|
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 June 07 2017 02:28 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2017 02:11 ZeromuS wrote: In other news:
This is getting ridiculous Shit is going to get real awkward if they turn to Iran and ask "Hey, can we be friends now?" Qatar and Iran as friends? Could happen but highly unlikely to say the least. It seems unlikely right now, but it appears to be a concern if we can't get them and our allies to get along. Or that is what I am hearing from folks on NPR. If the diplomatic ties stay cut for a long period of time, Qatar will start to court other allies in the region.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
We've gotten this far from our allies in just 4.5 months. Who knows how far we can get before Trump leaves office?
|
On June 07 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote: We've gotten this far from our allies in just 4.5 months. Who knows how far we can get before Trump leaves office? Who knows, hopefully it isn't much longer, but he sure intends to find out...
|
So the Intercept intentionally burned their source.
"When reporters at The Intercept approached the National Security Agency on June 1 to confirm a document that had been anonymously leaked to the publication in May, they handed over a copy of the document to the NSA to verify its authenticity. When they did so, the Intercept team inadvertently exposed its source because the copy showed fold marks that indicated it had been printed—and it included encoded watermarking that revealed exactly when it had been printed and on what printer."
There are two possible interpretations for those actions. (1) Rank incompetence (2) Intentional burning
However, (1) is not possible. The Intercept actually has professional and knowledgeable staff on hand to deal with leaked information. All it would take to defeat this kind of watermarking would be taking a picture of the leaked document, PDFing it, and slightly downgrading the quality, then sending a black and white print out of that downgraded document for confirmation. The Intercept sent a high quality copy (or possibly the original?) directly to the government for confirmation. That is straight up (2) Intentional burning. A plea of incompetence cannot be sustained here.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/how-a-few-yellow-dots-burned-the-intercepts-nsa-leaker/
EDIT: here are the guys the Intercept have on staff. No possible plea of incompetence with actual experts on the payroll.
|
Trump is no doubt pissing off the military and statesmen, but does his base even care? I get the impression that they think the US is a strong independent country who don't need no allies.
|
Bring On the Controversy: Trump Picks Notorious Waterboarding Apologist for Cabinet
I’ve got to hand it to the Trump administration. They’re holding fast to the reality TV rule of packing its cast with as many colorful personalities and controversial figures as the budget can accommodate. Just in time for May sweeps, the administration has tapped Steven Bradbury for the role of Transportation Secretary. This time, Trump is changing it up a little, and not picking someone who has already shown a penchant for destroying the entire concept of transportation. So there’s that. But this guy is guaranteed to inject some drama into the second half of cabinet season. Bradbury can be filed either under “already hated by Democrats,” or the potentially the simpler, “loose cannon.” Steven Bradbury, you see, is already something of a star. No, not that Steven Bradbury. This guy (unfortunately) isn’t the frosted-tipped Aussie speed-skater. This is Steven G. Bradbury, of waterboarding and torture fame.
This Bradbury was a former George W. Bush lawyer who held a number of high-ranking legal jobs in the early 2000s. But that’s not where he gets his star power. Bradbury authored a bunch of classified opinions that legally authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques” following the September 11 terror attacks. In the opinions, Bradbury said that waterboarding, food and sleep deprivation, and physical striking weren’t really torture, and the U.S. was good to go for using them in the “war on terror.” Forcing detainees to remain in a standing position for four days was also cool with Bradbury. When Bradbury was called out before a House Judiciary subcommittee, he explained that these techniques weren’t “torture” because the pain they inflicted wasn’t severe or long-lasting enough. On cue, human rights groups, the ACLU, Democrats, and anyone uneasy with the U.S. deeming Guantanamo a legally-sanctioned Pit of Despair freaked the hell out.
Bush ‘43 nominated Bradbury as assistant attorney general back in 2008, but Senate Dems weren’t keen on having an eager waterboarder in such a prominent position. Politico reported that Dems had been so fiercely opposed to Bradbury that in December 2008, Senate majority leader Harry Reid offered to confirm 84 pending nominees in exchange for a withdrawal of Bradbury’s nomination. Reid’s offer was one the Bush White House could apparently refuse, and Bradbury served a short stint as Assistant Attorney General. When President Obama entered the scene, Bradbury was shown the door. Later, in a 2009 report, the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility said it had “serious concerns about some of his analysis,” but stopped short of accusing Bradbury of official professional misconduct.
For the last decade, Bradbury has distanced himself from the infamous Bradbury Memo, and returned to private practice as a partner with Dechert LLP in Washington, D.C. Bradbury gets out of the office now and again to do things like advise Mitt Romney and defend the NSA’s collection of metadata. An appointment to the Trump cabinet would be a fitting coda to Bradbury’s controversial career.
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/bring-on-the-controversy-trump-picks-notorious-waterboarding-apologist-for-cabinet/
|
Nothing would make me happier than Trump live tweeting the Comey hearing. Please don't let your politically correct lawyers and aides try and stop you Trump!
|
well now we know why the torture report got buried.
|
United States42024 Posts
Hell, even I know that printers encode their own ID on every page.
|
On June 07 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote: Trump is no doubt pissing off the military and statesmen, but does his base even care? I get the impression that they think the US is a strong independent country who don't need no allies. Nothing gives that nice warm 'America First' feeling more than when the world dislikes you. It's what Bannon wants most.
|
On June 07 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote: Trump is no doubt pissing off the military and statesmen, but does his base even care? I get the impression that they think the US is a strong independent country who don't need no allies. "How the US got its Groove Back"
|
On June 07 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:So the Intercept intentionally burned their source. Show nested quote +"When reporters at The Intercept approached the National Security Agency on June 1 to confirm a document that had been anonymously leaked to the publication in May, they handed over a copy of the document to the NSA to verify its authenticity. When they did so, the Intercept team inadvertently exposed its source because the copy showed fold marks that indicated it had been printed—and it included encoded watermarking that revealed exactly when it had been printed and on what printer." There are two possible interpretations for those actions. (1) Rank incompetence (2) Intentional burning However, (1) is not possible. The Intercept actually has professional and knowledgeable staff on hand to deal with leaked information. All it would take to defeat this kind of watermarking would be taking a picture of the leaked document, PDFing it, and slightly downgrading the quality, then sending a black and white print out of that downgraded document for confirmation. The Intercept sent a high quality copy (or possibly the original?) directly to the government for confirmation. That is straight up (2) Intentional burning. A plea of incompetence cannot be sustained here. https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/how-a-few-yellow-dots-burned-the-intercepts-nsa-leaker/EDIT: here are the guys the Intercept have on staff. No possible plea of incompetence with actual experts on the payroll. https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/872105756698521600 I highly doubt that the Intercept intentionally burned a source. There's nothing to be gained by doing that. No, this is pure incompetence. As someone who litigates a lot of complicated negligence cases, I can tell you that people ignore and break internal rules, policies, and procedures all of the time. And sometimes they do it knowingly, which is often considered "willful and wanton" conduct.
|
|
On June 07 2017 02:48 On_Slaught wrote: Nothing would make me happier than Trump live tweeting the Comey hearing. Please don't let your politically correct lawyers and aides try and stop you Trump!
I'd like a large projector screen set up with Trump's twitter feed and have the senators mediate a conversation between Comey and Trump through twitter. If there's extra time then maybe the senators can ask questions about their meetings and influence on the investigation.
|
United States42024 Posts
You understand she's actually closer to being a moderate centrist than you are, right xDaunt?
|
On June 07 2017 02:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:So the Intercept intentionally burned their source. "When reporters at The Intercept approached the National Security Agency on June 1 to confirm a document that had been anonymously leaked to the publication in May, they handed over a copy of the document to the NSA to verify its authenticity. When they did so, the Intercept team inadvertently exposed its source because the copy showed fold marks that indicated it had been printed—and it included encoded watermarking that revealed exactly when it had been printed and on what printer." There are two possible interpretations for those actions. (1) Rank incompetence (2) Intentional burning However, (1) is not possible. The Intercept actually has professional and knowledgeable staff on hand to deal with leaked information. All it would take to defeat this kind of watermarking would be taking a picture of the leaked document, PDFing it, and slightly downgrading the quality, then sending a black and white print out of that downgraded document for confirmation. The Intercept sent a high quality copy (or possibly the original?) directly to the government for confirmation. That is straight up (2) Intentional burning. A plea of incompetence cannot be sustained here. https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/how-a-few-yellow-dots-burned-the-intercepts-nsa-leaker/EDIT: here are the guys the Intercept have on staff. No possible plea of incompetence with actual experts on the payroll. https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/872105756698521600 I highly doubt that the Intercept intentionally burned a source. There's nothing to be gained by doing that. No, this is pure incompetence. As someone who litigates a lot of complicated negligence cases, I can tell you that people ignore and break internal rules, policies, and procedures all of the time. And sometimes they do it knowingly, which is often considered "willful and wanton" conduct.
Have you read a post by Glenn Greenwald in the last year? Greenwald is denier-in-chief of the existence of Russian Active measures and puts his best effort in playing the epistemological spin game. Any evidence of Russian Active measures goes against his day to day spin. This would be like FOX news putting out a definitive report on how their reporters fed Rod Wheeler the Seth Rich conspiracies.
Here is the Intercept's sorry comment on the matter. Until they explicitly plead that they are OpSec morons who have zero knowledge of how printers work, this was intentional.
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-department-allegations/?comments=1#comments
Here is a guy that works at the Intercept. No ignorance. All intent. https://twitter.com/micahflee
|
What was she replying to when she said that? Because the full tweet says “you should make a shirt that says “being white is terrorism”.
Also, I had to read an Infowars article, so need a shower.
|
On June 07 2017 03:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:53 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:So the Intercept intentionally burned their source. "When reporters at The Intercept approached the National Security Agency on June 1 to confirm a document that had been anonymously leaked to the publication in May, they handed over a copy of the document to the NSA to verify its authenticity. When they did so, the Intercept team inadvertently exposed its source because the copy showed fold marks that indicated it had been printed—and it included encoded watermarking that revealed exactly when it had been printed and on what printer." There are two possible interpretations for those actions. (1) Rank incompetence (2) Intentional burning However, (1) is not possible. The Intercept actually has professional and knowledgeable staff on hand to deal with leaked information. All it would take to defeat this kind of watermarking would be taking a picture of the leaked document, PDFing it, and slightly downgrading the quality, then sending a black and white print out of that downgraded document for confirmation. The Intercept sent a high quality copy (or possibly the original?) directly to the government for confirmation. That is straight up (2) Intentional burning. A plea of incompetence cannot be sustained here. https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/how-a-few-yellow-dots-burned-the-intercepts-nsa-leaker/EDIT: here are the guys the Intercept have on staff. No possible plea of incompetence with actual experts on the payroll. https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/872105756698521600 I highly doubt that the Intercept intentionally burned a source. There's nothing to be gained by doing that. No, this is pure incompetence. As someone who litigates a lot of complicated negligence cases, I can tell you that people ignore and break internal rules, policies, and procedures all of the time. And sometimes they do it knowingly, which is often considered "willful and wanton" conduct. Have you read a post by Glenn Greenwald in the last year? Greenwald is denier-in-chief of the existence of Russian Active measures and puts his best effort in playing the epistemological spin game. Any evidence of Russian Active measures goes against his day to day spin. This would be like FOX news putting out a definitive report on how their reporters fed Rod Wheeler the Seth Rich conspiracies. Here is the Intercept's sorry comment on the matter. Until they explicitly plead that they are OpSec morons who have zero knowledge of how printers work, this was intentional. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-department-allegations/?comments=1#commentsHere is a guy that works at the Intercept. No ignorance. All intent. https://twitter.com/micahflee Yes, I read a lot of Greenwald, and I like the Intercept. I've also read his pieces on all of this Russia nonsense. While he generally shits on the conspiracy theories, there is no way that he would intentionally out a source on anything. That is death for his publication. And he has nothing to gain by outing Reality Winners. He's no fan of Trump's.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If the Infowars piece is to be believed (if), Winner strikes me as the kind of person who just wasn't capable of handling the reality of what intelligence work is really like. While it is her own fault that she got caught leaking, this is precisely the kind of easily compromised individual that the clearance process should know how to filter out. You have to kind of feel bad for a kid who was placed in a world they didn't belong in and is now in deep shit.
|
On June 07 2017 03:02 xDaunt wrote:Also, in case anyone missed this, Reality Winners seems like a real piece of work. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to give this person any kind of security clearance? EDIT: "Being white is terrorism" hahahaha
Infowars is reliable media? Which conspiracy theory is it now?
|
|
|
|