431–440 of 1001 posts
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.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. Th…
>although I can't imagine the CIA wanting to hack the election in Trump's favour CIA is overwhelmingly republican, just like the FBI. So yes they would.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. Th…
>although I can't imagine the CIA wanting to hack the election in Trump's favour CIA is overwhelmingly republican, just like the FBI. So yes they would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that was the claim, but once people started undermining the story they had to shift to the word "influence" to save face. This kind of shit is why middle-class rightwing America cheers when Trump calls out fake news . A complete inability to honestly say, ok, we don't know, or ok, we fucked up. Nope, the story always was X... sure it was.
Can you provide some evidence? Links to articles?
Maybe this is a stupid question but how does one go about verifying the information wikileaks releases is accurate? I assume the people who submit info are verified in some way, does wikileaks then pass on that verification info to the public or are we supposed to just trust that they are providing truthful information in an unbiased way?
Wikileaks has pretty good track record. I believe so far every single one of the leaks have turned out true, or no one has challenged their authenticity.
They have vim editing tips https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_3375350.html No emacs?
They have secret unit testing tips too! https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_11629048.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which is the baseless rumor and which is the truth?
We humans obviously can't handle the mental load implicit in running a cohesive society. Let's leave it behind and revert to subsistence foraging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US chemical weapons program is downright frightening. Was : they committed to destroying those weapons, and have been doing so for 24 years. They were 89.75% complete in 2012. The video you linked was from 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons...
Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them?
Since the inception of Smart TV's, I've often wondered, is it still possible to buy a modern "stupid" TV?
