US Officially Blames Russia

Crossbow said:
Well then, you are still wrong.

I never said anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11097736&postcount=305

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And you think the lack of preeminence of treaties is something courts might reverse?
If the court was deciding the issue of making torture legal, then "Yes!" I would definitely expect the court to rule against such a law regardless of any other previous rulings.

Just as the court did with abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, and numerous other cases.
Click to expand...
Here is the page of the thread for everyone to view the context.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303069&highlight=Head+money&page=8
 
tyr_13 said:
And you don't need to hack Google to hack an email account on Google. Your assertion is foolish. It doesn't matter if the specific case in question was even hacking or not, you made an obviously untrue statement to cast doubt on the case for Russia's involvement.
Click to expand...


"And" you had no idea what you were talking about and now you're trying to deflect. Your post makes no sense other than giving us more insight into your cluelessness. To hack a gmail account you have to hack gmail, if you care about using proper terms which we have to do here to come near to where the stink is coming from.
 
Childlike Empress said:
"And" you had no idea what you were talking about and now you're trying to deflect. Your post makes no sense other than giving us more insight into your cluelessness. To hack a gmail account you have to hack gmail, if you care about using proper terms which we have to do here to come near to where the stink is coming from.
Click to expand...

Kinda nitpicky, no? If I keep putting in passwords that ultimately gave me control of your account here, am I hacking ISF? No, i'm just guessing your password.

Hacking ISF would, for instance, give me control of the site, along with any databases it contains.
 
NoahFence said:
Kinda nitpicky, no? If I keep putting in passwords that ultimately gave me control of your account here, am I hacking ISF? No, i'm just guessing your password.

Hacking ISF would, for instance, give me control of the site, along with any databases it contains.
Click to expand...


That's exactly my point. You wouldn't be hacking ISF by guessing my password (try "put1n" ;)) or making me give it to you with some clever trick. That's not hacking, and that's not something you need huge resources to do.
 
Childlike Empress said:
"And" you had no idea what you were talking about and now you're trying to deflect. Your post makes no sense other than giving us more insight into your cluelessness. To hack a gmail account you have to hack gmail, if you care about using proper terms which we have to do here to come near to where the stink is coming from.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You're repeating your same mistake.

People say all the time, 'my account got hacked', without the hack that lets the hacker access the account being directed against the account provider or the account itself. Someone installs a keystroke logger on your machine using a hack, they then use that to get your gmail account password. Congratulations, your gmail has been hacked without gmail being hacked. This also applies to bank accounts. Those get 'hacked' all the time by hacking other systems that contain the information, not necessarily the bank itself. They've used a hack to access the account, even though they don't have to directly hack the account. It's still a 'hack' or gaining unauthorized access.

I know a bunch of people in the community get all up in arms about 'that's not a hack!', and sometimes they're even right, but the most narrow definitions are not how the word is used even among hackers. Did you use a workaround or trick to gain unauthorized access? That's a hack. Doing something with a system that you're not supposed to be able to do is a hack.
 
Here's an interesting read from yesterday. If you don't know who William BinneyWP is, look him up. There are more relevant paragraphs to the topic in the article than what follows, but while we were at it...

William Binney said:
[...] With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on "circumstantial evidence," when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking.

Here's the difference:

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened. [...]
Click to expand...


An important fact to consider for people unsure how to read this affair. If "hacks" happened on any US server in recent years, the NSA has the data and doesn't have to perform silly dances around the topic.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Here's an interesting read from yesterday. If you don't know who William BinneyWP is, look him up. There are more relevant paragraphs to the topic in the article than what follows, but while we were at it...




An important fact to consider for people unsure how to read this affair. If "hacks" happened on any US server in recent years, the NSA has the data and doesn't have to perform silly dances around the topic.
Click to expand...

My first guess would be that like all things government, the NSA overpromised and under delivered their capabilities.
 
phiwum said:
I don't think the Republicans have the decency to impeach their president, I'm sorry to say.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go by who eventually endorsed Trump. Pence endorsed Trump in the biggest possible way, and he's probably the preferred choice of many House Republicans.

On another issue entirely, is "phishing" hacking? Yes, of a sort. A pretty embarrassing sort if you are Podesta, or the person who called the phishing email "legitimate" instead of illegitimate.

But in any case ... Trump egged them on, Trump has pissed off the U.S. intelligence community and if I were a spy agency I would make sure to assign people to Trump, because it's really the only way to know what's going on. I don't know much about how the president, historically, has interacted with intelligence agencies. I don't recall any being as publicly dismissive as Trump has been but there are shades of gray I might not be aware of.
 
Childlike Empress said:
An important fact to consider for people unsure how to read this affair. If "hacks" happened on any US server in recent years, the NSA has the data and doesn't have to perform silly dances around the topic.
Click to expand...

Did Putin tell you what evidence NSA has? Wanna share? 'Cause they seem to be saying they've got the data. You're the one dancing like nobody's watching, CE.
 
Minoosh said:
On another issue entirely, is "phishing" hacking? Yes, of a sort. A pretty embarrassing sort if you are Podesta, or the person who called the phishing email "legitimate" instead of illegitimate.
Click to expand...


Again, of course in general there are broader definitions of "hacking", but they make no sense in context here given that we are to believe (through suggestions in a whole lot of fog) that sophisticated measures only a state actor could accomplish were taken to influence the election. That's what we are talking about, isn't it? (I just realize that the thread title doesn't say anything about the nature of "it", which is kinda interesting).
 
Childlike Empress said:
You never payed close attention to the Snowden leaks, did you?
Click to expand...

I did. I have a fair amount of experience with government programs under performing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were massive holes in their data collection from the various mistakes and failures that just crop up.

For example, we have 10 aircraft carriers. Every single one of them is in port right now. That seemed like the exact opposite outcome expected by a fleet of 10. But here we are.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I did. I have a fair amount of experience with government programs under performing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were massive holes in their data collection from the various mistakes and failures that just crop up.
Click to expand...


If you have a vacuum cleaner you don't need to worry about minor cockroaches infesting the carpet. And if you can't create the vacuum everywhere, you wouldn't leave out the regions where you plan to eat from. Silly.

BobTheCoward said:
For example, we have 10 aircraft carriers. Every single one of them is in port right now. That seemed like the exact opposite outcome expected by a fleet of 10. But here we are.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting topic, indeed. Maybe more fitting to the Cold War thread or something. Admiral Kuznetsov is going home as well.
 
Childlike Empress said:
If you have a vacuum cleaner you don't need to worry about minor cockroaches infesting the carpet. And if you can't create the vacuum everywhere, you wouldn't leave out the regions where you plan to eat from. Silly.
.
Click to expand...

Vacuums break, have operator error, etc. Government decision making silly? That is a common refrain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom