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.
Sorry only surmising i do not know, just the first statement was hugely different to his Irish Independent quote the next day, that was almost groveling.
The whiff of racism is never far from the attacks on City.You know what I did nor will understand?
Why, when something is supposed not te be read, seen or heard by third party’s, why put it in writing in an email or whatever document.
We all remember why Garry Cook left the club (or had to leave).
Btw I too think it’s a lot more political than some think. There’s a hell of a lot of money involved. Imho an Arab owner doesn’t go well with American based clubs, unless -like Quatar has done- you offer a World Cup in exchange for a seat in the UEFA-board.
Guilty as charged.Weirdo.
And Simon Jordan for a bit of balance.They'll replace him with John Aldridge.
"thanks to Rui"
What a desperate, clutching at straws, wankstain he is.
Hopefully one day that tosser gets hacked, I wonder if he would thank the hacker publicly after his bank account has been emptied.
I'm fairly convinced that Pinto although a hacker himself, is also a conduit for others to pass stolen material too.Given the (very) broad scope of what it is he's alleged to have hacked, it wasn't the Fenway Group. It's got Qatar s grubby little paws all over it with a sweetener thrown in for Pinto in regards to the Portuguese clubs. I think Qatar either did it themselves and gave him the information or they gave him the tools and security flaws to aim for.
Don't think that Pinto knows who hacked City, an professional / Intelligence Agency would hand it overIt will be interesting to know what the Portuguese prosecutors want from this case. Do they want to nail Pinto - get a head on a pole ? Or do they want to use Pinto to get to the wider network of hacking. It may rest on how much this impacts Portugal directly and how much they want to be seen internationally to be doing the right thing. Pinto is young and an opportunist- so I suspect he’s willing to chirp like a canary but if some big hitters are involved like the Qatar secret service he’s probably on borrowed time if he starts to squeal. Anyone know when he goes on trial ?
I'm sure I've read he's been released under house arrest and is not allowed access to a computer.
You have to piece several reports together. There is no overarching run down on all his activities. No doubt this will emerge during and after the trial. He has admitted being the source of the Luanda leaks. Here are the documents he had.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.
It gets better. Ewan has popped up with this gem of a reply this morning....