You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Catching a hacker... how much does media play upon public ignorance?
There's a couple big assumptions here, but your biggest assumption is that all the evidence they have is "technical."
Was just listening to a presentation from a security expert yesterday amd his opinion, as someone who has handled security for the government, DNC and GOP, is that all the major countries can hack each other because everyone is good on offense but shit on defense. Take that for what you will.
Actually no that is not my assumption. (all technical)
My assumption is that you need to catch the person red handed if all they have is technical.
Because technical doesn't prove shit... I can fake it, so can anyone else. The fakes would be indiscernible.
So in the non-technical which I mentioned some.
#1 - Spending money, receiving money related to the hacks
#2 - Surveillance and catching them actually in the act
Someone else saying it is TRUE or that they KNOW it is true does not meet the burden of proof.
You could get a witness that might say "I saw them do this when I was at their house", "or I heard them bragging about it", "or I saw them get paid for it" and you might have non-technical.
Yet the technical evidence can be spoofed and is really not proof of anything. This is especially true if the hacker is even slightly good. Only an idiot would do the stupid things. If this is "Russians" hacking I assure you they are not stupid.
Except you only "disproved" the technical pieces and then declared the whole thing a "smear campaign."
I'm guessing the British spy isn't relying on any technical data, there's also evidence of financial ties and other things. I'm sure the info hasn't been released because it is comprised of much more than some IP addresses. The bottom line is we know for a fact the hacking occurred, the only real question is who and why... and there's evidence even the public has of his ties to Russia.
I decided I'd go look to see if there were any other technologists talking about this, as my posts have been based upon my personal experience monthly of dealing with actual hacks.
I am just grabbing these enmass so please don't use a logical fallacy of saying "You linked a video from X, that completely discredits you." You have not done this yet, but it is a common logical fallacy I see employed. I could like a "Where's Waldo Video" and that would not discredit me. That particular video may be worthless, but that doesn't make everything else guilty by association.
My information is apparently NOT good enough, so that is why I am linking other videos. I haven't watched them all... so I may not agree with all of it.
There is more... and I don't expect you to believe it because there are a lot of people that believe or do not believe it. That is called a bandwagon fallacy when proof is based upon quantity of people.
My reasons are purely because I know what to look for with hacking. I know what type of information we can get.
Sadly it doesn't prove anything unless we literally monitor it while its happening, perform a sting, and catch them in the act.
Way too easy to fake, and IP addresses can be supplied for any country...
I don't know if these reports that a Government IP (U.S.) was involved. Keep in mind, that could still be some other country compromising another U.S. agency computer, and then hacking from there as one of it's hops. So even that can't smear the U.S. as being the source. IP Address doesn't prove anything.
And again, you're only talking about the technical side which you also claimed can't prove much. I'm saying they have other evidence.
And I'm saying they need to put that information up.
If they don't it is agencies that have lately quite often proven "untrustworthy" telling us to "trust them".
Appeal to authority much? (Not saying YOU... this is what they are using)
Really. I'm not sure of anything.
It's not like I have any doubts these agencies and the government has lied before.
I can't say the same for Wikileaks. That is where it started when they were clear about their sources not being Russia or a State 4 months ago long before this hacking scapegoat stuff started. Yes, that is partially why I am saying that. I've watched them SAY the election failed because of X. People didn't buy it. Then the election failed because of Y. The people didn't buy it and no proof to support it. And we could pretend hacking is Z.
This seems to have some sticking power. The other topics tended to be things the average citizen can relate to. Hacking is a good topic to pick because most citizens (and most JUDGES in court) are pretty ignorant of how it works.
If we are talking HACKING then that is a technical act. Therefore, if that piece is disproved then why wouldn't it be a SMEAR CAMPAIGN?
We're not exactly talking about baking a cake, getting dressed, brushing our teeth, and doing exercise.
Hacking to most people is only what they see on TV or in Movies. This is not even close to real, partially because the REAL stuff would make for incredibly boring TV and Movies.
So now you have an AUTHORITY who has already made numerous claims that were false, suddenly saying the Russian Hacked the election...
First... HACKING is technical. So that leaves the server for the DNC which the FBI was not given access to, OR the voting machines themselves.
Yet they have stated the voting machines are not compromised.
Leaking the TRUTH is not hacking.
Telling a story is not HACKING.
Russia was suspected immediately, long before the person trying to affect the election tried to deflect the accusation by claiming it wasn't Russia.
Except you didn't disprove it, you claimed it was impossible for that to be enough evidence by itself.
Meanwhile the intelligence community is analyzing intercepted communications: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=3&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
Complete and utter non-sequitor. Voting machines are far more secure than DNC servers.
And you're just confusing the issue even more. The "truth" that was leaked was obtained by hacking. Moreover the "truth" was told only about one side, and then blown way out of proportion with people taking things out of context or making wild logical leaps about the contents. Such as Podesta receiving an email by a UFO enthusiast leading people to believe Hillary was talking to aliens.
Oh I thought I should say... I am only disputing the HACKING charges...
I do not dispute Russia trying to help Trump win. I have no doubt they may have used propaganda/news to do that. I am disputing the hacking claim, because it is highly improbable.
I am sure they tried to use propaganda and speeches to sway interest.
Yet, this is normal and has happened throughout history. It is nothing new.
We do it in every other countries elections. In some cases we are even worse.
Yet those LEAKS were TRUE information. That was not disputed. They were proof of corruption and collusion.
I don't care who it came from if it is true.
But the hack absolutely did happen. We even know that it was because Podesta fell for a phishing scam... even when Assange claims it was an insider that wopuld essentially be a "Spock lie" since Podesta was an insider but did not do it purposefully, and instead fell for a common hacking technique.
Except, not nearly as much as people think t hey were. Take the "stealing the election from Bernie" part. Literally all the email said was that they preferred Hillary, nothing whatsoever was shown in terms of them actually doing anything about it.
This is literally taking a thousand documents, throwing them at the public and claiming whatever they want about the contents knowing most people won't even look at all the documents while the die hard GOP supporters will read anything into them they want.
Wow. You REALLY should go back and read those from the time they were released. If you cannot SEE the collusion and that it was talking about actions, then I may be wasting my time discussing these things with you.
I read quite a few of those emails and was very surprised. They indeed DID speak of actions to take, and steps to take.
It wasn't simply "we don't like Bernie".
That definitely was not what got all of the Bernie supporters pissed off. I think that people knew that the established DNC preferred Hillary without needing any leaked information. That was pretty obvious.