New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7 • Hacker News Board

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#171

Post by sievebrain » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #144

superflyguy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the charges aren't going away. And because the girl was talked into the rape accusation and then tried to back out of it makes it a set up.

Claims in an Internet forum aren't evidence. Also, rape victims back out of accusations all the time because of the trauma involved. Is there evidence?

Yeah, lots in this case. The reason so many say the Assange charges are a setup is that the case was dropped initially by the prosecutor after it became clear the women were lying, their stories simply didn't stack up so there was no chance of a conviction. Assange hung around in Sweden after the charges were filed and requested permission to leave after the charges were dropped, the Swedish police said they were done with him. Then after he left a different prosecutor mysteriously reopened the case and demanded he return for questioning again, though nothing had changed in the case, no charges were filed and the chance of a successful prosecution was still zero.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#172

Post by jonhendry18 » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

notveryrational wrote: post #154

jonhendry18 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What criminality? Unless the CIA was using the tools against targets in the US, there's no US law broken. Every country does it.

Common misconception. CIA is allowed to target Americans, and does on a regular basis. Targeting Americans for political purposes is illegal. Targeting Americans for National Security reasons is perfectly within National Security Law.

Note I said "in the US", which I believe is a geographical restriction that applies, not "Americans".

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#173

Post by DmenshunlAnlsis » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

jonhendry18 wrote: post #172

notveryrational wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception. CIA is allowed to target Americans, and does on a regular basis. Targeting Americans for political purposes is illegal. Targeting Americans for National Security reasons is perfectly within National Security Law.

Note I said "in the US", which I believe is a geographical restriction that applies, not "Americans".

The same restrictions apply to the NSA, and we all know how much that mattered to them. Why do you think the CIA is different?

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#174

Post by stevehawk » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #48

influx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the IRC logs, and I'm skeptical that anyone not deeply versed in the lingo, tone, and character of that scene could fake them. It's not impossible, but it was pretty convincing to me.

You don't think the CIA would be able to fake the lingo, tone, and character of the scene? I mean, they certainly have access to a ton of real IRC logs about the subject, would probably be pretty easy to swap out some usernames.

I'd wager they couldn't. It's not likely they themselves would have those kids either. It would be the FBI prosecuting child pornography and being knowledgeable about it (with even more knowledge on how to lose a CP prosecution) and the NSA that would be hoarding those logs.

Of course, nothing says they wouldn't be cooperating in this.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#175

Post by notveryrational » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

austinheap wrote: post #160

notveryrational wrote: post #159

I remember getting in trouble for hacking with friends in High School. When a friend got in trouble for stealing and publishing data from our school, the state police went around scaring all of the parents and media with accusations of suspected child porn (completely made up, and never part of any actual investigation). Just uttering the words turned parents who had been closed lipped into law abiding, pre-judgement…

I remember getting in trouble for hacking with friends in High School. I don't remember the part where the police -- who were involved -- manufactured or planted child pornography accusations. As you pointed out, that also isn't the case here either. Hat tip for the accurate username though.

Chip on your shoulder?

So the State Police (NY State for me) did manufacture child pornography allegations. I am glad your experience was different.

I believe that in this case, the CIA planted this evidence.

I love my username, one could even say irrationally so.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#176

Post by notveryrational » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

jonhendry18 wrote: post #172

notveryrational wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception. CIA is allowed to target Americans, and does on a regular basis. Targeting Americans for political purposes is illegal. Targeting Americans for National Security reasons is perfectly within National Security Law.

Note I said "in the US", which I believe is a geographical restriction that applies, not "Americans".

Ahh same deal. Geographical restrictions are for civilian law and political purposes. National Security follows different standards.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#177

Post by notveryrational » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

DmenshunlAnlsis wrote: post #173

jonhendry18 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note I said "in the US", which I believe is a geographical restriction that applies, not "Americans".

The same restrictions apply to the NSA, and we all know how much that mattered to them. Why do you think the CIA is different?

That's the thing, if you look at the NSA, they were and still are absolutely empowered to do what they did.

The only person who got in trouble for the domestic surveillance disclosures were the person who blew the whistle. That's because what he did was illegal and what they did wasn't.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#178

Post by forapurpose » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 12:24 AM UTC

sievebrain wrote: post #171

forapurpose wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims in an Internet forum aren't evidence. Also, rape victims back out of accusations all the time because of the trauma involved. Is there evidence?

Yeah, lots in this case. The reason so many say the Assange charges are a setup is that the case was dropped initially by the prosecutor after it became clear the women were lying, their stories simply didn't stack up so there was no chance of a conviction. Assange hung around in Sweden after the charges were filed and requested permission to leave after the charges were dropped, the Swedish police said they were don…

Again I'm reading lots of claims and as everyone knows, claims on the Internet aren't really the most reliable things. Can anyone cite any evidence?

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#179

Post by DINKDINK » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

rosser wrote: post #33

DINKDINK wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind enlightening us how Wikileaks was a propaganda arm of the Russian government when they released video of US war crimes (murder of journalists in the Collateral Murder video)? If another news organization received the DNC leaks and chose to not publish them, do you think that would have been ethical? Is your position that, one cannot be a US citizen and oppose the US government and if you do you're a Russi…

The selectivity of Wikileaks' leaks put the lie to their claim of being a journalistic entity. Julian Assange has an agenda against certain people/parties, and has demonstrably leaked things that support that, and not leaked things that refute it. I say that as a detractor of many of the same people and institutions Assange dislikes, so check your assumptions of bias before you throw them, please.

>The selectivity of Wikileaks' leaks

What GOP documents did Wikileaks receive that they didn’t release?

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#180

Post by sievebrain » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 8:53 AM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #178

sievebrain wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, lots in this case. The reason so many say the Assange charges are a setup is that the case was dropped initially by the prosecutor after it became clear the women were lying, their stories simply didn't stack up so there was no chance of a conviction. Assange hung around in Sweden after the charges were filed and requested permission to leave after the charges were dropped, the Swedish police said they were don…

Again I'm reading lots of claims and as everyone knows, claims on the Internet aren't really the most reliable things. Can anyone cite any evidence?

Probably because you're asking people to Google stuff for you? It's all public.

There are two women. One posted on Twitter the next day boasting about the awesome night she'd had with Assange. She later deleted the post but others had recorded it already. The other woman sent lots of text messages saying she wasn't raped and only reported Assange because she wanted him to take an std test, that the police had blown it up and seemed to want to get him.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes...

Moreover the women only filed these charges after they met each other and realised they'd both slept with him.

Look, I don't know why you're being so skeptical about this. False reports of rape are extremely common. Most credible studies I've seen peg it at 50% or higher. You should never take such an accusation at face value before a case has been won and in this case we don't even need a trial - the women both created documentary evidence they were lying and one even attempted to destroy it.