It probably was him acting alone, and there are many cases of this where the target has been government(s) with all the cyber security precautions that entails. I don’t get the impression that hacking into any City information system was/is all that difficult, and I know of no other major, multi-million pound organisation where people leave their jobs and their log in credentials are not stopped, which is supposedly how Liverpool got in.That must be a possibility. Qatar?
The idea that an impoverished student could afford the software, hardware and running time to pull off one of the biggest hacks of all time and did it all from a back bedroom is just ludicrous.
I think you underestimate how easy it is to break into a companies email system if their is minimal security applied.
Look at the original reports. City was a tiny fraction. Huge, wide ranging hack.It probably was him acting alone, and there are many cases of this where the target has been government(s) with all the cyber security precautions that entails. I don’t get the impression that hacking into any City information system was/is all that difficult, and I know of no other major, multi-million pound organisation where people leave their jobs and their log in credentials are not stopped, which is supposedly how Liverpool got in.
How the fuck does he get away with publishing THATMaybe i posted this on the wrong thread previously, but i guess it relates to both this thread and the Media Thread. I have read and taken on board what so many knowledgeable Blues have had to say. I do not know if this has been said before, but in reading this snippet from this Sweeney character, it brings this back to the forefront of my mind-
Manchester City are football's most despicable club and Pep Guardiola its most despicable manager. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision overturning their Champions League ban doesn't change that.
The decision hardly constitutes a ringing exoneration of City's financial behaviour. While it found that some of the allegations made by UEFA against the club were "not established", it acquitted them on others solely because they fell outside the time limit during which such cases can be dealt with.
I refer to the time limit. In a Criminal Court or Civil Court, certain evidence can be deemed inadmissible for whatever reason, meaning the Defence, Prosecution , Defendant or Claimant cannot rely on certain evidence in Court. A Judge can advise a Jury to disregard certain evidence that may be passed in a Trial. If City have laid down a marker at the Appeal, that certain evidence from UEFA is time barred in the first instance, but City being ready to argue against the veracity of UEFA's time barred evidence, am I correct in assuming that the three Judges, in accepting that certain evidence was time barred, could simply look at what evidence is deemed time barred and therefore not examine or consider it, as there would simply be no point in considering such evidence from a legal point of view, it would be wasting their time.
Such a lack of consideration of any time barred evidence, could well have led to the pretty bland statement from the Court that some of the evidence presented by UEFA was time barred. Have these great minded Journalists considered the point that the time barred evidence could also have been interpreted that City did nothing wrong, instead of jumping on the bandwagon that the time barred evidence must show City to be guilty???
That's not what happened with Liverpool hackingIt probably was him acting alone, and there are many cases of this where the target has been government(s) with all the cyber security precautions that entails. I don’t get the impression that hacking into any City information system was/is all that difficult, and I know of no other major, multi-million pound organisation where people leave their jobs and their log in credentials are not stopped, which is supposedly how Liverpool got in.
Don’t like furry things, mate.
It is highly likely that the time barred items would return the same result as those that were litigated since, other than the annual figures, the evidence would have been the same. Even Henry Winter made the mistake of assuming the time bar covered years where we had transgressed.Maybe i posted this on the wrong thread previously, but i guess it relates to both this thread and the Media Thread. I have read and taken on board what so many knowledgeable Blues have had to say. I do not know if this has been said before, but in reading this snippet from this Sweeney character, it brings this back to the forefront of my mind-
Manchester City are football's most despicable club and Pep Guardiola its most despicable manager. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision overturning their Champions League ban doesn't change that.
The decision hardly constitutes a ringing exoneration of City's financial behaviour. While it found that some of the allegations made by UEFA against the club were "not established", it acquitted them on others solely because they fell outside the time limit during which such cases can be dealt with.
I refer to the time limit. In a Criminal Court or Civil Court, certain evidence can be deemed inadmissible for whatever reason, meaning the Defence, Prosecution , Defendant or Claimant cannot rely on certain evidence in Court. A Judge can advise a Jury to disregard certain evidence that may be passed in a Trial. If City have laid down a marker at the Appeal, that certain evidence from UEFA is time barred in the first instance, but City being ready to argue against the veracity of UEFA's time barred evidence, am I correct in assuming that the three Judges, in accepting that certain evidence was time barred, could simply look at what evidence is deemed time barred and therefore not examine or consider it, as there would simply be no point in considering such evidence from a legal point of view, it would be wasting their time.
Such a lack of consideration of any time barred evidence, could well have led to the pretty bland statement from the Court that some of the evidence presented by UEFA was time barred. Have these great minded Journalists considered the point that the time barred evidence could also have been interpreted that City did nothing wrong, instead of jumping on the bandwagon that the time barred evidence must show City to be guilty???
The WarGames film wasn't real bud.It probably was him acting alone, and there are many cases of this where the target has been government(s) with all the cyber security precautions that entails. I don’t get the impression that hacking into any City information system was/is all that difficult, and I know of no other major, multi-million pound organisation where people leave their jobs and their log in credentials are not stopped, which is supposedly how Liverpool got in.
I did a Google search earlier trying to track down an article which detailed some of the known targets (there's been way more given to prosecutors since). Damned if I could find it though, I'm sure it included the Portuguese cyber crime unit and most of the upper tier judiciary system over there.Look at the original reports. City was a tiny fraction. Huge, wide ranging hack.