Unsubstantiated claim of the week
-
Er, no I'm not going to analyze anything by his opponents because a. surprise, surprise, the world is not fair! and b. he is the president, not his opponents. He is supposed to do at least some rudimentary research before opening his figurative pie-hole on the internet. I have already said that now that he is president, even his detractors should make the best of the situation and try to see that he doesn't f#ck things up too much. Anyway this was supposed to be more about the actual claim itself, whether hackers cannot be caught unless in the act. Not who hired them but the actual hackers themselves. Looks like the Trumpites have all got their panties in a twist.
Nighthowler wrote:
it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking
Nighthowler wrote:
hackers cannot be caught
You misquoted yourself, and you misquoted Trump's quote the second time, changing the meaning significantly. You're not looking for expertise on hacking; you're looking for ways to make fun of Trump. If you actually cared about hacking expertise, it's not hard to find, and you don't need our help.
-
Nighthowler wrote:
it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking
Nighthowler wrote:
hackers cannot be caught
You misquoted yourself, and you misquoted Trump's quote the second time, changing the meaning significantly. You're not looking for expertise on hacking; you're looking for ways to make fun of Trump. If you actually cared about hacking expertise, it's not hard to find, and you don't need our help.
You Trumpites are so sensitive to criticism and take things so seriously, "hacking expertise" is hardly what I seek here, just some lighthearted discussion. If you like I can do one about Hillary next week.
-
Well, he may have misstated reality, but when you're dealing with a politicized "security" agency, "evidence" can quite easily be misrepresented or even completely fabricated. To date, the CIA hasn't released any tangible proof of ANYTHING. They merely floated a "belief". Let's also not forget that the CIA was also responsible for the "intelligence" that resulted in the Iraq war. To date, no WMDs have been found. I'm more apt to trust Wikileaks - who has REPEATEDLY stated that the hacks into the DNC were NOT originated in Russia - before I trust ANYTHING coming out of a politician's mouth, much less their bought-and-paid-for mainstream media lackeys. It was also revealed that a "rogue Homeland Security employee" was behind the hack attempts in Georgia. Finally, even if hacks DID original in Russia, who's to say the party that paid the hackers was also from Russia. After everything that has been laid bare regarding the democratic party in the last year, it amazes me that anyone with more than two functioning brain cells gives anything any politician says and credence whatsoever.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Let's also not forget that the CIA was also responsible for the "intelligence" that resulted in the Iraq war. To date, no WMDs have been found.
Thus presumably you are suggesting that the CIA should be shut down completely since they never have and never will provide anything worthwhile?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Finally, even if hacks DID original in Russia, who's to say the party that paid the hackers was also from Russia. After everything that has been laid bare regarding the democratic party in the last year, it amazes me that anyone with more than two functioning brain cells gives anything any politician says and credence whatsoever.
Presumably you understand that the US has attempted to interfere in the political process of other countries over the years? But you would claim that Russia and before that the USSR would never attempt that? That it is not even possible? Or perhaps you concede it is possible but rather that Russia could not think that Trump was better for them than Clinton? Or perhaps that they are so incompetent that they could not even possibly hack the democratic party servers? (That of course means they could not have hacked Clinton's email server as well even if they had tried.)
-
Here is some food for thought: only emails obtained from the Democratic Party were released. Even if there are actors hacking emails from all political parties, they only released emails from the DNC and included emails that would be particularly damaging. From this we can surmise that they indeed wanted to sabotage HRC's election chances. The reasons for it are unknown but somebody out there did not want Hillary to be president. It's not a far leap to connect this to either China or Russia as Hillary was the primary motiviator behind Obama's "pivot to the east" redistribution in U.S. military deployments. She was obviously taking a hard-line stance in Russian/Chinese diplomacy. While it is anybody's guess where it would have lead to had she won the election, I can say that open military conflict between NATO and a Russia/China/et. al. alliance was certainly in the realm of possibilities. I know enough about how the internet works to know that it is impossible to tell with certainty where an attack comes from so we cannot assign blame to any specific state but it is also obvious which presidential candidate was targeted repeatedly. If you know Hillary's enemies, then they are the top of the list of suspects.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
Here is some food for thought: only emails obtained from the Democratic Party were released.
Yes but to be fair it follows that it was only claimed and not proven that the Republicans were hacked.
Foothill wrote:
It's not a far leap to connect this to either China or Russia
Not sure I really see China as an active supporter of Trump. While Russia has ample evidence that Trump would be better for them.
Foothill wrote:
impossible to tell with certainty where an attack comes from so we cannot assign blame to any specific state
Err...no that doesn't follow. First of course I can only presume that when you make that statement that you are referring to your own knowledge and not that of a government agency with vast resources. A government agency would look at many sources not just one. And have access to them. Second what they have claimed is that there are multiple sources that point to a specific source. Now if you were to go to a court of law with what they have before a jury and attempt to prove Putin gave a direct order then it might a bit fuzzy, but I am certain that unless they are just lying, that the evidence they have suggests a broad organized effort to hack the sources and release the data. And someone with some understanding of Russia could then only conclude that either there was going to be some executions in Russia or that Putin knew and encouraged what was going on.
Foothill wrote:
From this we can surmise that they indeed wanted to sabotage HRC's election chances.
But we however must still admit that wanting and succeeding are two different things. After all polling indicates she was going to win right up to the actual election. And post analysis would suggest that it was missteps in the campaign itself (lack of targeting certain areas) along with ill-stated or missed issues that was probably the real failure. Arrogance in the political arena about what one can actually do to positively impact political processes in other countries is the only reason it still happens. Evidence would suggest that even if it succeeds short term it will fail drastically long term so best to just let it run its course. Russia would need to consider that a US backlash if Trump as president fails could be far worse that what
-
Foothill wrote:
Here is some food for thought: only emails obtained from the Democratic Party were released.
Yes but to be fair it follows that it was only claimed and not proven that the Republicans were hacked.
Foothill wrote:
It's not a far leap to connect this to either China or Russia
Not sure I really see China as an active supporter of Trump. While Russia has ample evidence that Trump would be better for them.
Foothill wrote:
impossible to tell with certainty where an attack comes from so we cannot assign blame to any specific state
Err...no that doesn't follow. First of course I can only presume that when you make that statement that you are referring to your own knowledge and not that of a government agency with vast resources. A government agency would look at many sources not just one. And have access to them. Second what they have claimed is that there are multiple sources that point to a specific source. Now if you were to go to a court of law with what they have before a jury and attempt to prove Putin gave a direct order then it might a bit fuzzy, but I am certain that unless they are just lying, that the evidence they have suggests a broad organized effort to hack the sources and release the data. And someone with some understanding of Russia could then only conclude that either there was going to be some executions in Russia or that Putin knew and encouraged what was going on.
Foothill wrote:
From this we can surmise that they indeed wanted to sabotage HRC's election chances.
But we however must still admit that wanting and succeeding are two different things. After all polling indicates she was going to win right up to the actual election. And post analysis would suggest that it was missteps in the campaign itself (lack of targeting certain areas) along with ill-stated or missed issues that was probably the real failure. Arrogance in the political arena about what one can actually do to positively impact political processes in other countries is the only reason it still happens. Evidence would suggest that even if it succeeds short term it will fail drastically long term so best to just let it run its course. Russia would need to consider that a US backlash if Trump as president fails could be far worse that what
Not really refuting your comments but I would like to clarify my thoughts on this.
jschell wrote:
Yes but to be fair it follows that it was only claimed and not proven that the Republicans were hacked.
I was making the assumption that China and Russia are actively probing all major political power structures to gather intelligence. It is not limited to the U.S. I would also assume that we are actively searching for cracks in their IT systems for the same reasons. Keeping a close eye on potential adversaries is a given in international diplomacy.
jschell wrote:
Not sure I really see China as an active supporter of Trump.
They may not have supported Trump but they had good reason to work against Clinton. If she continued down the diplomatic road-map that she laid out as Secretary of State, she would have actively worked against Chinese plans for military and economic expansion in SE Asia.
jschell wrote:
Err...no that doesn't follow.
From a technology standpoint, with the TOR, the uncharted depths of the dark web, and thousands of automated Bot-Nets in existence, anybody can launch any kind of information based attack and remain untraceable just from exploiting how the internet works. I know that we can analyze attack vectors and patterns to get a good idea of where it came from but, to reiterate, it is impossible to be 100% certain who is launching the attacks.
jschell wrote:
But we however must still admit that wanting and succeeding are two different things.
After all polling indicates she was going to win right up to the actual election.This together with errors in the Brexit polls only show that polling is never absolute as anyone can lie. Also, their sample sizes were often too small to even be considered remotely accurate. A +/- 3.5% margin of error is huge in statistics.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
