[Vision2020] Computer Seized in Idaho Had 9-11 Targets

[Bob Hoffmann]

At 09:09 AM 3/12/2003 -0800, Bill London wrote:
>B-
>I am such a non-tech kinda guy...
>I wonder how a computer could save all the images from all the websites it
>visits.  Is that what Sami's computer did?  Or did Sami have to purposefully
>save those images?
>And save--does that mean in some kind of filing system that is retrievable or
>in just a chronological jumble as the websites were visited?
>please explain--and perhaps post explanation to V2020 if you want
>thanks BL

OK, for those of you who aren't aware of how a browser works:

Suppose you were to go to a Web site such as http://www.moscowfood.coop/ today.
This page is currently composed of ten files: one HTML file (the "page" 
itself) and nine graphics files (including the roll-over image at the 
bottom).  Ten files for your browser to download.

Now suppose you went back to that page tomorrow.  It would be most 
inefficient for your browser to need to download pages that it had already 
downloaded.  That's why browsers save files that they have downloaded in 
their "caches."  Instead of repeatedly downloading the same files over a 
relatively slow Internet connection, it more speedily retrieves those files 
from the hard drive.

My Netscape browser is set by default to cache 50,000 KB of files.  That's 
a pretty good number of files, given the small size of HTML, GIF, and JPEG 
files (I find that larger file formats, such as PDF's, typically do not 
cache).  Total size of the Food Co-op's Web site is under 100k, so the 
cache as configured could store 500 such pages.  This could be adjusted up 
or down in your browser's preferences.

Bill asks, "did Sami have to purposefully save those images?"  Not if they 
were saved in the cache; that's automatic.  He still could have also 
purposefully saved the images from news Web sites, which would perhaps make 
him guilty of copyright infringement, although that is a stretch.

"And save--does that mean in some kind of filing system that is retrievable or
in just a chronological jumble as the websites were visited?"

Browsers certainly have their own filing system to determine which graphic 
goes with which page.  They even keep track of the date that the file was 
created, so when the home page of the Food Co-op changes, your browser 
knows to pitch the cached file and retrieve the new version.  So, yes, this 
information can be extracted from the hard drive.

Again, the discovery of such graphics on a computer may or may not be 
significant to the criminal case against Sami.  It all depends on the 
context.  If they were "before" images that were found in searches of the 
hijackers homes, and which were never made public, that's pretty 
significant.  If they are images stored from news sites in the browser 
cache, half of us on the list could be as guilty.  The lack of this kind of 
detail in the FBI testimony does not bring credibility on that 
organization.  "I can't begin to guess how many were of the World Trade 
Center," is a pretty pitiful comment from an FBI agent testifying in 
court.  Uh, three?  Three hundred?  A man's detention or release from 
detention pending trial is based on this?

I guess I'm a little skeptical because I find it unlikely that in a complex 
organization like Al-Qaeda, such information would be disseminated to a man 
who was (allegedly) in the fund raising arm of the organization.  These 
people have a division of labor.  You don't send an email to a thousand 
members saying, "here are pictures of the building we are going to 
strike."  You don't keep secrets that way.  Al-Qaeda was/is much too slick 
for that.

Bob Hoffmann
820 S. Logan St.
Moscow, ID  83843

Tel: 208 883-0642