, ergo, it’s a HACK!
See how easy forensic science is when it copies the rule of climate science?
😉
Does this mean that the police-held hard drive will soon be again available for FOI searches?
Did Tallbloke ever get his equipment returned?
The Government has cut their budget. They can’t afford to investigate trivia.
sceptical says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
This stands in stark contrast to those who unlawfully steal and misquote emails.
Since when is publishing an e-mail chain in its entirety, unedited and without commentary, misquoting those e-mails — particularly since Phil Jones confirmed the several chains as authentic?
Well, whomever hacked, released or disseminated the database should get a freedom medal for exposing the rot and corruption in the climate change community.
We don’t even know if they asked anyone at UEA, and we don’t know if they even looked for traces of internal actions.
I think it’s telling that their report didn’t state that any of the “…detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field…” were directed at anyone associated with the University of East Anglia.
There are ways of making it nearly impossible unless you happen to catch the traffic happening in real time, and there are ways of even making that less useful.
“The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.”
They must have used 7 proxies then.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/good-luck-im-behind-7-proxies
Ha!… Computers and network security are part of what I do for a living.
I am very convinced that the format, location and content of the files as well as the way the files were made public make it extremely unlikely that this was a “hacking” incident, “…carried out remotely via the internet”. Sorry… I didn’t buy it then… I buy it even less now.
sceptical says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
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.
===============================================================
We know that “the powers that were” at Penn State were willing to cover for a serial pedophile to protect the Univerity’s reputation. Those same authorities were the ones who investigated Mann.
Now what were you saying about “investigations have shown the scientists to abide by the highest ethical standards”? What were the ethical standards of the investigators?
Does that time bar free the “perpetrator” from prosecution I wonder? This story could have a long, long way to run.