Slashdot Mirror

To rebut the tyrant's advocate, I'll present the following:

No, family separation and minor detention is not required by law.

In practice, the children can be separated indefinitely (possibly permanently), since there is poor tracking of the parents and minors, with multiple poorly communicating government agencies involved. At least one case has had a mother deported separately from her son. Can you say with any certainty that a parent deported separately to Guatemala will be reunited with a child that was still detained by the US federal government within 20 days?

To pile injury upon injury, Border Patrol is making it difficult for asylum seekers to declare themselves in ports, turning them away from legal entry. (I'm not 100% on the intercept as a source, here is their story and description of the practice). As an unfliching proponent of adherence to the law, an honest appraisal of this behavior by the border control arms of the US government may induce discomfort or cognitive dissonance, if a capability for dissonance remains present.

Breitbart is a proponent of this sort of behavior, and them promoting a line of propaganda to reinforce denial of the true consequences of their goals is unfortunately expected. Denial is a key component of atrocity. Holocaust denial is not an isolated phenomena, denial goes hand and hand with ethnic cleansing and genocidal movements in general. It may seem hyperbolic to discuss this particular issue using such terminology, but if you read through the warning signs and look to the dehumanizing rhetoric being used now, such as Trump saying these migrants are trying to "infest" us, you might understand why many, myself included, are starting to freak out.

" it was learned that Guccifer 2.0 did in fact slip up and failed to activate his VPN client and exposed himself as being ... in Moscow. This is a fact that is now accepted across the political spectrum."

That's far from the consensus (see “Why would diabolically skilled Russian operatives operate so sloppily?”).

The evidence of Russian hacking is either circumstantial (for example that hackers kept Moscow office hours because as we all know, hackers are famous for their 9-to-5 routine). Or the smoking gun has not been released by the consultancies the DNC is paying and government agencies who told us they had proof there are WMDs in Iraq.

Of the two links you post, the second refers to the first and both confuse Guccifer (Marcel Lazr Lehel who is currently in a Romanian jail) and Guccifer 2.0, the alleged Russian spy.

Now, obviously, there are going to be howls of "Russian Shill!" from ACs (see below) because I have deviated from the narrative. So, let me make it clear: it might be that the Russians did indeed hack the DNC. But the evidence that has currently been released is so weak there is at least the possibility that the whole story is an attempt to undermine the validity of the 2016 election.

Current WH staff setting up their own private accounts after the election to use for White House business was not a notable issue. It went away in a few days.
https://www.politico.com/story...

The Bush WH staff using a private server for WH communications during the sell-job for the Iraq War in 2002-2003, and then wiping the server, deleting 22 million emails rather than hand any over to the government records office, was not an issue. It went away in a few days at the time, and again in a few days during the 2016 election when Newsweek magazine attempted to revive the story:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0...

No, I am not waving my arms around crying conspiracy. The press really did harp on the HRC email story, some 30X as much coverage as "issues" got; but the thing is, people kept clicking on the stories; and not changing channels; and the press responds to that.

I really don't understand it and don't have a theory for why Americans are so fascinated with the slightest wrongs done by Democrats (I mean, FIVE investigations of Clinton firings in the WH travel office??) and so uninterested in the most jaw-dropping things done by the right, but they just are. I think Al Franken had it right, that the only press bias is a "sell eyeballs to advertisers" bias and the unfairness of it all must be laid at the feet of The People themselves. Truly, Americans have the government they deserve.

Here's my two "greatest hits" on that score:
1) Nixon's collusion with a foreign power (S. Vietnam) to ruin the 1968 Peace Talks to deny Democrats a win during the election campaign was called treason by some who became aware of his calls to them via CIA wiretaps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... ...20,000 Americans died in the ensuing four years. (NB: Might have happened either way; but Nixon's *intent* was to extend the war.)

2) Eight news organizations paid to have the Florida ballots carefully and repeatedly recounted and found that Gore won no matter how you counted hanging chads and dimples and all that:

https://www.consortiumnews.com... ...the Washington Post put that story on page a10 and it was gone in a few days. I was actually unaware of it, and I'm a news junkie.

So that's what will happen to this story too. I don't know why it works this way with American news, but it does.

Both those links come from Jon Schwarz' eye-opening history in The Intercept last December:
https://theintercept.com/2017/... ...where Schwarz dryly notes that:
"For their part, the elite print and broadcast media accepted the right’s critique that they were – as huge profit-driven corporations naturally tend to be – horribly liberal. " ...and I'm sure that's part of it. But the news media can't control stories all THAT well. People really do just look away after a few days, from Republican malfeasance, all the way up to torture. Heck, Democrats look away from it, including Obama looking the other way on torture.

So this is nothing, and will be gone in a few days. QED. I'm willing to lay money on it if anybody is skeptical.

I generally accept that people are pretty much flawed, though I am less tolerant when bullying is involved and I react here because it feels too much like 'two minutes hate' and that is because of a successful campaign.

Wikileaks is important because it reintroduces a degree of checks and balances to power where it's mostly lost. The watchdog function of the mainstream is almost gone. That argument by itself may not provide enough drive for someone to actually go ahead with it so I accept that those who actually make it work are fairly radical. I don't know that much about Assange and I don't know what to look for in the twitter links you give. That he is not likable? Something worse than rape? He despises Clinton. I understand that, I think my opinions are similar in that respect. I don't see why that would disqualify him. His comment (i assume it's his) that if Clinton is elected the end result taking in account all the pressures would be worse than if the GOP got elected is legitimate(though it appears to be wrong). Making a lot out of it is misleading. Or it's just being misled by the propaganda war. It certainly does not mean he's pro GOP or pro Trump. Or working for the Russians. He's working for civil society and against the established power.

Wikileaks is a neutral broker in the sense that if you deliver the data, they will make it available. Maybe they could be tempted to play with the timing depending on the material, but likely much less than mainstream media. Mostly the politics will shine through in the publications of Wikileaks themselves, but since they excel at providing the actual sources with it that is not really a major flaw.

What I find ridiculous is that there could be serious discussions about wikileaks and instead people get upset about bias and attitude.
The main issue with wikileaks is that instead of becoming a back end for the publishers: them providing leaked data to journalists - they became their own publisher, and they filter lets things through much more radically than mainstream. Wikileaks reflects Assanges politics in that power is self-serving and there is need for resistance. It does function as checks and balances but it hopes for more radical changes.
That is because of the mistrust of the mainstream media and a strong sense to give power to the people. Again, there are very good reasons for that but that is a radical step. It's withdrawing trust in the system. Compare it to Snowden. He gave his material to Greenwald and gave the full responsibility for what to publish to Greenwald. From then on it was out of Snowden's hands and if Greenwald decided to sit on something then Snowden had no say in it.Greenwald himself kept working with the Guardian despite serious conflicts - often Guardian dragging its feet about publishing. That attitude means 'Ok the system is seriously flawed but I stay within the system'. It doesn't necessarily mean Greenwald's view on the state of the media is less pessimistic. The difficulty with radicals is not necessarily their analysis but their solutions.

  Afterwards Greenwald started the Intercept which in many respects is mainstream: it publishes things which would have been published elsewhere without any problem, like the links you provide. So the Intercept is flawed and compromised as well but overall it provides good value. It often does not do the adversarial journalism Greenwald himself believes in, but it has enough of it. It can publish things like this condemnation of what is happening to Assange, which cannot be done in the mainstream: https://theintercept.com/2018/...

I believe in checks and balances and I'm no revolutionary but I think in the current state there should be room for both Assange and Greenwald. Your comment that Assange doesn't know what he's talking about is plain wrong.

tinkerton sneered:

You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges.

Actually, I despise the sonofabitch, too - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his sex life.

Instead, it has everything to do with the contents of more than 11,000 Twitter DM's between Assange and a select group of "long term and reliable supporters" of Wikileaks that were leaked to The Intercept by a member of that group, and published on Valentine's day, 2018. (How's that for irony?)

Those DM's make it Waterford clear - in Assange's own words - that, far from being the neutral information broker he has always portrayed it as, Wikileaks always was, instead, an instrument designed to impose his own, personal agenda on the USA in particular, and the world, in general. It was - and is - engaged in a deliberate propaganda campaign to sway public opinion in favor of the Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign, and in favor of Russia (as what Assange claims to be a necessary counterbalance to American influence on the international stage, a positive influence on the world, and, bizarrely, a weak - and helpless - victim of American covert tampering).

It's transparently obvious from even a cursory scan of the trove that Julian Assange is, at best, arrogantly delusional about how geopolitics works in the real world, is determinedly ignorant of how American domestic politics actually influences its international policies and actions, and is either grossly misinformed about, or is deliberately misleading his key financiers (because that's what, from context, his audience of "long term and reliable supporters" consists of) regarding the effectiveness of Vladimir Putin's covert operations to destabilize democracies not just in the USA, but globally, as well. Regardless of which is the case, in these DM's to his inner circle of "reliable" supporters - one of whom, I remind you, is unquestionably responsible for having leaked them to The Intercept - his determination to influence the USA's 2016 election against Hilary Clinton, and for Donald Trump is repeatedly, explicitly made clear (as is his belief, all historical evidence notwithstanding, that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are the primary authors of American global adventurism).

But, hey, don't take my word - or the Intercept's - for that. Instead, read their most germane Twitter DM's for yourself, and come to your own conclusions ...

Actually people under Saddam, and Assad, and Khadaffy had decent enough lives, as long as they didn't speak out against the government. You know, kind of like what we have in America. Fun fact: did you know that Libya was a socialist government that provided for all its people? That's right! There was no hunger nor no want. The petroleum wealth provided for all. Even more fun fact: Libya was bombed to hide the fact that French Premier Sarzoky was corrupt! Yup, that's true. The more you know.

You're assuming Iran has that option.

Trump just appointed a guy as his National Security adviser who promised to conquer Iran by 2019. And he's only the most recent neocon to be added to the administration. Just look to W for their track record on convincing morons that war is easy and makes the President great.

The Republican party has demonstrated they have zero interest in restraining Trump. They need Trump's base to be re-elected, so they can't oppose him. Which means Trump will not be impeached, so he'll serve out at least one term.

"Just hold on" is not necessarily and available option.

I don't like how Signal and others require mobile phones. Not everyone has or wants one.

See here for instructions for how to manage without one: The Intercept article

Is Jeff Bezos careful to be logical? It seems to me the answer is no, if you judge by how Amazon is managed. More evidence, added to the evidence in the parent comment:

A Slashdot comment: "you still can't sort prime-only items by price correctly (it includes the lowest priced non-prime seller)..."

And: "... Amazon literally still builds their rich pages using their normal grid layout, and in the most impossible to navigate way possible.

Amazon: Amazon warehouse jobs push workers to physical limit (Seattle Times, April 3, 2012)

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (Bloomberg, Feb. 19, 2013)

Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (Salon.com, Feb. 23, 2014)

Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

Amazon: Amazon paid no US income taxes for 2017 (SeattlePI, Feb. 27, 2018)

Amazon: Undercover author finds Amazon warehouse workers in UK 'peed in bottles' over fears of being punished for taking a break (Business Insider, April 16, 2018)

Amazon: The undercover author who discovered Amazon warehouse workers were peeing in bottles tells us the culture was like a 'prison' (Business Insider, April 18, 2018)

Amazon: Amazon Gets Tax Breaks While Its Employees Rely on Food Stamps, New Data Shows (The Intercept, April 19, 2018) Quote: "Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table."

Safe space flight depends on careful thinking. Everyone involved with flight into space must be logical. Maybe Jeff Bezos just needed to find a place to put his money; maybe he doesn't influence Bllue Origins much. But even if that is true, he has influence, and that is scary. My opinion.

and the FBI confiscate all their computer hardware

Aren't they in the UK? I think this is outside the FBI's jurisdiction, unless you meant to say Scotland Yard.

The UK also hasn't been to keen on extradition lately.

https://theintercept.com/2018/...

Seriously. It's hilarious to watch the mental gymnastics of Google's CEO openly tauting that he's DIRECTLY working with a presidential candidate to "use our data" to help the candidate.

  - Facebook sold some ads. Who the fuck reads Facebook ads?
  - Google literally used their entire platform (read: tracking your information) + "muh algorithms" to assist a candidate.

And IN RETURN, the CEO got, and I quote, "a virtual open door to access the White House at will"

https://www.googletransparency...

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

https://mashable.com/2009/04/2...

https://www.wired.com/2008/11/...

https://www.politico.com/story...

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

"Eric Schmitt, 'CEO of America' "

And these are LIBERAL WEBSITES running these articles. So you can't even play the whole "alt-right / foxnews / fakenews / Russia-wrote-it" Red Herring bullshit.

Of course, I don't know why we're restricting to Obama either. Under Hillary, they did the same thing (for likely the same quid-pro-quo arrangement):

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.googletransparencyp...

https://qz.com/823922/eric-sch...

https://www.politico.com/magaz...

https://qz.com/520652/groundwo...

So with literally DOZENS upon dozens of professional articles dedicated to the subject from dozens of separate news organizations, anyone who ignores this well-established fact is throwing their head in the sand and humming, and not worthy of a debate response and should be downvoted accordingly for low signal-to-noise ratio.

  -> Google did everything Facebook did, and far more.

No, according to the Christian Right, sex should be ONLY for making babies, no enjoyment permitted.

And, to double down on this, they and Trump the Idiot push such stupid bullshit as abstinence-only sex education, which means kids don't even know what fucking parts they have.

Wiley was discussing all of this with his students -- the different types of HPV, the connection between HPV and cervical cancer, and its prevalence; "you know, just an intro, lower-level course," he recently recalled -- when a male student raised his hand with an earnest question: What was his risk of contracting cervical cancer?

"And I don't know what's sadder," Wiley told The Intercept, "that he asked that question or that really nobody in the classroom even laughed because they didn't know either."

And, I'm sorry, but if your god insists you continue to be an ignorant moron ... then both you and your god are beneath my contempt.

Ignorant Christians clinging to stone age idiocy are no better than Ignorant Muslims doing the same thing, and they present exactly the same kind of threat to society -- because they wish to impose their religion on others.

The Christian Right is a coalition of the fucking stupid who want to keep us all in the fucking dark ages. Apparently, in America, being a 'Christian' often means the same thing as being a dangerous and ignorant idiot who wants to impose your level of stupid on everyone else.

Like they yowl about Sharia law, I have no interest in having a bunch of Christian morons impose their idiocy on me. I don't give a shit what you think god told you, so fuck off an go away. You want to be an ignorant moron, that's your business, but don't subject the rest of us to your stupidity.

Fuck them and their god. I'm not required to give a fuck about anyone's superstitions.

"For the first time, the U.S. government has publicly acknowledged the existence in Washington of what appear to be rogue devices that foreign spies and criminal could be using to track individual cellphones and intercept calls and messages"

The only people using Stingrays are the Washington police and the state security apparatus.

Stingray, the fake cell phone tower cops and carriers use to track your every move

Stingray I/II Ground Based Geo-Location (Vehicular)

The NSA Worked to "Track Down" Bitcoin Users, Snowden Documents Reveal

Internet paranoiacs drawn to Bitcoin have long indulged fantasies of American spies subverting the booming, controversial digital currency. Increasingly popular among get-rich-quick speculators, Bitcoin started out as a high-minded project to make financial transactions public and mathematically verifiable - while also offering discretion. Governments, with a vested interest in controlling how money moves, would, some of Bitcoin's fierce advocates believed, naturally try and thwart the coming techno-libertarian financial order.

It turns out the conspiracy theorists were onto something.

Archived: https://archive.fo/z5zzo

The NSA Worked to "Track Down" Bitcoin Users, Snowden Documents Reveal

Internet paranoiacs drawn to Bitcoin have long indulged fantasies of American spies subverting the booming, controversial digital currency. Increasingly popular among get-rich-quick speculators, Bitcoin started out as a high-minded project to make financial transactions public and mathematically verifiable - while also offering discretion. Governments, with a vested interest in controlling how money moves, would, some of Bitcoin's fierce advocates believed, naturally try and thwart the coming techno-libertarian financial order.

It turns out the conspiracy theorists were onto something.

Archived: https://archive.fo/z5zzo

Re "again, assuming it were even possible." "even if it could"
PRISM showed what the security forces like doing to users, computers, networks, OS, brands.
Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"... as to whether anti-virus companies could or should detect the FBI's keystroke logger."
Operation Socialist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Inside Story of How British Spies Hacked Belgium’s Largest Telco" https://theintercept.com/2014/...
SISMI-Telecom_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Greek wiretapping case 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
".... hoped to have cracked the codes used by 15 major internet companies, and 300 VPNs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DROPOUTJEEP .. ".. remotely push/pull files from the device. SMS retrieval, contact list retrieval, voicemail, geolocation, hot mic, camera capture, cell tower location, etc. Command, control and data exfiltration. All communications with the implant will be covert and encrypted."

The security services have been deep into most telco tech for decades. The new changes to emerging VPN, OS, crypto, cell phones did not slow the security services down. The security services have a shopping list of contractor products to get into telcos, OS, cell phone brand, cell tower, get past AV.

here's one right now. The bill that landed the guy in jail was for an ambulance too.

If the voters do hand the Republicans a loss, it will be to a political party that's as shallow, see-through, and out of touch, as any of the Republicans.

No, it is a reaction to the mainstream media outright lying. They've been caught so many times it's ridiculous, and here you are parroting the line that it doesn't exist. Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico was exposed by WikiLeaks as he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing. What was his punishment? He was hired by The New York Times as a political correspondent.

Calling fake news fake news is fake news, according to the fake news. Journalists spread fake news all the time, whenever it satisfies their emotional needs and validates their pre-existing political biases. It's very menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are abusing their positions constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public's mind. Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False.

Recently, four big scoops were run by major news organizations â" written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing â" that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel's office had subpoenaed Donald Trump's records from Deutsche Bank. They weren't. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn't. The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn't. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn't there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

When all the errors are in the bank's favor, you can be forgiven for thinking there's more at work than sloppy arithmetic.

... the reality is there are billions of people in developing nations whose economies are suddenly irrelevant. Bill is a little too out of touch with reality. Many planners in the american military are planning for full dystopia.

Pentagon video warns of our dystopian future

Here in Europe the Belgcom hack has just come into the newspapers. A Belgian telecom company was hacked by the British GCHQ a few years ago. Although there is more than enough evidence no one dares take them to court because of politics: https://theintercept.com/2018/...

Do you actually believe someone changed their vote because they read one of these tweets among the tons of other tweets out there?

You understatement the gullibility of the uneducateds. These tweets, and FB posts, and everything else, worked as a feedback loop. It allowed the Russians to shape the message in favor of the con artist, just as WikiLeaks did when it withheld compromising information on him.

These tweets did change votes because their plausibility was so high. After all, who wouldn't believe Hillary Clinton practiced witchcraft and ate babies? This gave ammunition to the uneducateds to show their friends and acquaintances, "See! See what she does." and sway that person's opinion so when it came to vote, that fake story was still on their mind.

Remember, Hillary received nearly 3 million more votes but the con artist won because of the way the electoral college is configured. In a tight race such as this one, one only needed to sway a few people here and there to change the outcome.

Laws that single out a single person or entity are unconstitutional.

Such as the law(s) which make it illegal for a U.S. company or person to boycott Israel, right?

I did read it. McCabe was wrong:

https://theintercept.com/2018/...

George Papadopolous' contacts with Russia were what did it.

Many of the same Dem screaming the loudest that Trump is in Putin's back pocket just voted to give Trump vast spying powers.

• 1) This means hacks like Pelosi and Schiff gave Putin unlimited power to spy on Americans

  2) They've been utterly and completely full of shit on Russiagate since day one

Either way, grandstanding from Nunes is insignificant in comparison.

If the gov/mil is paying then yes the can ask for that from their contractors to be part of any malware.
Recall DROPOUTJEEP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some malware still needs a human to allow it in, others just get pushed down the network.
i.e. "spearphishing" ... "to go to a fake app store-like page, where fake Android apps waited."

Some contractors like their gov/mil malware too just look like normal, existing malware if found. To suggest the code had another nation origin, another gov was doing the funding if found. Code litter to cover the actual origin. e.g. the anti-forensic Marble framework https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Other nations mil/gov expect to push the bespoke code down only a user and not need any user intersection. Depends on the price, mission, risk, skill of the user, optics of been detected, what researchers will find when they take part what they find in the wild.

So spearphishing can be an easy way in, make the user grant permissions and if discovered it looks like most other spearphishing except for who/how it reports back.
' Get too smart with the number of people been wanted with push down bespoke code and a lot of researchers take note.
Gov and mil save that bespoke push down code for interesting people, not mass collect it all efforts over a few nations and a list of professions.
The easy way in for a gov/mil is just to go full Operation Socialist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... into the telco.
"The Inside Story of How British Spies Hacked Belgium’s Largest Telco" (December 13 2014)
https://theintercept.com/2014/...

Yaknow, I thought it was far-fetched that a CNN moderator would cheat and give Hillary Clinton the debate questions beforehand. It's like something the villain would do in a Charlie Brown cartoon special. But it happened.

I thought it was far-fetched that a senior Politico journalist, a serious man with serious credibility, would run his articles past the Democrats before publishing. But it happened. His punishment? He was hired by the New York Times after the election.

I thought it was far-fetched that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened. But that happened too. So my idea of far-fetched is a lot narrower than it used to be. There really are conspiracies out there, and they really do operate like this.

That some of the malware discovered domestically and only in the UK would have been the work of/contractors for the security services?
Create bespoke code for every mission that no AV or OS will ever know about?
Unique code only every seen in select locations in the UK and Ireland would stand out to any researcher.
Use international malware thats not been discovered in the wild but might be discovered at any time? It might collect all for hours, days, months, years?
Until the OS, AV tells the user about the infected OS, files.

What to do with all the research in the UK that will find UK sensitive security service code litter online, on devices, in the telco networks?
Code never seen outside the UK, Ireland that no OS, AV was aware of?
Another domestic Operation Socialist gets found? https://theintercept.com/2014/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... How to accept such discoveries and tell the researcher that their work will result in an OS patch, AV update as needed?
Centralise legal malware reporting in the UK and keep the researchers productive and feeling like their efforts get better results than talking to the global AV community.

Why is it your only counter argument is to bring up two news sources that are not at all relevant and unmentioned? You're not disproving the point, which is that our credible, mainstream media staffed by highly educated, erudite journalists, regularly produces fake news. It's a simple matter of psychology: post misleading news, wait for people to react, it's something known as "impression formation". Once an impression has been formed, it sticks. This is how they psyop the masses. This is how they persuade people. A lot of these people will never check the news, they'll never check the sources, they'll never look for the original video, and they'll never see the truth.

Despite two hours of available air time, ABC's Good Morning America skipped a damning New York Times story with a bombshell claim: Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential campaign, was told that Harvey Weinstein was a rapist, but still took his donations and raised money off him.

Four viral claims spread by journalists last month that are false.

New York Times prejudiced against India. ""Of all places" is a very patronising way to describe India, which is one of the leading manufacturers in automobile industry with various auto giants having its manufacturing facilities in India. This is not the first time NYTimes has shown its prejudice against India. Earlier, they had published an op-ed about India that was centered around the CBI raids at the residences of Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, the founder promoters of NDTV. The editorial was titled 'India's Battered Free Press' which read like a textbook case of how it has been distorting the truth. NYTimes' former Delhi bureau chief Ellen Barry had also indulged in white-washing the 2002 Godhra carnage where as many as 59 people were burnt alive in a train. She had also spread lies to insult the victims of Godhra carnage in her report on Gulbarg Society verdict. NYTimes also encourages troll-like behaviour while reporting on democratically elected public representatives where being 'liberal' is associated with smoking, drinking and Hindu woman having Muslim friends and boyfriend."

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story'

The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

Feedlots where cattle are knee deep in their own shit and get so sick they have to be picked up by forklifts, pigs are raised in "gestational crates" so tight they cannot turn around, chickens that trample each other to death before being violently thrown into cages by farm hands.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. meat is raised on such farms, not living in an Amish free range paradise.

When you take into account the fact that factory farms raise 99.9 percent of chickens for meat, 97 percent of laying hens, 99 percent of turkeys, 95 percent of pigs, and 78 percent of cattle currently sold in the United States, it's shocking how much time we waste debating each other, rather than trying to actually change the system.

AC if you read the linked https://theintercept.com/2017/...
The word hotel is mentioned a few times ....
"You lock your laptop in a hotel safe"
"like the hotel’s network"
"phone in a hotel safe"
" considering hotel safes are not very secure"
If you want to know about the smart TV part AC try Weeping Angel "CIA, MI5 hacked smart TVs to eavesdrop on private conversations"
http://www.zdnet.com/article/h...

(I dont believe so, given all he sacrificed. And his demeanor did not suggest that -- watch Laura Poitras' film.),

CNN headline: Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence

Laura Poitras was a collaborator with Snowden. Why would you think she would portray him in a bad light?

EFF: Accessing Publicly Available Information On the Internet Is Not a Crime

Unless you work for Trump and access WikiLeaks...

From Glenn Greenwald (yeah, the same guy who helped Edward Snowden publish his whistleblowing documents..):

The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

Friday was one of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named “Michael J. Erickson” – someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify – to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had “uploaded.” The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it’s necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:

There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story – and then hyped it over and over and over – the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 – which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks – as everyone by then already knew – had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

...

It’s hard to quantify exactly how many people were deceived – filled with false news and propaganda – by the CNN story. But thanks to Democratic-loyal journalists and operatives who decree every Trump/Russia claim to be true without seeing any evidence, it’s certainly safe to say that many hundreds of thousands of people, almost certainly millions, were exposed to these false claims.

No "fake news"?!?!?

Cut the crap. The media doesn't even bother claiming it was "fake but accurate" anymore.

Another link everyone should check out when they get the time.

https://theintercept.com/a-con...

I think I'll reserve my right to contact companies and let them know they are doing business with hatred, and let them decide whether or not they want to work with CloudFlare. First Amendment is a double-edged sword, so I hope very much we do not lose the social pressures that keep hate speech in the far corners vs. potentially showing up in a dangerous way in some auto-personalized result for a lot of users.

Normalizing hate is always, always how genocide starts.

No it always starts with nitwits silencing others out of fear. Genocides are not perpetrated by free societies.

Freedom does not exist merely for its own sake to afford people the space to be left alone. Freedom at its core limits the power (e.g. corruption) of the state in order to protect it from ITSELF. Without freedom history is crystal clear about happens next.. what always happens when power over others is consolidated.

We are already seeing the fruits of this throughout Europe:
https://theintercept.com/2017/...

Whether it's government or some kind of mob rule social structure where Industry is forced to cede to demands or die the outcome is the same. Recall that anti-war advocates, politicians and members of the media received death threats for their (belatedly correct) positions in the lead-up to Iraq war. It is impossible to have it both ways... to seek structures which limit freedom of expression of others yet expect those structures to be wielded only in furtherance of YOUR personal beliefs and values. It's a Fanta Fanta fantasy.

Why the halt on protecting the US from another nation if it was really another nation?
Every day wasted is another day the another skilled nation could copy out all the plain text data... again.
US investigators tried to wait and see with a real extraction effort and allowed a lot of US secrets to walk out in real time while under investigation...
Methods would have changed by now so who is looking after US domestic collection and who wants easy to find malware code to stay in place?
Some US investigation has a nice new hidden tool set that offers a Russian skill set and global staging server if detected by other parts of the US gov/mil/contractors?
The ip range, time of day, code litter is just a cover for deep and long term US investigative skill sets.
Any private sector person or 3rd party in the private sector has a look, it has to be "Russia" with an easy to find, media friendly "Bear"code litter?
"CIA anti-forensics tool that makes Uncle Sam seem fluent in enemy tongues" (31 Mar 2017)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Great cover for a long term FBI or other agency investigation.
The question for people finding the code would be is it US parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or a real US court backed investigation?
Who domestically is looking at your systems and has the legal power to keep the code in?
When was the last time an investigation was hidden and results not shared, a domestic US version of Operation Socialist ?
https://theintercept.com/2014/...
Has the FBI gone back to its Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and stayed in long term, deep in domestic computer and telco networks?
Could this be the US version of incorruptible US law enforcement needing hidden tools set well apart form all other US courts, telcos, police, lawyers?
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
The Italian SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

US law enforcement has set up a "Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch" that does not have to risk talking or sharing with any other part of US law enforcement and is getting results with mil/CIA grade computer systems?

Change the robots.txt and its all gone. I have seen it done many times.

My question is why anyone would go near them. They are a raging dumpster fire of stupid yellow journalism.

the news was true
Maybe he wanted his life to be private? Maybe defying a judge while the hulk thing was in litigation was a bad idea?

This was also not the only time they did that shit. https://theintercept.com/2015/...

They are slezoids who create controversy then report on it. Remember gamergate? Yeah the ones who were fucking journalist to get good reviews. Gee who were they fucking to get those reviews.

I have for the past year watched what is left of their empire continue on as if nothing happened. They learned nothing. https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbe...

It's not one example, it's just the latest outrage. It happens all the time. Your news doesn't report on it? Well I kind of doubt they're going to tell you when they're lying. I mean, duh. Watch the alternative media, get out of your bubble. It's been lie after lie after lie. Deliberate lies. I mean, just look at this.

Here's an example of the kind of propaganda the MSM engages in all the damn time. The following New York Times article contains a "minor factual error" that's not at all germane to the topic of the story: it refers to Philando Castille as "an unarmed black cafeteria worker" despite all sorts of reporting to the contrary that he was armed, informed the cop that he was armed, and was high as a kite at the time he reached down fast and sudden to grab his license. That's the sort of "tiny alleged problem" that matters in context.

New York Times prejudiced against India.

"Of all places" is a very patronising way to describe India, which is one of the leading manufacturers in automobile industry with various auto giants having its manufacturing facilities in India. This is not the first time NYTimes has shown its prejudice against India. Earlier, they had published an op-ed about India that was centered around the CBI raids at the residences of Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, the founder promoters of NDTV. The editorial was titled 'India's Battered Free Press' which read like a textbook case of how it has been distorting the truth. NYTimes' former Delhi bureau chief Ellen Barry had also indulged in white-washing the 2002 Godhra carnage where as many as 59 people were burnt alive in a train. She had also spread lies to insult the victims of Godhra carnage in her report on Gulbarg Society verdict. NYTimes also encourages troll-like behaviour while reporting on democratically elected public representatives where being 'liberal' is associated with smoking, drinking and Hindu woman having Muslim friends and boyfriend.

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/

Actually, if you'd been paying attention to paid shilling on here the last few years--as opposed to just recently when it became convenient to find things to blame on the Russians--US govt. and corporate shills have been here for years. Go read old (~2013) threads on network neutrality, nuclear energy, Julian Assange, etc., and ask yourself what Russia would have to gain from any of the clear and present trolling therein.

Pro-tip: Russia doesn't care about slashdot. It doesn't care about "sowing discord", despite when your fevered Rachel Maddow-turned-Glenn Beck fairweather-neocon talking heads tell you. There's much information out there about government-paid shills, and they aren't Russian.

https://theintercept.com/2014/...

Go read some threads around the time of Snowden's relevations
and notice all the spammy and straight-up disinformation in the comments. Now ask yourself, "why would Russia want to trash Snowden?" Then put two and two together, ditch your naiive russian victim fantasies and look in the fucking mirror, because it's your tax money that's paying for all the anonymous N-bombs and other garbage spam that has made slashdot's comments section insufferable the last while.

Like I said, sleep tight.

p.s. I'd hope for your sake that I'm not a Russian, because having a worse grasp of English grammar than a non-native speaker would be pretty sad.

No, it didn't.

Yeah. It was. Copying and pasting since you skipped over it the first time:

• And that's the most that came out of that little chestnut. Thus the debunking.

This isn't a hard subject. No one is denying the meeting took place. But that's as far as it went - a meeting. The person wasn't a foreign intelligence agent (as opposed to Steele), no actionable information was given (as opposed to Steele) and no money changed hands (as opposed to Steele).

You see how I linked a story from a reputable news source?

Lulz. NYTimes reputable? They're a printing press for neocon propaganda:

• A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times - claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics - demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) - calling itself InvestigateRussia.org - featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia").

A little Occam's Razor might benefit you here.

You first, Slick.

Curious. Why is there no investigation? Why can't the sitting president, with a majority congress get an investigation into this obvious crime by Hilary? Why is there instead an investigation into Trump et. al?

Because neocons don't investigate other neocons. Also, Google "Kabuki theater". Any more is-water-wet questions, or are we done here?

I was adding to the ways in which a foreign government can mess up someone's life.

Tangential maybe but this is about Kaspersky who are defending themselves from the accusation of being, hosting, or being used as a vector by, Russian spies.

We have this NSA analyst who has access to the source code of their spying tools, copies a zip file containing it and the tools themselves to a USB drive, takes it home and plugs it into his PC which is running antivirus software from a non-friendly state but that's OK because he's not meant to take classified info home.

Then the Kaspersky scan discovers this malware in a zip file and downloads it as a sample.

Why didn't the NSA analyst notice the big Kaspersky warning about malware on his PC? Maybe because they used a silent signature. Kaspersky have a patent on that: "If the silent signature coincides with malware signature, a user is not informed".

But now Kaspersky say there was other malware on the PC. Easy enough for the NSA to verify.

Will the US government say fair enough maybe it wasn't you and sorry for the lost business?

Then again, maybe you believe this,

Israeli intelligence officers informed the N.S.A. that in the course of their Kaspersky hack, they uncovered evidence that Russian government hackers were using Kasperskyâ(TM)s access to aggressively scan for American government classified programs, and pulling any findings back to Russian intelligence systems. They provided their N.S.A. counterparts with solid evidence of the Kremlin campaign in the form of screenshots and other documentation, according to the people briefed on the events.

The most obvious route is for the Russian government to have a willing or unwilling accomplice inside Kaspersky.

Since when is Wikileaks a journalist? They haven't ever been caught faking anything, or bending the facts to fit a pre-existing political bias. How's that journalism?

Once upon a time, the term "journalist" carried a social expectation of trying to present the truth without harm.

LOL that time is long past. Journalists spread fake news all the time, whenever it satisfies their emotional needs and validates their pre-existing political biases. It's very menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using social media constantly to entrench falsehoods in the publicâ(TM)s mind. Four viral claims made by journalists in the last week that are wholly false.

2) It's OFF BY DEFAULT.

We don't believe Intel's claims. After the Edward Snowden revelations, after the way that an exploitable backdoor was hidden in the Dual_EC_DRBG standard, after news that Microsoft works to provide backdoors in its Windows operating system, and after government officials have insisted that backdoors must be provided, we just don't trust Intel. The ME has the potential to be the most perfect backdoor in almost every computer. And if the Intel ME is a backdoor, then most of our computers are vulnerable if anyone (anywhere in the world) learns how to exploit it.

...to send me your life savings?

Actually the hysteria is mounting.

Fixed that for you.

The Russian's hacked power plants storyline was bullshit.
CrowdStrike is bullshit.
The "17 intelligence agencies" line was bullshit.
The Russia hacked election systems is bullshit.

find this report by the Director of National Intelligence particularly interesting

Sure, lets look at this - while remembering the FBI wasn't allowed to examine the DNC servers so how exactly would they have "high confidence" in any thing - but this time noting the weasel words:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Zero evidence provided, only claims and accusations. Well guess what Chem Trailers, Sandy Hook Truthers and Birthers have? Claims and accusations.

Then there's the fact the entire "Russia wanted Trump to win so hacked the election" makes no sense whatsoever. The election was Hillary's to lose, right up until she picked Tim Kaine as her running mate and decided to skip campaigning in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. So according to the storyline, Putin was crafty enough to dig up dirt on Hillary (which was all true) but dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump. Which means the CIA, NSA & FBI would know all about it. Which meant Hillary would too, who had already campaigned on shooting down Russian jets in Syria. So what's really going on?

The entire "Russian hacking" storyline is nothing but Swiftboating from Clinton supporters, as she was the candidate who engaged in corrupt collusion with Russian interests to sell a fifth of America's uranium.

And you can skip that Snopes link that handwaives away Hillary's culpability for a number of reasons:
1) Access is corruption
2) Avoiding the appearance of impropriety applies to politicians, not just judges
3) Her own campaign was warned internally that the deal was a political liability for her
4) Hillary flat-out broke her confirmation promises on keeping a wall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation

At this point, Chem Trailing anti-vaxxer Birther Sandy Hook Truthers have more respectability than Russiagaters.

Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet? https://theintercept.com/2017/...

I quite agree, and as horrible as civil forfeiture is that's not even the worst of it: the drone war (conducted across US administrations from US Presidents G.W. Bush, through Obama, and now Trump) kills people extrajudicially including Americans and children. Put another way: civil forfeiture typically takes people's property (including their money), the drone war typically takes people's lives. So far nobody has used the drone war as much as Pres. Obama, but there's more continuity of policy showing how (like civil forfeiture) there's an agreement across both corporate parties. The reasoning justifying the killings is almost always absent, and when pressed revealed to be horrific.

Under Obama's administration on September 30, 2011 the US killed an American named Anwar al-Awlaki said to be involved in al-Qaeda operations. There were no charges filed, no evidence offered, no trial held. Two weeks later in a separate drone strike his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed. Again no charges filed, no evidence offered, no trial held. When reporters asked what Abdulrahman's crime was that justified killing him extrajudicially Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, replied in a way that made it clear: the US government kills whomever it wants whenever it wants on any or no evidence while he also blamed the son for the alleged sins of his father. Lots of passers-by die in each drone strike as well; completely untargetted people who happen to live or pass within the killing zone of a missile. This is how wedding and dinner parties full of people (we don't even know their names) have died.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's former White House press secretary and a senior official in the president's 2012 reelection campaign, was also asked about the strike that killed Abdulrahman. "It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process of law, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor," reporter Sierra Adamson told Gibbs, during a press gaggle after a presidential debate where Gibbs was serving as a surrogate for Obama. Gibbs shot back: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

Obama famously made a joke of drone war at one of his press dinners where he joked about killing a boy band his daughters liked. What made that 'joke' so unfunny is precisely that when he said it he was one of the few people who could have ordered such a strike and gotten away with killing them too. I think it important in this age of replaying Pres. Trump gaffes to indicate how little he cares about the disaffected people to show how little people knew of what was going on in these drone strikes, who was being killed, and why.

Continuing the policy of unlimited extrajudicial killing Obama once feinted to be concerned about: On January 29, 2017, the Trump administration killed Anwar Al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar Al-Awlaki in a drone-led Navy SEAL raid.

As other countries get killer drones, what future has the US committed its citizens to? One can only hope that other countries continue to show a restraint that the US has not shown with nuclear weapons. There's still far too much danger with nuclear weapons too, but the above are some of the reasons the world fears the US most. You won't hear many people criticizing Trump mention civil forfeiture or drone strikes because bringing this up at all runs the risk of not being uniquely anti-Trump, of pointing out the continuity of American policy that in some way hurts us all (none so much as those assassinated, of course).

I quite agree, and as horrible as civil forfeiture is that's not even the worst of it: the drone war (conducted across US administrations from US Presidents G.W. Bush, through Obama, and now Trump) kills people extrajudicially including Americans and children. Put another way: civil forfeiture typically takes people's property (including their money), the drone war typically takes people's lives. So far nobody has used the drone war as much as Pres. Obama, but there's more continuity of policy showing how (like civil forfeiture) there's an agreement across both corporate parties. The reasoning justifying the killings is almost always absent, and when pressed revealed to be horrific.

Under Obama's administration on September 30, 2011 the US killed an American named Anwar al-Awlaki said to be involved in al-Qaeda operations. There were no charges filed, no evidence offered, no trial held. Two weeks later in a separate drone strike his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed. Again no charges filed, no evidence offered, no trial held. When reporters asked what Abdulrahman's crime was that justified killing him extrajudicially Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, replied in a way that made it clear: the US government kills whomever it wants whenever it wants on any or no evidence while he also blamed the son for the alleged sins of his father. Lots of passers-by die in each drone strike as well; completely untargetted people who happen to live or pass within the killing zone of a missile. This is how wedding and dinner parties full of people (we don't even know their names) have died.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's former White House press secretary and a senior official in the president's 2012 reelection campaign, was also asked about the strike that killed Abdulrahman. "It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process of law, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor," reporter Sierra Adamson told Gibbs, during a press gaggle after a presidential debate where Gibbs was serving as a surrogate for Obama. Gibbs shot back: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

Obama famously made a joke of drone war at one of his press dinners where he joked about killing a boy band his daughters liked. What made that 'joke' so unfunny is precisely that when he said it he was one of the few people who could have ordered such a strike and gotten away with killing them too. I think it important in this age of replaying Pres. Trump gaffes to indicate how little he cares about the disaffected people to show how little people knew of what was going on in these drone strikes, who was being killed, and why.

Continuing the policy of unlimited extrajudicial killing Obama once feinted to be concerned about: On January 29, 2017, the Trump administration killed Anwar Al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar Al-Awlaki in a drone-led Navy SEAL raid.

As other countries get killer drones, what future has the US committed its citizens to? One can only hope that other countries continue to show a restraint that the US has not shown with nuclear weapons. There's still far too much danger with nuclear weapons too, but the above are some of the reasons the world fears the US most. You won't hear many people criticizing Trump mention civil forfeiture or drone strikes because bringing this up at all runs the risk of not being uniquely anti-Trump, of pointing out the continuity of American policy that in some way hurts us all (none so much as those assassinated, of course).

Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald posted an article which explains why BeauHD falls in the category of useful idiots.
https://theintercept.com/2017/...

Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant and New Think Tank Emails show "How Google Wields its Power" in Washington

Quashing reports, manipulating search results, and throwing its weight around seem par for the course for Google. After all, they want some return on their investment in politicians, the media, and intellectuals.