Norfolk police hack down inquiry

Posted: July 18, 2012 by tchannon in Blog, government, Incompetence, Legal, media, Politics

h/t Bishop Hill and Steve McIntyre and Leo and …

“Norfolk Police Inquiry at East Anglia Ends
Jul 18, 2012 – 10:36 AM

Andrew Montford reports that the East Anglia police inquiry has closed. The police say that it was a hack, rather than a leak or inadvertent exposure, but did not provide details of why they arrived at that conclusion.”

climateaudit

“Climategate police inquiry closes
Jul 18, 2012
Climate: CRU

This just in from Norfolk Constabulary (H/T Leo H)”

bishop-hill

Given the raid on Tallbloke Towers in relation to the whole thing, hmm…

The link dropped on this blog about what became climategate2 was of course anon, not the faintest clue on who.

What I find far more worrying is government has moved on to yet more nastiness dumping on the people, yet many do not notice and do not comprehend. (in this case must come from horse trading with the Liberal Democrats, actually cloaked Labour/Greens, nor is the original Liberal party any better, no-one represents me, good reason to be livid)

Posted by co-mod.

Comments
  1. Brian H says:

    Fails the sniff test. A clever external criminal hacker who fastidiously deleted all the personal email addresses of the authors? And carefully sorted the files by subject? The bind moggles.

  2. Gray says:

    I presume they’ve checked for Stuxnet…

  3. Michael Hart says:

    It’s also interesting to see what is denied or excluded. They appear confident that it wasn’t an internal source, for reasons not given in detail.

    Of course this allows Richard Black at the BBC to be equally confident that it was theft, and publish another story which appears designed to confuse the ignorant that the affair has some bearing on the credibility of CRU science. The story is headed with a picture of the-you-what-stick!

    Now that they say the investigation is over, it might be a good time for TallBloke to make some inquiries regarding whether the police have a database entry that might have DNA records taken from his computer.

  4. Gixxerboy says:

    Did you get your ‘puters back, Rog?

  5. Roger Longstaff says:

    Apart from getting your computers back, did you get an apology?

  6. tchannon says:

    Rog is not around at the moment.

    Q: Did he get the computers back?
    A: Yes and he remarked in private they were extremely clean. Whoever took they apart and redintegrated seems to have been an expert.

    Q: Was there an apology?
    A: I believe there was something but whether that was plain Rog would need to answer.

    I didn’t get an apology, there were unnecessary side effects.

  7. The Norfolk Constabulary, in a moment of illumined sanity, fully admit that the leaked data contradicts the publicly released data from the CRU, something that has been vehemently denied by other investigations.

    Thank you Norfolk Police for saying the one thing that matters.

  8. Tenuc says:

    The Norfolk police have published a press Q&A document on their web site, link here…

    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation/idoc.ashx?docid=4af74555-e4c6-4984-a351-ff7cd546e366&version=-1

    The document has some surprising stuff in it… 🙂

    “…The nature and sophistication of the attack does not suggest that it was anyone at the UEA…”

    Ha, ha ha, hahahahahah…

  9. ArndB says:

    [ This message is far off thread context and references other web sites, including noconsensus. I am allowing this here.
    co-moderator]

    What the report say seems to be funny than serious:
    __“While we will not be confirming the names of the countries specifically, we can confirm there were a number across the majority of the continents.”
    __” It is obvious that some commercial organisations would have an interest in maintaining their commercial position; similarly there will be economies and governments which have an interest in protecting their position. To be clear, we did not get any indication as to who was responsible.”

    CLIMATEGATE started at “The Air Vent”, in a post titled” “Open Letter On Climate Legislation“ on 13 November 2009 ,
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/. FOIA loaded the hacked data on the 17th November 2009, at 21:57 under Comment 10:
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917 .
    FOR SURE the loading could have come from many countries world wide. But it seems stupid to assume that any one, which had nothing to do with the University of East Anglia, did understood the relevance of the material, and undertook so much efforts to get it done, and to choose §The Air Vent” as sufficient place.
    Actually, the place was a letter to 18 scientific organisation in the USA about a letter they had send to the US Senate on climate lergislation, which reads in the first paragraph:

    ___” Subject: Letter to Senators concerning climate change legislation – 21.Oct.2009
    Dear President or Executive Director,
    How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined. Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO1, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the general public, but nonsense as scientific term. This can be well demonstrated with the most relevant international legal instrument, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (FCCC)”
    __The Letter to the US Senate is here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202/_Open_Letter_Nov.pdf
    __The reply to the letter is here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202/_Open_Letter_Nov.pdf

    That may indicate that the FOIA was foremost an offender by conviction.

  10. ArndB says:

    SORRY; here is the letter of the 18 US scientific institutions to the US Senate on 21 October 2009:
    http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202/_Insitution_Letter_Oct21_to%20Senate.pdf

  11. Aussie says:

    this sounds like there is a cover-up and they do not want to release who was in fact behind the leak. What proof did they have that it was a series of hacks? Bishop Hill’s site does not mention that they provided any such evidence of that hacking, just that there were a series of hacks…. a cover-up?