Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I find this shocking:

I find this shocking:

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
26 Posts 15 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

    @TerryHancock

    What they published was the only camera that was working and that survived this little data purge I think?

    And it just so happens to be an angle where you can't see the door and can't prove that no one went to that cell.

    OK. Cool. This is fine.

    terryhancock@realsocial.lifeT This user is from outside of this forum
    terryhancock@realsocial.lifeT This user is from outside of this forum
    terryhancock@realsocial.life
    wrote last edited by
    #15

    @futurebird

    Okay, I can see that much. πŸ€”

    I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?

    I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.

    And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.

    Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.

    So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation? πŸ€”

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • mhoye@cosocial.caM mhoye@cosocial.ca

      @futurebird so, uh

      That reads like "one drive in a raid set failed" - as in, one of the drives that things are simultaneously recorded to". In that scenario, "installing new hard drives" means the system reboots and formats the new drives, which absolutely makes sense.... kinda?

      It doesn't explain what happened to the other drives.

      nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
      nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
      nobody@mastodon.acm.org
      wrote last edited by
      #16

      @mhoye
      Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
      @futurebird

      admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.comA 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • waitworry@sakurajima.moeW waitworry@sakurajima.moe

        @futurebird there are so many things wrong with this whole thing it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things we should be mad about

        futurebird@sauropods.winF This user is from outside of this forum
        futurebird@sauropods.winF This user is from outside of this forum
        futurebird@sauropods.win
        wrote last edited by
        #17

        @waitworry

        I don't want to believe in a conspiracy theory. 😞

        But I can't rule it out, sorry. 😞

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

          @goaty

          The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.

          The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.

          Look at this sketchy article:

          Link Preview Image
          Jeffrey Epstein: Charges dropped against prison guards who falsified records

          The pair admitted falsifying records to show they had monitored Epstein on the night of his death.

          favicon

          (www.bbc.com)

          Come on. Come on man.

          goaty@meow.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
          goaty@meow.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
          goaty@meow.social
          wrote last edited by
          #18

          @futurebird yeah. yeah.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

            I find this shocking:

            In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.

            ...

            OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.

            This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.

            Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?

            Link Preview ImageLink Preview Image
            nazokiyoubinbou@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
            nazokiyoubinbou@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
            nazokiyoubinbou@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #19

            @futurebird To me this reads less like "he knew there would be something on there" and more like "didn't care or wanted to remove anything without really checking."

            I'm of the mind that no actual literal assassination took place, but that the people involved were fans of Trump and choosing to take someone who was in a position to be suicidal (and had already shown such tendencies) off of suicide watch was kind of just sort of *hoping* that the inevitable would happen.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

              Maybe I'm just reading this incorrectly.

              Why would they delete the footage?

              lienrag@mastodon.tedomum.netL This user is from outside of this forum
              lienrag@mastodon.tedomum.netL This user is from outside of this forum
              lienrag@mastodon.tedomum.net
              wrote last edited by
              #20

              @futurebird

              I certainly don't want to exclude foul play but as a system technician I can assure you that this could be just lazy incompetence ("not deleting the files would mean a bit of additional work so why would I bother ?").

              Of course, acting like you're lazy is a good way to disguise a cover-up...

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                I find this shocking:

                In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.

                ...

                OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.

                This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.

                Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?

                Link Preview ImageLink Preview Image
                D This user is from outside of this forum
                D This user is from outside of this forum
                drorbedrack@mastodon.social
                wrote last edited by
                #21

                @futurebird It's a bit confusing. It seems the system was badly maintained and failing for some time before Epstein's death,
                and that repairing it would destroy the saved footage. But it's not clear from this what was on it before the repair and if they copied it out first.
                I remember a Coffeezila video showing the limited video angle from outside of the cell, and that there were 2 minutes missing.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • terryhancock@realsocial.lifeT terryhancock@realsocial.life

                  @futurebird

                  Okay, I can see that much. πŸ€”

                  I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?

                  I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.

                  And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.

                  Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.

                  So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation? πŸ€”

                  D This user is from outside of this forum
                  D This user is from outside of this forum
                  drorbedrack@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #22

                  @TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"

                  futurebird@sauropods.winF 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • D drorbedrack@mastodon.social

                    @TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"

                    futurebird@sauropods.winF This user is from outside of this forum
                    futurebird@sauropods.winF This user is from outside of this forum
                    futurebird@sauropods.win
                    wrote last edited by
                    #23

                    @DrorBedrack @TerryHancock

                    This makes more sense.

                    The system might have a way to browse files from drives that were plugged in. "Pull" the drive and it's "gone"

                    It's not clear where the "pulled" drive went.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN nobody@mastodon.acm.org

                      @mhoye
                      Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
                      @futurebird

                      admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.comA This user is from outside of this forum
                      admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.comA This user is from outside of this forum
                      admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.com
                      wrote last edited by
                      #24

                      @nobody @mhoye @futurebird Maybe if there wasn't enough data to rebuild? Like if it's a three drive array, you could lose one and rebuild the data, but lose two out of three and there's no way to recover that (assuming it's not RAID1). You might still be able to use forensic tools to recover some partial data but not complete files so the DVR would just wipe it out and start over.

                      RAID3 or RAID5 would work that way I think...wiki also says RAID3 is "suitable for applications that demand the highest transfer rates in long sequential reads and writes, for example uncompressed video editing." And RAID5 "requires that all drives but one be present to operate." So that seems to fit.

                      Although that would require one of those two bad drives to have failed after the incident for it to have actually recorded anything during it. And it says only one drive was working at the time of the incident. So it might not have had any useful data for that anyway.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                        @goaty

                        The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.

                        For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.

                        Someone must know something.

                        hi_cial@donphan.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                        hi_cial@donphan.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                        hi_cial@donphan.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #25

                        @futurebird @goaty someone also probably got a lot of money to keep their mouth shut with the insurance of a death threat. til trump dies they wont come forward.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                          I find this shocking:

                          In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.

                          ...

                          OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.

                          This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.

                          Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?

                          Link Preview ImageLink Preview Image
                          _l1vy_@mstdn.social_ This user is from outside of this forum
                          _l1vy_@mstdn.social_ This user is from outside of this forum
                          _l1vy_@mstdn.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #26

                          @futurebird Pretty sure we did at the time and it was simply glossed over unsatisfactorily. πŸ€·πŸ»β€β™€οΈ

                          Real conspiracies are almost always in the favor of the rich and powerful, whereas conspiracy "theories" involve machinations of someone marginalized or powerless.

                          I don't find it at all far-fetched that a witness against scores and scores of the most rich and powerful people in the world, would be eliminated by them.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups