Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
- - - - -

Globalists


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#51 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,493 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:44 AM

Yes, i laughed. You bastard.


XX


#52 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 01:57 PM

... You always participate and can contribute more than i.

I disagree.  There have been at least a few threads where I've held off and others where your contributions were greater and/or more useful than mine.

 

...The US probably does a fair amount too.

.

If you are talking about hacking in general yes there's quite a bit done here both by the government and individuals.  We don't seem to have the problems with  organized gangs like the ones that operate out of Russia and a few other countries though.

 

. ..Seems like dems are upset that their corruption was exposed. Unsure what the problem with exposing corruption is- no matter how evidence is obtained. ...

Of course they were upset that their corruption was exposed.  That's not the part I have a problem with.  What I and most Americans I believe take issue with is a foreign government specifically hunting for dirt on one party/candidate in order to influence an election.  Indeed I would be rather surprised if they didn't have similar information on many Republicans as well as Trump but didn't reveal it. 
 

 



#53 Dave55

Dave55

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • LocationAtlanta

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:15 PM

 

 

.  Indeed I would be rather surprised if they didn't have similar information on many Republicans as well as Trump but didn't reveal it. 

 

 

 

Are you saying the Russian government would prefer dealing with Donald Trump than Clinton?


"Are you guys ready? Let's roll!" Todd Beamer, Sept 11, 2001


#54 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:30 PM

Yes, they've made that pretty clear.



#55 Dave55

Dave55

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • LocationAtlanta

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:32 PM

Yes, they've made that pretty clear.

 

Why would they want him instead of her?


"Are you guys ready? Let's roll!" Todd Beamer, Sept 11, 2001


#56 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 03:06 PM

The easier question to answer would be:  Why wouldn't they?

 

Hillary has been seen as opposing a fair number of Russia/Putin activities and likely would have continued to do so (if for no other reason than it generates good press).  Trump on the other hand has been complementary to both Putin and Russia, what's  more there is at least the feeling in some quarters that he is fairly easy to manipulate  at least on some matters. 



#57 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 05 January 2017 - 03:27 PM

In the end it's all whining of the losers, the man who is responsible for all this is my password is password Podesta, there were other people roaming inside the atrociously secured DNC but they kept whatever they found for themselves:

 

The FBI never examined the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer servers during its investigation into Russian attempts to interfere in the election, BuzzFeed reports.

 

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email.

 

Instead, the official said, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC.

 

 



#58 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 03:43 PM

Wrong.  You are blaming the victim for being the victim.  Locking the doors to your house is prudent but whether you do or don't and how good of lock you have still doesn't make you responsible for someone breaking into your house.

 

The fact that the FBI didn't examine the servers doesn't mean that they didn't look elsewhere or that that was the only place that evidence existed.

 

Certainly there is some whining by the losers but there's more to it than that.  Your inability to look beyond the superficial is disappointing but hardly surprising based on your posting history.



#59 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 05 January 2017 - 04:06 PM

No he is not a victim. He didn't observe the most elementary precautions which is the duty of each of every employee. It wasn't his house, he left wide open the door to the DNC - the formal governing body for the United States Democratic Party. And the DNC is not his, he is its mere employee. 

In a corporation such a person would be fired on the spot and would flip burgers till he die, because nobody would hire him.

 

The FBI didn't look anywhere. They say: [we] have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike.

Assange explained precisely how it happened:

 

"We published several ... emails which show Podesta responding to a phishing email,"

"Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’. His own staff said this email that you’ve received, this is totally legitimate.

 

Assange is quite right it was a 14-year-old kid could have done.  User-friendly hacking kits including sophisticating tools like the Mirai botnet are freely available on Internet, lots of kids  play with them. 


Edited by wm., 05 January 2017 - 04:16 PM.


#60 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 05:04 PM

No he is not a victim. He didn't observe the most elementary precautions which is the duty of each of every employee. It wasn't his house, he left wide open the door to the DNC - the formal governing body for the United States Democratic Party. And the DNC is not his, he is its mere employee. 

 

That doesn't mean he (and the DNC) isn't a victim.  Your inability to comprehend English doesn't justify you redefining words.  

 

 

In a corporation such a person would be fired on the spot and would flip burgers till he die, because nobody would hire him.

Possibly but that's irrelevant to my points and statements.

 

 

The FBI didn't look anywhere. They say: [we] have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike.

That was in regard to the servers was it not?  There is more to such an investigation than simply looking at the servers at one end of the chain.  That should be obvious to anyone with even a little understanding of what's involved.

 

Assange explained precisely how it happened:

 

"We published several ... emails which show Podesta responding to a phishing email,"

"Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’. His own staff said this email that you’ve received, this is totally legitimate.

 

Assange is quite right it was a 14-year-old kid could have done.  User-friendly hacking kits including sophisticating tools like the Mirai botnet are freely available on Internet, lots of kids  play with them. 

All of which may be correct but is irrelevant to the topic at hand.



#61 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:07 PM

There are only two ends. The servers, and the computers/laptops at the DNC connecting to them. 

To investigate any end FBI needs a court order, and they haven't got it. The DNC didn't invite them either.

Mere hacking of a private business/organization isn't a murder, it doesn't trigger an ex-officio investigation. So there was no investigation. 



#62 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:47 PM

There are only two ends. The servers, and the computers/laptops at the DNC connecting to them. 

....

Thus illustrating you have no idea how the internet works.

 

 

To investigate any end FBI needs a court order, and they haven't got it.

And thus illustrating you don't understand what the FBI is or how they operate much less US laws on such things.

 

 

To investigate any end FBI needs a court order, and they haven't got it. The DNC didn't invite them either.

Mere hacking of a private business/organization

Wrong again.  Further confirmation of the above.  The FBI does not need a court order to investigate a suspected federal crime.  They may need such an order to look for certain evidence if the party(ies) responsible choose not to cooperate although there are circumstances under which it's not needed even then.  FYI here's a wiki description of one of the older laws governing such acts:

https://en.wikipedia...d_and_Abuse_Act

This link mentions some others:

http://www.hackerlaw.org/?page_id=55



#63 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 05 January 2017 - 10:13 PM

Maybe they don't need, but to find any useful clues they need it and badly.

 

To investigate such an incident they need to:

 

- examine the servers, computers. laptops - a warrant is needed for this, unless the DNC surrenders the evidence voluntarily, or

- spy on internet communications of the DNC at the time of the incident - they needed a warrant for this to.

 

The US is still more or less free country - unlike China, Russia, the EU where all internet traffic of their citizens is spied, monitored, and saved for later use.

So in the US, after the incident, there is nothing to investigate except computers of the victim.

 



#64 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 05 January 2017 - 10:34 PM

Maybe they don't need, but to find any useful clues they need it and badly.

 Not really.  As you have mentioned the firm doing the investigation was sharing the information with them.  They may well have had more resources than the FBI could have afforded to allocate to the investigation as well and it allowed the FBI to allocate its resources elsewhere. 

 

To investigate such an incident they need to:

 

- examine the servers, computers. laptops - a warrant is needed for this, unless the DNC surrenders the evidence voluntarily, or

- spy on internet communications of the DNC at the time of the incident - they needed a warrant for this to.

You are leaving a lot out.  Traces and records exist of a lot of such activity and in a case like this many ISPs will share with the FBI.  Indeed I'm not sure but seem to recall that in some cases they are required to.  A lot of the investigative work involves looking at the leads developed by the initial investigation i.e looking at the DNC computers.   It doesn't stop there.

 

 

The US is still more or less free country - unlike China, Russia, the EU where all internet traffic of their citizens is spied, monitored, and saved for later use.

So in the US, after the incident, there is nothing to investigate except computers of the victim.

The fact that the government doesn't save it doesn't mean that it isn't being saved.  Indeed the very nature of the internet means that it is almost guaranteed that there will be pieces left out there in various places.  Thus your conclusion is incorrect.



#65 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 05 January 2017 - 11:59 PM

Maybe they don't need, but to find any useful clues they need it and badly.

 

To investigate such an incident they need to:

 

- examine the servers, computers. laptops - a warrant is needed for this, unless the DNC surrenders the evidence voluntarily, or

- spy on internet communications of the DNC at the time of the incident - they needed a warrant for this to.

 

The US is still more or less free country - unlike China, Russia, the EU where all internet traffic of their citizens is spied, monitored, and saved for later use.

So in the US, after the incident, there is nothing to investigate except computers of the victim.

 

 

 

What one can safely say is; that the authorities are more concerned about revealing their abilities, and what they can legally admit to doing, rather than any individual hacking event. Even then, certain authorities try to play by "nicer" rules than others.

And that is why, it only takes a single clumsy mistake to cause entire hacker networks to collapse and get sucked into internet oblivion, otherwise known as "pick up the soap, punk". 

 

That veneer of legality and respectability is important for the illusion of civilisation, but has never really hindered state-actors, as long as they can maintain plausible deniability. Use of third-party actors, and / or friendships to gain surreptitious access to HW to harvest information even from national ISPs is not unheard of...



#66 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:07 PM

Criminals have existed for like ever, and they are not going away, ever.

Especially hackers, because the money is good, lots of free time, and you can work from your home, or from a hotel on the Canary Islands. Hacking is the safest criminal activity there is, those people feel so safe they are bragging publicly about their exploits, like here, hacker Jono about his (real and registered) attack against Donald Trump’s campaign website:

post-31705-0-13814800-1483725747.png

 

 

Hacking is not done by some guy typing furiously at his keyboard as Hollywood movies shows. The real and boring hacking is carried out by automated tools, usually botnets (several thousands active right now), each of them built from tens/hundreds of thousands computers, laptops, smartphones and anything connected to Internet. 

They usually report back to the threat actor using a covert channel like p2p networks, TOR, IRC.

 

Good luck finding the threat actor if the phishing link Podesta received may have been sent to him from an owned security camera in Cameroon, and his mail retrieved by an owned laptop in China. 

 

I don't say the Russians didn't hack the DNC, because any internet-connected entity is hacked almost every second, and many of the threat actors are Russians (not because they are evil, but because good jobs are scarce there) -  working privately for profit, and some for the Russian government. 

 

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter, and all that is whining of the losers, and hysterics of a left-leaning media trying to capitalize on the Russian election-hacking narrative.

Earlier it was the "fake news" epidemic which won the election for Trump - a fake news itself, now it's the Russians.

Which I'm betting will be another case of fake news (like the Russians hacked the U.S. power grid - another advancing the narrative fake news). 

 

 

 

Attached File  Screenshot from 2017-01-06 18-58-54.png   44.16KB   0 downloads

 


Edited by wm., 06 January 2017 - 07:20 PM.


#67 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:42 PM

Interesting, from a press conference at the White House:

 

ON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians?

 

JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different.

 

KARL: 20 million people had their personal data taken… fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching act–

 

EARNEST: I’m not downplaying the significance of it, I’m just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I can’t speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity–

 

KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House.

 

EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can’t speak to what response may have been initiated in private.

 

KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? You don’t do that stuff secretly.



#68 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 06 January 2017 - 07:06 PM

Donald J. Trump:
19h
The Democratic National Committee would not allow the FBI to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by Russia......

19h
How did NBC get "an exclusive look into the top secret report he (Obama) was presented?" Who gave them this report and why? Politics!

18h
So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on?

2h
I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.



#69 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,493 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:44 PM

#68. Sounds juicy. Pretty sure there is a lot of juice. Epic volumes, of biblical proportions.

Jan 20 dreamin' (sung to the tune of the Mamma's and Poppa's- California Dreamin')


XX


#70 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,046 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:14 PM

Donald J. Trump:
...

19h
How did NBC get "an exclusive look into the top secret report he (Obama) was presented?" Who gave them this report and why? Politics!

...

2h
I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.

Trumpy baby...Politics has nothing to do with it.  You have been giving the big middle finger to the intelligence community from the get go, as if there would be no repercussions or very irritated employees of said community.

 

Those of us who are not so self-absorbed would call it...Revenge.

 

 

Donald J. Trump:
18h
So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on?

Because other people had done that legwork for them...

https://github.com/e...dnit/part1.adoc

https://github.com/e...dnit/part2.adoc

https://github.com/e...dnit/part3.adoc

 

Only proves the hack...Not who or where it came from.



#71 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,493 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

China hacks millions of passwords etc. (crickets)

But Russia...


XX


#72 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 06 January 2017 - 10:12 PM

From the freshly released report, lots of hand waving, lots of "we assess" and, nothing.

 

The evidence:

We  assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

- we assess the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order,
- Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia,
- Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012,
- Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump,
- Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,
- Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately after the election,
- Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties,
- In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks,
- Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences,
- Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of global populist movements,
- Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, proclaimed just before the election that if President-elect Trump won, Russia would “drink champagne” in anticipation of being able to advance its positions on Syria and Ukraine,
- RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption.



#73 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,046 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 06 January 2017 - 10:49 PM

wm.,

 

What part of

 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are

identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign.

 

do you fail to grasp?
 
The declassified report can be found here:


#74 wm.

wm.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:20 PM

If there were something important, ironclad proof in the "the full supporting information" they wouldn't bother with all the hand waving. They would say we have proof, but we couldn't show you.

 

Nobody in the US watches RT, Sputnik, Putin's hours long chatters on the Russian TV, or Vladimir Zhirinovsky (a nobody, an entertaining talking head, known for his bitching about everything). What they were saying never reached the Americans.

 

So where is the proof that Russia changed the outcome of the latest American elections?

 

Donald Trump:

While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democratic National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.

There were attempts to hack the Republican National Committee, but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful.


Edited by wm., 06 January 2017 - 11:38 PM.


#75 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,046 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:52 PM

They would say we have proof, but we couldn't show you.

Which is exactly what they are saying...We have proof, but we can't show you.

 

 

So where is the proof that Russia changed the outcome of the latest American elections?

Where is your security clearance...

 

 

 

While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democratic National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.

There were attempts to hack the Republican National Committee, but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful.

Apparently the RNC defenses were not that good...

http://www.mediaite....epublicans-too/
What's that...I was not supposed to publicly say that...Oh, holy crap!  I retract my previous statement.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users