|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 03:34 LegalLord wrote:The "Russian hacking" story in the U.S. has gone too far. That it's not based on any solid public evidence, and that reports of it are often so overblown as to miss the mark, is only a problem to those who worry about disinformation campaigns, propaganda and journalistic standards -- a small segment of the general public. But the recent U.S. government report that purports to substantiate technical details of recent hacks by Russian intelligence is off the mark and has the potential to do real damage to far more people and organizations.
The joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a catchy name for "Russian malicious cyber activity" -- Grizzly Steppe -- and creates infinite opportunities for false flag operations that the U.S. government all but promises to attribute to Russia.
The report's goal is not to provide evidence of, say, Russian tampering with the U.S. presidential election, but ostensibly to enable U.S. organizations to detect Russian cyber-intelligence efforts and report incidents related to it to the U.S. government. It's supposed to tell network administrators what to look for. To that end, the report contains a specific YARA rule -- a bit of code used for identifying a malware sample. The rule identifies software called the PAS Tool PHP Web Kit. Some inquisitive security researchers have googled the kit and found it easy to download from the profexer.name website. It was no longer available on Monday, but researchers at Feejit, the developer of WordPress security plugin Wordfence, took some screenshots of the site, which proudly declared the product was made in Ukraine.
That, of course, isn't necessarily to be believed -- anyone can be from anywhere on the internet. The apparent developer of the malware is active on a Russian-language hacking forum under the nickname Profexer. He has advertised PAS, a free program, and thanked donors who have contributed anywhere from a few dollars to a few hundred. The program is a so-called web shell -- something a hacker will install on an infiltrated server to make file stealing and further hacking look legit. There are plenty of these in existence, and PAS is pretty common -- "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world (judging by hacker forum posts)," Robert Graham of Errata Security wrote in a blog post last week. SourceI've also heard criticism about the fact that CrowdStrike and other private companies making assertions are paid by the organization that got hacked so there could be a conflict of interest. So what this all means is that the intelligence folk had better provide proof, or GTFO. Or maybe we cannot wait for final proof, because the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Only the hardcore establishment folks are on board with this "blame Russia" business.
This is clearly not true. In fact, it is the people expressing strong doubts/discarding the idea that Russia was behind the hacking that seem to largely fall into three camps: those predisposed to defending Russia, those who support Trump and don't want to see his victory undermined, and those who are rabidly critical of US intelligence agencies no matter what and very supportive of Wikileaks. Pretty much everyone else, including notably computer security analysts who've looked at the data, national security experts, as well as international relations and Russia experts, agree that there's little/zero doubt Russian operatives were behind the hacks, and that some of the intelligence gathered cannot be released publicly without jeopardizing the channels that were used to obtain it. And as usual, because those experts and the intelligence community are largely in agreement, the usual anti-expert arguments are being used by those pretending to be exercising healthy skepticism when they're really just pushing their preferred narrative.
|
On January 06 2017 02:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 01:03 Velr wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't. So you're okay with leaning on only 3-4 sources of media for your news with the assumption that those 3-4 are "obviously better" than another person's 3-4 news sources... just because? what are you arguing for here? that people should be told by someone else what newspapers to read?
In a local newspaper, things that are opinion pieces are labeled as opinion pieces, and news based on facts with quotes, studies, and articles linked to it are understood as news.
A level of accountability so that it becomes easier to sift through news sources would be great. Something similar to OSHA but for news media.
|
On January 06 2017 02:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while. what does your last sentence mean? you like it when especially young adults throw their lives away so that taxpayers can pay for them to rot in jail? or that you wouldn't want someone to escape their sentence by dying on us?
I mean exactly what I said. Let's not act like this is a bunch of young kids being stupid by doing something like public intoxication or shoplifting. They systematically tortured a disabled person because of his skin color. I for one will sleep better at night knowing scum like them are sitting in prison even if it is costing me more money.
|
On January 06 2017 04:08 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone watch today's congress hearings on the russia hacking issue?
I haven't and was wondering if anyone had and what they thought of it.
Some of the news I saw on it suggested it was a general cyber security briefing to some extent.
Proof apparently by Monday.
|
What are the chances Trump's tweets reveal something top secret? Over this Russia thing I'd say 25%.
Over the course of the next 4 years? Maybe 70%.
|
On January 06 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 03:34 LegalLord wrote:The "Russian hacking" story in the U.S. has gone too far. That it's not based on any solid public evidence, and that reports of it are often so overblown as to miss the mark, is only a problem to those who worry about disinformation campaigns, propaganda and journalistic standards -- a small segment of the general public. But the recent U.S. government report that purports to substantiate technical details of recent hacks by Russian intelligence is off the mark and has the potential to do real damage to far more people and organizations.
The joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a catchy name for "Russian malicious cyber activity" -- Grizzly Steppe -- and creates infinite opportunities for false flag operations that the U.S. government all but promises to attribute to Russia.
The report's goal is not to provide evidence of, say, Russian tampering with the U.S. presidential election, but ostensibly to enable U.S. organizations to detect Russian cyber-intelligence efforts and report incidents related to it to the U.S. government. It's supposed to tell network administrators what to look for. To that end, the report contains a specific YARA rule -- a bit of code used for identifying a malware sample. The rule identifies software called the PAS Tool PHP Web Kit. Some inquisitive security researchers have googled the kit and found it easy to download from the profexer.name website. It was no longer available on Monday, but researchers at Feejit, the developer of WordPress security plugin Wordfence, took some screenshots of the site, which proudly declared the product was made in Ukraine.
That, of course, isn't necessarily to be believed -- anyone can be from anywhere on the internet. The apparent developer of the malware is active on a Russian-language hacking forum under the nickname Profexer. He has advertised PAS, a free program, and thanked donors who have contributed anywhere from a few dollars to a few hundred. The program is a so-called web shell -- something a hacker will install on an infiltrated server to make file stealing and further hacking look legit. There are plenty of these in existence, and PAS is pretty common -- "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world (judging by hacker forum posts)," Robert Graham of Errata Security wrote in a blog post last week. SourceI've also heard criticism about the fact that CrowdStrike and other private companies making assertions are paid by the organization that got hacked so there could be a conflict of interest. So what this all means is that the intelligence folk had better provide proof, or GTFO. Or maybe we cannot wait for final proof, because the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. What's interesting to me is that a very broad political spectrum of publications is heavily scrutinizing these intelligence assessments. Only the hardcore establishment folks are on board with this "blame Russia" business.
My problem isn't, is it Russia or is it someone else. I could easily see it as being the work of Russian intelligence. The issue is that I know that certain folk will be inclined to blame Russia no matter what, whether the evidence is true or false, and consensus isn't proof. Unless Obama has actual proof, he decided to start a diplomatic row without proof.
|
On January 06 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 06 2017 03:34 LegalLord wrote:The "Russian hacking" story in the U.S. has gone too far. That it's not based on any solid public evidence, and that reports of it are often so overblown as to miss the mark, is only a problem to those who worry about disinformation campaigns, propaganda and journalistic standards -- a small segment of the general public. But the recent U.S. government report that purports to substantiate technical details of recent hacks by Russian intelligence is off the mark and has the potential to do real damage to far more people and organizations.
The joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a catchy name for "Russian malicious cyber activity" -- Grizzly Steppe -- and creates infinite opportunities for false flag operations that the U.S. government all but promises to attribute to Russia.
The report's goal is not to provide evidence of, say, Russian tampering with the U.S. presidential election, but ostensibly to enable U.S. organizations to detect Russian cyber-intelligence efforts and report incidents related to it to the U.S. government. It's supposed to tell network administrators what to look for. To that end, the report contains a specific YARA rule -- a bit of code used for identifying a malware sample. The rule identifies software called the PAS Tool PHP Web Kit. Some inquisitive security researchers have googled the kit and found it easy to download from the profexer.name website. It was no longer available on Monday, but researchers at Feejit, the developer of WordPress security plugin Wordfence, took some screenshots of the site, which proudly declared the product was made in Ukraine.
That, of course, isn't necessarily to be believed -- anyone can be from anywhere on the internet. The apparent developer of the malware is active on a Russian-language hacking forum under the nickname Profexer. He has advertised PAS, a free program, and thanked donors who have contributed anywhere from a few dollars to a few hundred. The program is a so-called web shell -- something a hacker will install on an infiltrated server to make file stealing and further hacking look legit. There are plenty of these in existence, and PAS is pretty common -- "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world (judging by hacker forum posts)," Robert Graham of Errata Security wrote in a blog post last week. SourceI've also heard criticism about the fact that CrowdStrike and other private companies making assertions are paid by the organization that got hacked so there could be a conflict of interest. So what this all means is that the intelligence folk had better provide proof, or GTFO. Or maybe we cannot wait for final proof, because the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. What's interesting to me is that a very broad political spectrum of publications is heavily scrutinizing these intelligence assessments. Only the hardcore establishment folks are on board with this "blame Russia" business. My problem isn't, is it Russia or is it someone else. I could easily see it as being the work of Russian intelligence. The issue is that I know that certain folk will be inclined to blame Russia no matter what, whether the evidence is true or false, and consensus isn't proof. Unless Obama has actual proof, he decided to start a diplomatic row without proof.
LegalLord and I are in agreement on this; trusted agencies making claims without proof is hearsay until proof is there. Doesn't matter if LegalLord and I also believe there's a high chance Russia did it. But agencies that dislike Russia saying negative things about Russia is not really "newsworthy" if you know what I mean?
|
On January 06 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 06 2017 03:34 LegalLord wrote:The "Russian hacking" story in the U.S. has gone too far. That it's not based on any solid public evidence, and that reports of it are often so overblown as to miss the mark, is only a problem to those who worry about disinformation campaigns, propaganda and journalistic standards -- a small segment of the general public. But the recent U.S. government report that purports to substantiate technical details of recent hacks by Russian intelligence is off the mark and has the potential to do real damage to far more people and organizations.
The joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a catchy name for "Russian malicious cyber activity" -- Grizzly Steppe -- and creates infinite opportunities for false flag operations that the U.S. government all but promises to attribute to Russia.
The report's goal is not to provide evidence of, say, Russian tampering with the U.S. presidential election, but ostensibly to enable U.S. organizations to detect Russian cyber-intelligence efforts and report incidents related to it to the U.S. government. It's supposed to tell network administrators what to look for. To that end, the report contains a specific YARA rule -- a bit of code used for identifying a malware sample. The rule identifies software called the PAS Tool PHP Web Kit. Some inquisitive security researchers have googled the kit and found it easy to download from the profexer.name website. It was no longer available on Monday, but researchers at Feejit, the developer of WordPress security plugin Wordfence, took some screenshots of the site, which proudly declared the product was made in Ukraine.
That, of course, isn't necessarily to be believed -- anyone can be from anywhere on the internet. The apparent developer of the malware is active on a Russian-language hacking forum under the nickname Profexer. He has advertised PAS, a free program, and thanked donors who have contributed anywhere from a few dollars to a few hundred. The program is a so-called web shell -- something a hacker will install on an infiltrated server to make file stealing and further hacking look legit. There are plenty of these in existence, and PAS is pretty common -- "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world (judging by hacker forum posts)," Robert Graham of Errata Security wrote in a blog post last week. SourceI've also heard criticism about the fact that CrowdStrike and other private companies making assertions are paid by the organization that got hacked so there could be a conflict of interest. So what this all means is that the intelligence folk had better provide proof, or GTFO. Or maybe we cannot wait for final proof, because the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. What's interesting to me is that a very broad political spectrum of publications is heavily scrutinizing these intelligence assessments. Only the hardcore establishment folks are on board with this "blame Russia" business. My problem isn't, is it Russia or is it someone else. I could easily see it as being the work of Russian intelligence. The issue is that I know that certain folk will be inclined to blame Russia no matter what, whether the evidence is true or false, and consensus isn't proof. Unless Obama has actual proof, he decided to start a diplomatic row without proof.
Yeah, I agree. I really wouldn't surprised if it is Russia that did the hacking. What I find objectionable is this pushing of a narrative that Russia did it not only before any real evidence is released, but by using false information such as the Vermont power grid hacking story. Only an ostrich would have trouble seeing the problem here.
|
On January 06 2017 05:18 On_Slaught wrote:
What are the chances Trump's tweets reveal something top secret? Over this Russia thing I'd say 25%.
Over the course of the next 4 years? Maybe 70%.
What are the chances Vegas will have a trump tweet section by the year's end for exactly this?
|
McConnell & most senior senator Hatch declare they won't suspend the filibuster rule to get Trump's future Supreme Court nominee nominated. Schumer says he'll filibuster for as long as needed if he's not mainstream and doesn't see such a suitable candidate happening. Many voted for Trump on the grounds of Supreme Court nominees on his list/denying Clinton the choice of a radical. This should be good. We'll know early on if Trump is going to fight hard on the big issues of his platform.
|
On January 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:
McConnell & most senior senator Hatch declare they won't suspend the filibuster rule to get Trump's future Supreme Court nominee nominated. Schumer says he'll filibuster for as long as needed if he's not mainstream and doesn't see such a suitable candidate happening. Many voted for Trump on the grounds of Supreme Court nominees on his list/denying Clinton the choice of a radical. This should be good. We'll know early on if Trump is going to fight hard on the big issues of his platform.
Sounds like an adventure. I'll get the popcorn.
|
On January 06 2017 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 02:39 Sadist wrote:On January 06 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 06 2017 02:12 Sadist wrote:On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while. Why are people saying they are a part of BLM? I dont get why thats even being discussed:/ Because linking the attack to BLM (regardless of fairness) badly undercuts BLM and its message. All you have to do is imagine what type of coverage that we'd receive had the video been of a bunch white guys beating a black kid and forcing him to say "fuck Obama." I understand why people would do it but i guess my question woild be is there evidence for it? I havent seen any If there is no evidence its dishonest and a horrible thing to do. No, it's not fair, but it is precisely the type of thing that the left does all of the time when the races are reversed. Does anyone really doubt that WashPo or NYT would push a story linking the attack to Trump's recent election and the normalization of the alt right? The difference between now and a few years ago is that elements on the right are starting to use the left's own tactics against it.
One big difference is that people actually care about the victims in "the reverse" clearly the people tying this to BLM don't care much about the guy, they just care about hating BLM.
What's on the video is terrible and the perpetrators should (and obviously will, since they're black) face consequences, but it doesn't look like to me what people are interpreting. Already the police said that he possibly met/left with them voluntarily, in one of the video's you see the guy look to who was probably the one he knew and say something like "what's going on bro"? which is followed shortly by them gloating about how "this is going to go viral".
This looked like a slightly more (the knife on the head thing was over the top) violent version of some of the "troll" gang initiations I saw when I was younger. Where the gang makes someone think they are cool and can join, and kicking the crap out of them is an initiation for some other newbs.
Let's remember what undermining BLM because "they do it" actually is, it's saying that Black people don't deserve to have their constitutional rights, or at least that you can't be bothered to do anything about them being denied.
|
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good.
|
On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good.
With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process.
|
On January 06 2017 06:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good. With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process.
Would mainly result in lobbyists writing all of the bills rather than merely the majority of them.
|
On January 06 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 06:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good. With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process. Would mainly result in lobbyists writing all of the bills rather than merely the majority of them.
When do you think is the last time a legislator at the national level actually personally wrote a law?
|
On January 06 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 06:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good. With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process. Would mainly result in lobbyists writing all of the bills rather than merely the majority of them.
They already don't write the bills (interns and lobbyists do that) so all we would need from them is to spend 2-3 years voting ever X months with a bonus for every bill passed.
|
On January 06 2017 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:On January 06 2017 06:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good. With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process. Would mainly result in lobbyists writing all of the bills rather than merely the majority of them. They already don't write the bills (interns and lobbyists do that) so all we would need from them is to spend 2-3 years voting ever X months with a bonus for every bill passed.
You what?
Hell no your not paying politicians per bill passed. That just leads them to approve everything regardless of what it does.
|
On January 06 2017 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:On January 06 2017 06:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good. With how fast information spreads I could actually see shorter term limits being really good at "speeding" up the process. Would mainly result in lobbyists writing all of the bills rather than merely the majority of them. They already don't write the bills (interns and lobbyists do that) so all we would need from them is to spend 2-3 years voting ever X months with a bonus for every bill passed. You what? Hell no your not paying politicians per bill passed. That just leads them to approve everything regardless of what it does.
Good thing Lobbyists influence them and Presidents veto them.
|
On January 06 2017 05:18 On_Slaught wrote:
What are the chances Trump's tweets reveal something top secret? Over this Russia thing I'd say 25%.
Over the course of the next 4 years? Maybe 70%.
from a legal perspective, iirc the president has very wide latitude in classification.
it's possible that the president can declassify anything, therefore his revealing it automatically changes the classification level, or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
