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.”
Sadly for our information liberator there is no statute of limitations in the UK.
got the sense from the getgo that the Norfolk Constabulary would just rather it all would go away. Calling in the counter terrorism command, the national domestic terrorism team and the e-Crime people got it off their blotter. Impounding Tallbloke’s computers for a time made it look to their political masters like something was being done. They could probably blame that on e-Crimes. It all served nicely to run out the time limitations so it does in fact, go away.
It’s out of their hair with a minimum of political fallout. Aside from inconveniencing Tallbloke, which wasn’t very nice, I can’t say I blame them.
There was never a chance of this getting anywhere near a court of law. Evidence given under a sworn oath, with severe penalties for perjury?
No way would they risk that, because that would mean game over for the global warming scam.
This lack of prosecution, or even any confirmation of what they did manage to find, is about as damning as it gets, to the veracity of the “evidence” provided by the high priests of AGW.
Yes….November 2012…. a time to look forward to Climategate 3. …..bring it on!
What this means is that if the “hackers” were remotely based, they had effectively free access to the CRU and UEA computer system and could wander where they felt like. That kind of data mass is not simply grabbed. Organizing it alone would have taken some serious work time. Looking at the first release, since it included practically up to the moment emails, it sounds more like absence of evidence than evidence of absence regarding insiders, continuous accumulation and organization of the data, right up to the moment of release.
They had the assistance of the Met Counter Terrorism Command? Really? E-mail is now a WMD?
It has been concluded by Norfolk Constabulary, in consultation with The Met, that due to outstanding enquiries this is now an unrealistic prospect.
“… due to outstanding enquiries …”: Is this the key phrase? That there have been requests for critical information that has not been provided, and will in not be provided (in the time-frame at least) that allow the investigation to go forward?
If UEA is not providing the required responses, then the investigation would be dead, wouldn’t it? As in “the victims are not cooperating with the police”.
Cross-commented from Bishop Hill:
Consider this:
If the police/bug hunters had identified someone within
the UK or the Commonwealth as being responsible for the initial Climategate
“release” that November:
Then they would have to use that sequested server and its contents in evidence
… and the defence would have to be given access to it.
No criminal = no defendent = no e-mails submitted as evidence (and
therefore none open to public scrutiny) .
Besides, “closed” cases can always be reopened depending on information
or political pressure received.
What is the “statute limit” you refer to ? The UK is not (yet) part of the US so there isn’t one – there is for FOI breaches but that is due to Blair being an idiot.
I wonder if the Norfolk Constabulary are aware that they are not just a local joke, but an international joke. If I’m ever in that area I will be sure to keep a firm grip on my wallet and property, since there appears to be no effective policing whatsoever.
After the last three days of runaround with various government authorities on a different criminal matter, all I have to say is I have yet to find a government official who could find his own A$$ with both hands unless there was a payoff involved.
WHO needs to send out an emergency Epidemic and Pandemic Alert It would seem we have a world wide epidemic of this problem in the public sector.
John Broder, at the NY Times, at least uses the term “Climate change doubters”. He incorrectly states “The police put to rest speculation that the release was the work of a mischievous or disgruntled insider at the university’s Climatic Research Unit.” whereas in truth they stated “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.” (If they had had such evidence, they would have been an eventual arrest, I suppose).
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/climate-center-hacking-investigation-closed-with-mystery-unsolved/
AnonyMoose says:
July 18, 2012 at 11:20 am
>> Does this mean that the police-held hard drive will soon be again available for FOI searches?
Ah! My very first thought on reading this. UEA got out of releasing thier records on the technicality that they did not “possess” the said documents because the police had impounded the computer.
Now the police have decided to officially close the investigation, they will be returning the property to its rightful, legal owner. That means UEA will, once again, be “in possession” of the documents and will have no further grounds not to produce them.
A new FOIA request to UEA would seem to be in order, just in case they have forgotten the previous request and lest they should (ahem) lose the disk or something silly.
As for Norfolk Constabulary, thier silence over the past two years has pretty clearly been spent watching the clock tick on this one. You can bet if the perps were four young muslims they would have had no difficulty in finding where the “attack” came from.
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.
———————————————-
I suggest you read the emails themselves instead of taking the word from someone who has a conflict of interest.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
There is *obvious* misconduct from the “scientists” in which they game the peer review process, and incite the firing of a magazine editor who didn’t sufficiently toe the alarmist party line. etc.
“Not “data files”, but the email server. Totally different thing.”
Actually, it looks to me like the files came from the server used as a repository for backups of the mail server and other computers which is why many of the actual data files are available. Someone apparently swiped the files that were deposited on a different system in the course of some regularly scheduled backups.
The investigation never determined there was a crime committed.
Here’s the scenario we’re supposed to believe: One or more hackers illegally broke into the UAE systems, compiled all those emails and then left a file on an open FTP site on one of the UAE servers.
Sure, sounds really plausible.
Mickey Reno says:
“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!”
My thought exactly.
Similarly, I’d like to know who “Harryreadme” is. I want to send him flowers. Or a box of chocolates. Or a big freakin’ solid gold medal!
So . . . a government agency reports a crime. ( I am presuming that EAU qualifies as governmental, since they are subject to ‘FOI’ requests.
The constabulary begins an investigation but in the end drops it when those in charge of said government agency fail to respond to certain enquiries.
How is that not gross misconduct of a public official? If you are able to make the complaint of a crime, as a public servant, then you are in fact required by law to assist law enforcement in their investigation. That’s not conjecture, that is the law. No public official is allowed to disregard a reasonable request from law enforcement in the conduct of their investigation. The bobbies need to tell us what was not produced.
Something is terribly rotten here. I suspect the cops know this was an inside job, have just about proven as much and are giving up out of frustration with Phil & co. They have, no doubt, conducted a forensic investigation into the file itself. This has certainly brought to their attention the idea that it took someone who knew a lot about the inner workings of EAU quite a while to compile all of emails and data files. And then to redact the email addresses before releasing it? Oh yeah, it’s got the Russian mop written all over it. You know, with their reputation for etiquette and so forth hanging in the balance.
That simple statement in the press release; ‘outstanding enquiries’ about says it all. At some point the citizens need to demand answers instead of one public official protecting another.
It is sad that Scotland Yard would put up with this. They wouldn’t have to.
This is a ridiculous charade – Plod knows more than it’s saying and I strongly suspect that what it isn’t saying is merely to spare some blushes at CRU. Nothing like an apolitical police force, eh? This is the same police force, incidentally, that regularly crows very publicly (all the time) about it’s increasingly ‘sophisticated’ online tech for catching international online child pornographers – but, somehow, they just can’t find a regular hacker…? Really? Pull the other one.
Climategate was, of course, an inside job – a whistleblower, in other words (although I prefer the term ‘hero’). The police won’t tell us that – instead they make themselves look foolish by deciding they’re not up to the job at hand and just close the case file. God forbid the actual facts should ever get into the public domain. Another dreary whitewash. How many is that, now..?
Get the evidence of a sophisticated hack from the Norfolk police…. via a FOIA request?
No chance, they won’t give it to you.
You’ll have to wait for an anonymous insider with access to police files to release the data. This will be against the wishes of the police, but the insider will argue moral principles as justification of his actions.
This event will be called ‘ Police Gate ‘.
Some of the data will be police emails.
e.g.
” I’d rather burn our evidence of a sophisticated attack than go public with it! ”
what are they afraid of? That the public might see it to be a made up travesty?
P. Solar unless say hardware meets a ‘tragic accident’ on its way back to being used by CRU , after all it not been powered on all this time , so its to be ‘expected ‘ that when it is something ‘could go wrong ‘
Of they could just stick in a box with some really strong magnets, which they ‘had no idea where in there too’ , and yes that one has been done before.
They saw nothing. They found nothing. They know nothing.
“‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.”
So, I guess this means that they don’t know what they don’t know. Beautiful!
Noblesse Oblige says:
July 18, 2012 at 10:19 am
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. ….
_________________________
WORSE, If the release was from an insider who was upset about Jones and his evasion of the FOI requests it would become a Whistleblower case and evidence about why the release was done by the Whistleblower would have been very damning for the cause. Therefore it was always best to bury the whole investigation as deep as possible and point fingers towards a nebulous “…sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files….”
I mean come on guys, a hack of Oak Ridge National Laboratory? Sure but CRU, yeah right.
Some how I doubt China gives a hoot about grabbing climate data they are too busy hacking into private computer networks, likely seeking patent and technology information. And I really can not see “organized crime” hacking and releasing e-mails given the European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime Even now Organized crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon credit industry as a potentially lucrative new opportunity for fraud, an Interpol environmental crime official said on Friday.
Big OIl? No way they are FUNDING CRU and have from the first so could get data just for asking. Heck Ged Davis was a VP of Shell, on the IPCC and in e-mail communication with Jones.
That leaves a private skeptical scientist hacker and I really really doubt that.
TinyCO2 says:
July 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Morph says:
July 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm
That’s what I thought. Read the Computer Misuse Act 1990 S11(3).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/11
Three years after the plods learnt of the ‘crime’, FOIA is home free (as long as he/she/they aren’t in Scotland. (The statute of limitations does not, for some reason, apply in Scotland)