361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not long ago it was hinted that US ambassy in Paris is a nice CIA antenna too. Nobody denied nobody answered, question still up in the air. Also, latest Russian project, a large church-like building in Paris is suspected to hide intel dept.
Poster is referring to this thing, for anyone curious: http://www.gettyimages.fr/%C3%A9v%C3%A9nement/russian-orthod...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support your plea for avoiding hysteria but this stuff passed dismissal as mere conspiracy long ago. All plausible angles must be considered with this stuff. The CIA and FSB are in the business of deniability so it takes more than just a surface level reality check to discredit.
I live in DC, and have a bunch of friends in common with Seth. The crowd of tinfoil-hat-wearing jackasses spreading this bullshit do nothing but continue to cause pain for his family and friends. Y'all can hide behind your keyboards, but there are real people here. Think about them for a change.
This idea that the government should somehow be exempt from proper cybersecurity ethics is disgusting. When the CIA or the NSA find zero day attacks in software, they should report them immediately to be fixed, not build tools specifically to exploit them. It's only a matter of time before these attacks either leak or are rediscovered by other malicious parties. The government is effectively turning their own people…
They've done some terrible stuff but they are big agencies with many competing objectives within.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There also still hasn't been any public evidence that Wikileaks got their Podesta email data from Russians yet. So far we only know the DNC leaks were very likely Russian. That means until today only about ~50% of the 'election hacks' have been attributed to Russia with public evidence. Now this leak calls into question some of the evidence about the DNC hack [1]. This evidence being the malware was Russian. But ther…
There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party [1] and in a other interview has hinted that the source may be Seth Rich [2], a former DNC staff member that was murdered in Washington DC. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCOy25GdjQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
How would he know? Isn't wikileaks set up so that people can submit data anonymously? Is he claiming that they got the data through different channels? Why would an insider purposefully leak the data in a way that de-anonymized him to Assange and possibly others, instead of using the established channels?
This had the potential of being a positive development brought by Trump's election: many behaviors by the US three letter agencies that were glossed over for the past 8 years (due to the party in power being "on the right side of history") are again reprehensible and deemed a threat to be fought by the tech community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're commenting on a release that includes CIA guidelines for structuring file metadata specifically to avoid US attribution... And arguing that questioning the integrity of file metadata is a conspiracy theory... https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14587109.html
File metadata wasn't my concern. Spreading baseless rumors without concern for grieving family and friends makes Sparkling (and his buddies) grade-A fuckwads in my book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that "Russians" hacked the election That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim. The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.
There's also an argument to be made that Hillary would not have been the nominee had the DNC played fair. The leaked emails show that they actively worked to suppress Bernie, who had huge rallies, similar to Trump.
The DNC problems are part of a long term reshaping of US political identities. The Russia issues are a serious near-term national security concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously there's a difference between cyber and conventional weapons, but imagine if the same rationale were extended to physical munitions: "We can't drop this bomb on the enemy, it contains classified technology"
While the weapon too secret to use sounds very Dr Strangelove, there have been slightly similar things with real weapons. The one I remember is when radar-triggered proximity shells were invented at the end of WW2 they were only issued for use on ships, so that undetonated shells would fall into the sea, so couldn't be recovered and investigated by the enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but unless every other nation stops doing this there is little value in being the only "clean" country (assuming somehow we stop). And what are the implications of doing so? We used to believe that free and open societies would naturally prosper compared to authoritarian/totalitarian societies but what if that was all a lie? "Five Eyes" dates back to the 1940's, ECHELON at least the 1980's - none of this is n…
> We used to believe that free and open societies would naturally prosper compared to authoritarian/totalitarian societies but what if that was all a lie? Then give up your freedom and start advocating for monarchy in America.