71–80 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so certain they are Russian?
It's the popular thing to assume these days. It's also very insulting to Russian people in my opinion. But I guess it's ok to be prejudice towards some group of people but not others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Widely documented by "The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence", the most obvious enemy of Russia? Human rights violations in the U.S. are also well documented by China: http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/06/26/china-issues-r...
The US does legitimately have an imperfect human rights track record, and most Americans who follow the news would agree (while at the same time being aware of China's own hypocrisy in this matter) Likewise, Russia has a well documented history of sponsoring online propaganda campaigns, and most people who aren't delusional or paid shills would agree. Two negative things about two different countries can in fact both…
But hey, if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so certain they are Russian?
FWIW Snowden speculates "Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility. Here's why that is significant" - https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/765514891813945344
Then again, I'm sure that there are enough people and intelligence services in play to make everything confusing.
This stuff looks old. There are versions for Solaris and SCO Unix.
https://github.com/x0rz/EQGRP/blob/master/Linux/bin/xp_phpbb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so certain they are Russian?
It's the popular thing to assume these days. It's also very insulting to Russian people in my opinion. But I guess it's ok to be prejudice towards some group of people but not others.
The content reads pretty clearly like a native English speaker imitating immature hacker-speak. It comes across as if it were written by a script-kiddy; that may be intentional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US does legitimately have an imperfect human rights track record, and most Americans who follow the news would agree (while at the same time being aware of China's own hypocrisy in this matter) Likewise, Russia has a well documented history of sponsoring online propaganda campaigns, and most people who aren't delusional or paid shills would agree. Two negative things about two different countries can in fact both…
paradite is saying it's not well documented. It's poorly documented by people highly incentivised to lie. But hey, if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.
Uh huh
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/st-petersburg-troll-factory-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-...
https://www.inopressa.ru/article/03Jun2014/buzzfeed/web_rus....
https://globalvoices.org/2015/04/02/analyzing-kremlin-twitte...
> if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.
Not true, but it would definitely take more than that hand-wavy uncertainty yarn you're trying to spin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the popular thing to assume these days. It's also very insulting to Russian people in my opinion. But I guess it's ok to be prejudice towards some group of people but not others.
Russia uses online trolling as a tool. It's widely documented. This use of trolling leaves Russia open to accusations even when they're not involved. For a well documented case: http://www.stratcomcoe.org/internet-trolling-hybrid-warfare-...
So does JTRIG[1][2], and probably many other groups as well. Russia isn't the only suspect for this kind trolling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Russian myself, I can tell you with certainty that there are mistakes in that text that a Russian ESL speaker would never make, and verb tenses are a bit too good for an unskilled speaker. Due to the combination of these two factors, I bet this was written by a native English speaker who thinks he/she knows the mistakes a Russian would make. They're wrong.
I'm pretty sure that was GP's point. The text is intentionally garbled with no identifiable first-language bias.
Can someone remind me why Snowden would be in a position to comment on if this release comprises a full or partial set of hacking tools? Specifically, does this imply that his cache of data included a list of these tools, or was his day to day job one such that he would have been normally in contact with this toolset?
> Can someone remind me why Snowden would be in a position to comment on if this release comprises a full or partial set of hacking tools? I wouldn't interpret that that tweet as "lost control of its full arsenal". It seems that say that, but then it's a tweet and length-limited. Maybe let's just wait until a more nuanced analysis surfaces?
B) This dump is from 2013, not long after Snowden left, so still relevant to his knowledge on the subject. Although he wasn't trained for TAO.