Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks CIA Files: The 6 Biggest Spying Secrets Revealed By the Release of 'Vault 7' (independent.co.uk)
Earlier today, WikiLeaks unleashed a cache of thousands of files it calls "Year Zero," which is part one of the release associated with "Vault 7." Since there are over 8,000 pages in this release, it will take some time for journalists to comb through the release. The Independent has highlighted six of the "biggest secrets and pieces of information yet to emerge from the huge dump" in their report. 1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers. The U.S. intelligence agency has been involved in a concerted effort to write various kinds of malware to spy on just about every piece of electronic equipment that people use. That includes iPhones, Androids and computers running Windows, macOS and Linux.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure. Encrypted messaging apps are only as secure as the devices they are used on -- if an operating system is compromised, then the messages can be read before they are encrypted and sent to the other user(s).
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations." Many of the documents reference tools that appear to have dangerous and unknown uses. One file, for instance, shows that the CIA was looking into ways of remotely controlling cars and vans by hacking into them.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
6) More information is coming. The documents have still not been looked through entirely. There are 8,378 pages of files, some of which have already been analyzed but many of which haven't. And that's not to mention the other sets of documents that are coming. The "Year Zero" leaks are just the first in a series of "Vault 7" dumps, Julian Assange said. You can view the Vault 7 Part 1 'Year Zero' release here via WikiLeaks. The Intercept has an in-depth report focusing on how the "CIA Could Turn Smart TVs Into Listening Devices."
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure. Encrypted messaging apps are only as secure as the devices they are used on -- if an operating system is compromised, then the messages can be read before they are encrypted and sent to the other user(s).
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations." Many of the documents reference tools that appear to have dangerous and unknown uses. One file, for instance, shows that the CIA was looking into ways of remotely controlling cars and vans by hacking into them.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
6) More information is coming. The documents have still not been looked through entirely. There are 8,378 pages of files, some of which have already been analyzed but many of which haven't. And that's not to mention the other sets of documents that are coming. The "Year Zero" leaks are just the first in a series of "Vault 7" dumps, Julian Assange said. You can view the Vault 7 Part 1 'Year Zero' release here via WikiLeaks. The Intercept has an in-depth report focusing on how the "CIA Could Turn Smart TVs Into Listening Devices."
why no trust-busting. why no common carrier. why no nothing which would prevent "wire-tapping".
There is no surprise...
When I got my TV I bypassed the Mic and am feeding it "never gonna give you up" in a continuous loop. Glad my effort was not wasted.
Hide in your basement, cut the phone, cable and Internet lines and stay there for the rest of your life.
WikiLeaks accidentally posted Donald Trump's dick pic!
I guess that means Julian Assange is a vegetarian!
But it kind of sounds like "all of the theoretical vulnerabilities really are being attacked by state-sponsored hackers," which probably isn't so shocking around these parts.
1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers.
That's part of the spying thing and has been for at least the last 2-3 decades.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure.
Logically follows.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them.
Smart device insecure; news at 11.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations."
Explored and...? That's it? Okay.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments.
Author doesn't know what an 0-day is good for.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I'll bet serious money this enrages Trump and he threatens to arrest and detain Assange.
Point 3 is just dropping yet another reason on top of the large pile of reasons why I'll never ever buy a 'Smart TV'.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
I'm pretty good with Windows and Linux desktops... there are steps I can take to check for spyware/malware and deal with them if found.
But my Samsung TV, I haven't the foggiest idea. I don't know how to type commands into it or even what kind of an OS it runs.
The government's been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the forties. They've infected everything. They get into your bank statements, computer files, email, listen to your phone calls... Every wire, every airwave. The more technology used, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you. It's a brave new world out there. At least it'd better be.
As great as the internet's free flow of information has been for the average human, there is another entity that has benefited even more...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The real dirt is that the CIA did everything regarding "hacking the elections" that they then blamed on the Russians, to support their would-be sugar mama. That's an attempted coup d'eta. We're at the "means, motive, and opportunity" stage - next up are investigations, prosecutions, and probably, knowing Trump's impetuousness, hangings.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There are already quite a few tools in computational journalism to automate the early assessment of a large data dump.
What do Journalists do with Documents?
C+J 2016: Documents, Data Mining and Discovery
As with all things, I'm sure the 20-80 rule applies.
I'm safe. Turns out buying a Windows Phone was a good choice after all.
Haven't you noticed how Donald is not locking her up anymore? No-one who is part of the machinery of state ever sees the inside of a court, that's just not how it works.
Don't go pretending Donald is any different to Hilary, none of them are on your side.
Wikileaks jumped the shark.
If you didn't know this kind of thing was going on, you weren't paying attention. The job of the intelligence agencies is to... gather intelligence, particularly the kind that people don't want collected and kill foreign enemies covertly. This is why they are not allowed to act inside the US. Every other intelligence agency on the planet does exactly the same thing. If you think otherwise you are living in a fantasy land bubble.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
A little, but maybe it has been kept extra vulnerable intentionally?
There has to be some actual reason why we're still using C for internet facing code two decades after we know it's dumb as fuck to do so. It's so much more comforting to think that it's because of a conspiracy and influence peddling by three letter agencies pulling strings than to assume we collectively are utter incompetent fucking morons.
locking up a rival candidate would be really bad for democracy, no matter how much she deserved it.
locking up(or shooting) CIA operatives who interfered with democracy, however, would be great for democracy.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
This makes open hardware more imperative. Are the operating system flaws all software, or are they hardware? Or firmware? If the latter two, are they flaws or cooperative effort by the manufacturers?
I don't have time to read the entire thing, so I'm wondering what part of my Linux installations are being exploited. FOSS and FOSH are the only real digital defenses we have against our governments, as they are our only avenues of control.
A withered carrot? Amen Google. You rock like Slayer.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Get ready, security. It's about to rain. It shouldn't take very long for these leaks to spur waves of hacking anywhere... everywhere.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
There's a pretty practical point of view, which says that is stupid.
You shouldn't have machines that you're not in control of. Whenever you break that rule, you should minimize the powers of machines that you don't control.
Since you don't control the TV, you should leave its network disconnected and it should get its input from HDMI.
Since you can't control Netflix clients, you should pirate their shows, so that you don't have to use their client. That includes web browsers, since you can't control EME.
Pirate Netflix, or else you are pro-surveillance. Netflix can always get serious (lose DRM, so that you can use any client that you want to) if they have a problem with the loss of revenue.
"Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure" is what makes running security-minded programs on non-free, user-subjugating, always-untrustworthy, proprietary OSes a joke. People get a sense that they're safer from malware then they really are and they think they get to keep their proprietary conveniences as well. Openwashing will not help you.
I know it's a lot of work to learn new things and change your views and your behavior. I understand that software freedom is differently political than what you're encouraged to adopt, and software freedom requires you to consider more than what's listed in virtually every features & money-based ad campaign from monied proprietors. And I get that coming to terms with the consequences of software freedom runs directly contrary to believing that you don't need to think any further than what proprietors and their "open source" friends tell you to think about (because no proprietor frames their offerings in terms of the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, hence proprietors are more likely to sanction the open source movement which eschews these values and even celebrates partnering with proprietors like Red Hat's recent uncritical commentary on Microsoft's software and Microsoft's new campaign regarding "Linux"—no mention of GNU which might bring software freedom to mind). But in the real world you need to stop trusting proprietary systems to keep you safe, respect your privacy, or other practical consequences of software freedom. Proprietary software wasn't designed to do that and therefore that software never will do that job. There is no middle ground which allows you to run proprietary software while retaining the benefits of software freedom. It's time to value software freedom for its own sake.
Even if all published software were free, exploits like these are possible because all complex software has bugs. Perfect security is not the issue. The issue is who gets to control their own computer and how we treat each other. Even after these exploits are published by WikiLeaks and people have had time to consider them and protect against their adverse effects, proprietors will still have power over users who run their proprietary software. Users won't be able to tell what other exploits are out there and therefore it will be harder to protect against them. The difference between proprietary subjugation and software freedom becomes more clear: Free software users will be able to run, inspect, improve, and share improvements with others making that software more able to prevent future attacks. But proprietary software users won't be allowed to do the due diligence they need in order to help themselves no matter how technically skilled they are or how willing to repair things they are. No computer user deserves to be treated that way. It will take a lot of work to get people to understand why they too should care about software freedom even if they're non-technical (like most computer users are). So I urge you to understand software freedom for its own sake and to try to help others understand as well.
Relatedly, the Free Software Foundation's "Respects Your Freedom" campaign has some new hardware on the list. I recommend buying some and using it, even if it's not up-to-date with the latest capabilities and seemingly expensive for what's offered. We need more people to invest in free replacements for proprietary, locked-down, user-subjugating systems. We need to make investments in our own collective future by funding the free products available today so we can have modern, highly-capable, and fully user-controllable POWER8, RISC, etc. systems which will respect the owner's control.
Digital Citizen
Not locking her up is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Not investigating and then, if necessary, pressing charges and letting a court decide is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
She was investigated, and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.' Hillary Clinton is, contrary to popular opinion, innocent in the eyes of the Law.
Forgetting about the presumption of innocence is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Fucking selectively moral hypocrites who have already decided not to accept what their own fucking law enforcement agencies have investigated and declined to prosecute is bad for the concept of the Rule of Law. You can complain about political factors weighing on the decision; you can complain about ineptitude and willful blindness. You can complain about any fucking thing you fucking want. But you cannot dispense with essential components of the legal/judicial system whenever its suits you.
You can't claim she's guilty in the absence of a trial and still pretend to uphold the rule of law. So either shut up about the rule of law, or stop claiming she should be locked up, because you can't do both at once.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
1. Start reading the tech news and books about past NSA, GCHQ, CIA projects over the decades.
e.g. CIA Chief: We’ll Spy On You Through Your Dishwasher (03.15.12)
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/...
Past project shape new projects in the US gov. Electronic collection is the only growth area so that is what gets funding and political support.
Collect it all is policy that can be understood by most people.
2. Work out if the NSA, CIA or any other part of the US gov think your company or work is interesting.
Is your brand in trade publications with glowing reports of encryption, advancement, new patents, funding, international support, rapid advancement in fields of tech the USA has always considered their own?
3. Are you a member of the press seeking whistleblowers or are understood to be a good person to be contracted by a gov/mil whistleblower?
4. Encryption seems to be holding as so much of it is now international and has faced open discussion rather than the junk closed efforts of the 1970's.
The US has moved from supporting junk encryption to generations of junk consumer devices, expensive professional services that give away plain text.
The crypto tests as safe and device/OS just gives away all the plain text as decrypted or entered.
5. If it is vital to your company use paper and meet without a room full of smartphones, trendy smart consumer devices, reconsider that networked TV with a mic and webcam in the conference room.
Air gap all devices and archives. Work on projects as if every network is giving data to your competitions.
6. Staff risks? The CIA knows most of the staff will use a smart phone and a company is networked to the outside world. The digital way in is national, international.
Most workers know to report any direct offers of cash to their own company or nations security services. Why? It could be a test and not reporting such contact is a huge risk.
But that same security aware staff member will walk in with a smart phone and connect all networks to the internet for productivity.
Secure your networks, hide your advanced work, tell staff to report any new friends, unexpected offers of cash.
Big brand staff, academics, security researches will say crypto is safe, that the device is fixed, the OS is trustworthy, just like they did for decades.
Smart phones and other US brands will be reported as been secured again. Then crypto will then be weakened. Once the faulty crypto is discovered the devices hardware/OS will leak plain text again but the crypto will work.
The only constant over the years is the device will give up all data to the clandestine services.
Stop using a smart phone for work that should be kept secure and all such issues stop over the decades.
7. If none of that is possible, flood your networks that face the internet with junk files and reports. Amazing alpha, beta, internal testing files, projects. Interesting project names, connections with governments, how other brands projects are generations behind.
Have a few workers just churn out the most amazing projects that link to or hint at other files that are secure. Reports to management of amazing results on projects that are pure fiction.
Create other front companies, use the cloud and ensure their networked computers are more interesting than any real work been done.
8. Only hire local staff and ensure they report issues, contact attempts, cash offers.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If they had anything, it would have been released long ago.
It's just a bunch of crybaby losers screaming infantile accusations because they are desperate and have absolutely nothing else. This should have been obvious to everyone when obama claimed that the elections couldn't be hacked, hillary cried about trump potentially not accepting the election results and then they immediately did an about-face after she lost.
*wanking motion*
He didn't lie. You only watched the edited response. Try watching the whole thing.
Food for thought: Michael Hastings was apparently investigating the C.I.A. when he died in what sounds like a suspicious car crash. Officially, foul-play was ruled out. Quote from Wikipedia: "Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack". He was quoted as saying "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers — including the United States — know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings'] car — and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."" (This quote is from 2013.) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
Can someone give us the Cliff Notes on what we need to sudo rm -rf ??? Is it just routers being targeted...?
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I'm gonna invest in popcorn futures...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I've been going over this most all day (I'm retired, so I got fuck-all else to do on a rainy day).
From what I can tell, the biggest takeaway is that a hacked phone is not secure. Encryption is still OK, and Signal and WhatsApp are still secure as far as we can tell. Everything else has already been known. Also, it's a good idea when vendors patch vulnerabilities, apparently. Who knew?
EFF has written some interesting stuff about Vault7 today, on their webpage and Twitter account.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
"The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them."
And that's just one reason I'll never own a "smart" TV.
I remember people laughing at the idea that anyone could or would covertly turn on the mic in your TV, but who's laughing now?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"Politicians should be exempt from the laws, and this is good for democracy." - Lehk228
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You are indeed correct about the presumption of innocence. This is an important concept in the courtroom.
This case never saw a courtroom, however. It was tried entirely in the court of public opinion. And the system judged that the politically powerful get a different set of legal standards from the plebes.
I can guarantee that if you had similarly handled classified documents, you would be facing prosecution. Similarly, if you had moved communications to a private server to avoid FOIA requests, you'd be facing disciplinary action at a minimum, prosecution as a possibility.
The "no reasonable prosecutor" finding was telling. The finding was "I have a case that I could prove in any court in the land, but there's no chance a prosecutor is going to commit career suicide by prosecuting the likely next president of the United States". Not "there is no case here, she's innocent".
So although your "innocent until proven guilty in a court" take is a truism, it doesn't hold much weight in this case. Hillary was guilty of multiple felony and misdemeanor crimes that any federal prosecutor would happily have taken to court against an ordinary plebe. Her political clout is the reason she avoided that fate.
So 'not guilty" in a court of law, but far from innocent.
That conspiracy theory no longer works because now Hillary is not in power. You need a new one.
I plugged a laptop into a DVI port on our TV, got a wireless $10 mini-keyboard with integrated touchpad off of eBay, cranked up the icon and font sizes a bit I plugged a laptop into a DVI port on our TV, got a wireless $10 mini-keyboard with integrated touchpad off of eBay, cranked up the icon and font sizes a bit and it's worked out surprisingly well. It's much quicker to use than the 'smart' Bluray player we were previously using, and it can do a lot more... and it's running Qubes OS. Ain't no drive-by hacker getting in there.
For the slightly less tenacious people who just want something approaching regular desktop Linux level security and a simpler interface, there's Myth TV. Which has been out for fifteen years. And there's also Kodi, which even non-technical people have heard of and apparently love.
Addressing just the geeks in the audience: I don't understand the appeal of Roku and smart TVs the like, I really don't. They're slow. The remote-based UI is cumbersome as hell. They're vulnerable. They're un-upgradable. And for the most part they're no cheaper than an old laptop off of Craigslist that has HDMI or DVI out. I sort of suspect that most people simply have a strong psychological need to separate their leisure from their work, and it's primarily for that reason that they prefer a completely different device with a different UI.
I did, have you? Cause Al Franken didn't even ask the question but Sessions said point blank he had no contact with the Russians. It was an unforced error since that wasn't what Franken was asking as Franken was just trying to find out what Sessions would do with any evidence he might find.
Apparently, a first grader has a better understanding of "Context" than you do. Frankin's question was specific to Trump surrogates communicating with Russian officials. Here is a working analogy for the genuinely handicapped who can't understand the context.
Senator Al Frankin: We have reports that people like you were firing guns into a crowd, and that you were near the crowd.
Jeff Sessions: Senator Frankin, I was there but never fired a gun.
Buffoons : We have reports that while hunting in the woods a few months ago, Attorney General Sessions did in fact fire a gun. He is a liar! PERJURY!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.'
You're assuming that the only reason no reasonable prosecutor would take the case is her innocence.
No, for fuck sakes, I'm saying that you can't defend the rule of law, and then jump straight to a guilty verdict without passing through these interim steps.
My entire point is that it's perfectly fair to complain about the lack of consistency in prosecutorial decision-making. It's perfectly fair to question the FBI's investigative techniques. It's perfectly fair to discuss at length and in detail all of the countless deficiencies that exist in the American criminal justice system. People spend lifetimes doing just that.
But you do NOT get to say, 'That bitch is guilty' when she's never even gone to trial. Not if you stand for the rule of law.
Say, she should be prosecuted, she should be re-investigated, say that what she's doing is dodgy as fuck. I'm right beside you there. Say that she and her husband are conscience-free, calculating sociopaths. Say that she's insincere. Say whatever the fuck you want. But you still don't get to say she's guilty until she's convicted. Not if, as the poster did, you claim to support the rule of law.
Too many people think presumption of innocence is a trivial thing, that it only applies when trials run right. That's not true. Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're innocent of the crime. There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
This matters to me because, as a journalist, I regularly see people accused of horrible crimes, and I see the human toll of people who are put through the ringer of social opprobrium. I've seen what happens when vigilante justice prevails, and trust me, you don't ever want to see it happen.
We have the rule of law because we as a society agree to play by the rules. That means that you stop making exceptions when someone that you don't like benefits from those rules. It sucks sometimes, but there it is.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Everyone was pretty damn sure that was going to happen.
Agreed. Upgrading or rewriting all of the old code into something more modern would take, using all available programmers, several years and would consume the US's economy's output twice over.
Or something to that effect the last time the question was raised.
... innocence is not a legal concept.
Presumption of Innocence is a formal concept in Common Law.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
It's more sinister than that.
Consider a one year old child today who may grow up to be a politician, high-level businessman, civil servant, inventor, etc.
That child is going to grow up with his communications logged, messages recorded, phone conversations intercepted, and what's more all his porn interests, mistakes in teenage years, drug taking, cheating, law breaking, foolish racist or bigoted or cruel utterances, web searches, fucking everything.
Then when they're making something of themselves they get a knock at the door and someone comes in with a big file.
The end consequence of this project means that the intelligence agencies will become our permanent rulers. Not even democracy can overturn them because democracy's players, our politicians, have and do make mistakes, mistakes which are captured by the agencies. And any revolution would be thwarted before it even began.
Only if you think the current administration would see it in their best interest to pursue that litigation. Given Trump's similarly cavalier attitude towards national security I can't imagine that would be advised.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Before you read this article, What did you think an intelligence agency do ?
Follow the rule of laws and regulations setforth is what most people expect intelligence agencies to do. However in many countries intelligence agencies have gotten so large they see themselves apart from the government.
Om, nomnomnom...
Has anyone been able to download the torrent? I tried and it hasn't been working.
Again, you are presuming, based on your limited information, that she's guilty.
The reason we have trials, rather than relying on the snap judgement of people like you, is that *all* the evidence is brought out, explored, and argued over. Until that is done, you cannot rightly presume anything other than innocence.
The Feds did their investigation, came up with more evidence and counter-evidence than you will ever know about, and judged that in total, it wasn't enough to even make a reasonable case. You can claim to disagree with the Feds' judgement all you like, if you think someone will listen; you can demand the investigation be re-opened, or insist that she go straight to trial, but you *still* need a trial and court decision, because you don't have all the facts.
Of course, requiring political opponents to be re-investigated until something turns up is a practice normally associated with oppressive regimes, and opens your own preferred politicians to the same treatment, so maybe be careful what you wish for.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Funnily enough, the statements "The U.S. intelligence services are up to some disturbing shit" is not actually mutually exclusive with the phrase "Russia is up to some disturbing shit". Sometimes they even collaborate on getting up to disturbing shit!
our spy masters are evil, pure evil, and there's no way we can know who they turn they evilness to. US, 'them', or combo of both.
I wish all the spy agencies were disbanded. no one should have this kind of power, no one! prisoner experiment (stanford) demonstrates that no human should have that kind of unchecked power.
who watches the watchers?
NO ONE.
or, no one we can trust.
man, this is sick shit. a US agency that spends its time trying to create malware and thrust it upon - ALL OF US.
now, even this NEWS cannot be trusted. nothing can be trusted, I guess is the take-away from all this.
vendors: how much 'ball' are THEY playing, btw? I can't believe the 3 letter agencies do all this entirely on their own. they have moles in each of the key companies. and that makes things even worse, in fact.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
What is it with the quality of reporting now?
No, this does NOT make signal, etc completely insecure - this means they need to specifically target one end of the conversation, before
it happens - why is always likely to be possible.
What is DOES NOT mean is that they can auto-vacuum up all the conversations for later 'analysis', as they can do with just about every
other form of internet base communication. THAT is a critical difference. What it means is when you get on the wrong side of an ever
expanding range of government bureaucrats, they can trawl through less of your life to look for a suitable 'punishment'.
Of course they would LOVE everyone to think encrypted communication is useless, because they more people wouldn't bother......
Bears a close resemblance to a false flag reporters.....
And no, I dont need to post that AC, because being sensible about your personal communications is sensible, not illegal.
The chance to jail a hated political rival who is likely to cause trouble in the future? Of course it's in their best interest and if they actually had a case they would jump at the chance.
That's why the conspiracy theory is so fucking dumb.
It makes me wonder why the recent revelations have been about US cyber espionage efforts. Nothing about Uncle Vlad's hacker groups, fancy bear / cozy bear / funny hair bear / gay bear boys in flaming bondage bear, although that last one may have been a group I heard at SxSW. In any case, maybe the US isn't so hot at vetting it's people, or Kislyak knows how to turn people. Maybe the US can't get the goods on other cyber espionage groups. Or maybe they have and they ain't sayin nothin.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
That is nonsense. The IT guy that wiped her server, after the investigation began, posted on this very site asking for advice on how to destroy the evidence.
He posted on Reddit, not here, and his inquiry didn't read to me like an attempt to destroy evidence. He was trying to figure out how to redact email addresses from a large corpus of archived messages. This is standard practice during electronic discovery and document production, and isn't a sign of anything nefarious.
Jeb Bush performed the same scrubs on his email archives, after first releasing them unredacted and causing an uproar because they were full of constituents' personal data.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Do you see now why truth matters?
1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers.
It's basically, if it's Internet connected, it's probably vulnerable to some degree. But I wanna see the CIA remotely invading my unconnected Windows 7 PC used for maintenance purposes. Unless they get a warrant and physically get to my computer, they can't.
2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure.
Wrong. Encryption is used on these device to protect messages DURING transit and it's not only from the CIA or for criminal purposes. So yeah, it's still secure if you are not being actively targeted by the CIA, and if you keep your devices outside the reach of malicious actors.
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them.
This just adds up to not buying smart TVs at all, or at least don't connect them to the Internet. Several big brands like Samsung, LG, Vizio among others have been caught red handed harvesting information using smart TV functions for all sorts of purposes, so this recommendation came before the CIA papers leak.
It might not have shown up in papers just yet, but this also applies to your IoT devices and whatnot. Do NOT get a Google Home, Alexa or whatever always listening device you can avoid it. Your privacy will be put at risk as potentially your security also will.
4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing "nearly undetectable assassinations."
Hackers are also into this, and it'll remain an issue as long as car manufacturers continue to ignore major security flaws in their systems. Just so people know, most cars these days are wholly insecure. Hacking could come with something hard to accomplish like connecting a device into the electronic diagnostic systems on you car, needing physical access, to shoving malware on your Android based car system and taking control remotely from there. Unfortunately, it's one of those cases where a fatality will need to happen for car manufacturers to be blasted for malpractice and change their ways.
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments.
This, along with several other cases like the iPhone thing and the more recent of a pedophile being released because a government agency didn't want to release the tools used for his arrest to the public just shows how governmental agencies are not focused on security and worries on the public, they are focused on power. This is the core issue with NSA, CIA, FBI and other public agencies promoting erosion or privacy: they want the power to spy on everyone and anyone, which gives them control to do anything.
All of the revelations and the spying programs governmental agencies have reveals one big problem in itself: the US will soon become a country where something like Watergate, or something more recent like the Snowden leaks, could never happen. How long do people think that an empowered state that is able to spy on everyone including journalists (which btw, the current government sees as "the enemy") will use these tools to actively persecute, blackmail and shut up anyone who has something negative to say about the administration? You are basically diving into a well disguised totalitarian regime. And with morons currently running the country it's going to be very hard to convince them that these powers have nothing to do with making police work easier, or going after terrorists, and all to do with these agencies having enough power to do just about everything they want.
There already have been plenty of reports on police mishandling public cameras and using tools for stuff like stalking people, going after ex-girlfriends and stuff like that. Going from there to actively blackmailing people, using the information collected for their own profit, all the way into covering scandals and shutting off corruption case investigations is not a joke. Yes, no one is interested in your boring life and your boring messages or e-mails, but there is a reason why privacy is the cornerstone of democracies. If you don't fight for it and lose, the consequences will come crashing down soon enough, and then there's nothing you can do anymore.
It was here as well. But you are right, it was other staff members who decided that right after her emails were requested for the federal investigation was the best time to clean up her email server and deleted tens of thousands of "personal" emails.
But you don't typically redact information that is evidence in a criminal case. Releasing emails to the public is different than being involved in a criminal case.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
My flip phone that is off except when I need to use it, seems like a good idea after all.
Just the fact that it won't hang up a call on you when your beard hits the screen made that a good idea.
Someone had to do it.
If you have your TV connected to the Internet in 2017 with any expectation of privacy you have the intelligence of a tuna casserole.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments. Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.
Does that not display a high degree of hubris? I'd say that if a government agency discovers a security flaw in something then they have to immediately assume that "hackers from other countries or governments" either already have it or will independently discover it soon. I really don't think it's something for which you have a big window of exclusive use.
There is no innocent in the rule of law, as you like to pretend to understand it. If this is too difficult for you to understand, realize that a court verdict is guilty or not guilty, it is never a finding of innocent.
Particularly patronising tone you've managed there.
innocent
adjective: innocent
1. not guilty of a crime or offence.
Turns out the definition of 'innocent' contains the words 'not guilty'. If you'd been less of a dick about it, you wouldn't look quite so stupid now. Oh well.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
She needs to face charges, because many experienced former prosecutors and plenty of people who have been prosecuted for just what Comey claimed was not prosecutable beg to differ. Failure to protect classified information, is a federal felony that has NO requirement of intent. If you are negligent in your handling of classified information, even once, you can be prosecuted and convicted.
I agree that just saying she should be locked up is wrong. She needs to face the charges and if she can beat them in a court of law, fine. But Comey outlined a clear and easily prosecuted case consisting of hundreds of felony counts (one for each email she sent containing classified information) and then magically waived it away claiming that no prosecutor would take the case, when many a case has been taken up and successfully prosecuted for far less egregious and far less extensive scope of counts. The fix was in from the Tarmac meeting just days before.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
It's found in the court of public opinion. That's why we have courts that are abstracted from populist views and are compelled to examine the evidence in a case tried by peers. The court of public opinion has been responsible for many massacres.
Rule of law is western society's greatest achievement.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin's Jeep Cherokee rolled back into him and killed him myseriously...
Nothing mysterious there. He died of natural causes.
ie: his Jeep ran him over, naturally he died.
Are still a good idea it seems.
Devices with mics and cameras will soon be revealed to have tacit recording modes, including laptops with trickle transmission of content to hide the uploads in cahoots with major ISPs.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
" by law hand-brake is mandated to be strong enough that it will hold the car and stall the engine even at top RPM."
Don't lots of cars have electronic handbrakes now? The signal from the handbrake switch could be overidden.
You don't need to control the steering wheel or steering rack to crash a car. Most modern cars feature ESP (in fact, this system is now mandated in the EU). ESP allows individual wheels to be braked, thus if the wheels on one side of the vehicle were locked the car would fly off the road before the driver has time to react.
...I think the revelation that they've appropriated other security services hacking tools so they can attack a system and leave false footprints would be a bit of a bombshell.
-Styopa
judged that in total, it wasn't enough to even make a reasonable case
No, they judged that no prosecutor would take the case... All of the evidence they gathered clearly showed that she broke several laws. She is innocent until proven guilty in court, but the courts never got to rule. Thus the only ruling that can be gathered is based on the evidence that the FBI released which was overwhelmingly that Hillary didn't follow the law.
I believe in the rule of law. Hillary is guilty, but not in jail because she broke the law, but no reasonable prosecutor would put her in a court room. That's not the rule of law, that's the powerful not being subject to the laws because of prosecutorial discretion.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The real dirt is that the CIA did everything regarding "hacking the elections" that they then blamed on the Russians, to support their would-be sugar mama. That's an attempted coup d'eta. We're at the "means, motive, and opportunity" stage - next up are investigations, prosecutions, and probably, knowing Trump's impetuousness, hangings.
Yes the CIA is clearly part of the left wing conspiracy to destroy America.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Are these things real, or are they in themselves propaganda by either the CIA or another nation state?
Conceivably, these could all be real revelations. But there's just as much chance that this is either propaganda by the CIA to appear to be more in control than they are, or by another competing nation state to make the CIA *look* like they are spying on their own citizens.
The fact is that no one but they know for sure.
I think the biggest revelation is the fact that the CIA can, indeed, hack a car and potentially assassinate the driver: http://yournewswire.com/wikile...
Interestingly, Michael Hastings died when his car suddenly accelerated out of control and crashed, killing him instantly. He was currently investigating the director of the CIA, John Brennan!
Coincidence???????
???
??
?
Wow, 300+ comments and you're the only person to make the reference. The original weeping angel episode was one of the better episodes too before the show went to shit.
I'm wondering why it's called "weeping angel" now. Eh, then again not like I've never needed to name something and the best I could do was a stupid reference to some show I was enjoying at the moment. On the flip side, at least cache invalidation is an approachable problem....
The CIA must have been thinking "how do we infiltrate every device on the planet? This onsie-twosie thing is too slow" Oh - let's leak a bunch of stuff to Wikileaks and include in it some malware. Everyone will be so distracted by the "trove of secret data" and trying it out to see what it does that they won't notice our super-secret malware getting installed.
Now whether they want everyone - or just the other "government entities" - or this PITA Assange himself - who knows.
I for one won't be diving into this leak.
If you think about the makeup of a car the only thing that can be controlled are those with electronic controls.
Which is just about everything these days. Some of the controls, and other devices are federally mandated - like anitlock brakes (which work by turning the bakes OFF in a controlled manner) and tire pressure sensors. Others are there because running a vehicle bus DRASTICALLY cuts the cost of wiring harnesses - like nearly every controllable or reporting device in the vehicle.
A few years ago I saw a proof-of-concept demonstrated at a conference. The researchers had used a flaw in a popular (with auto companies) tire pressure sensor system to achieve remote radio control of the car's vehicle bus. (CAN bus, if I recall correctly.) That let them do a bunch of stuff. Among them was disable the brakes, set the cruise control to a high speed, and make it impossible to shut off the engine or open the doors.
There are a LOT of other ways to interfere with recent vehicles' operation, and at high speed the driver doesn't have time to figure out how to work around such interference even if it's theoretically possible.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Slashdot Flashback time...
In Soviet America, TV watches you!
Most of that code has been written after we discovered what a stupid fucking language C was.
Too many big oil companies didn't want an anti-trust case exposing all kinds of secrets.
https://news.vice.com/article/fracking-pioneer-aubrey-mcclendon-dies-in-car-crash-a-day-after-anti-trust-indictment
That literally makes no sense. The CIA hacks the democrats and then leaks documents that make Hillary look bad, making it far more likely that Donald wins the election just so they can turn around and fabricate a story about him being in bed with the Russians.
Your critical thinking needs a little work
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're innocent of the crime. There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
I've been following, and mostly agreeing with, your marvelous string of rant(s) on this topic, but here I must pick a very important epistemological nit.
When I drove to work today, I exceeded the legal speed limit, as I do every day. I am therefore in reality guilty of violating the laws restricting the speed I am permitted to drive my car. This guilt persists whether or not I am stopped, observed, ticketed, taken to court. It persists whether or not I am stopped, go to court, and pay a lawyer a large sum of money to have the case thrown out or to convince judge or jury that my excess speed was within some legal uncertainty associated with its measurement, whether or not there was a technical error in my citation that makes it null and void. Being guilty in reality of violating a law is quite independent of the courts, arrests, prosecutions, and verdicts. Did I commit the crime? Yes (just like pretty much every human alive driving today). Have I been "declared guilty" by a court? Absolutely not, got away with it just like almost every human alive who exceeds the speed limit today will get away with it, some of whom will exceed it by a lot. Yesterday I (accidentally, seriously) ran a red light. Didn't get caught, didn't harm anyone, but I'm absolutely guilty of doing it and am still kicking myself for letting myself get too distracted at the intersection as I could have hurt someone. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
So let's correct your statement above:
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're presumed to be innocent (in the eyes of the law). There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
NOT THE SAME as saying you ARE innocent in reality, only that as far as the law goes, you have the benefit of any doubt (and various legal protections against others acting on their own as if you were guilty). This is true even if Colonel Mustard is found in the pantry holding the wrench, is arrested without being Mirandized, confesses everything and leads the police to a wealth of absolute proof that he did it, that he planned to do it, that he is glad he did it, that he is guilty, guilty, guilty of doing it -- but all of that evidence is thrown out and consequently the jury declares him (not innocent, but) not guilty. At which point he could write a book: "I Did it in the Pantry with the Wrench, and I'm Glad", by Colonel Mustard, Esq, and could admit it on Oprah and he'd still be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law for the rest of eternity because of the double jeopardy clause.
Outside of this small but important exception, I agree with what you are saying. And it matters! Those rules that might get Col. Mustard a walk even though he is guilty as hell might protect Miss Scarlet who is intimidated into admitting that she did it in the kitchen with the knife but really was in the Library with Professor Plum. They prevent many a miscarriage of justice where a DA aggressively prosecutes somebody for political reasons on inadequate or trumped up evidence. It's not like we don't routinely convict the innocent because the person accused happens to be black or hispanic even WITH the protections we have...
That doesn't stop people from "convicting" O.J. Simpson of murder in their own minds even though he is declared "not guilty" in a trial. It doesn't stop him from (maybe) BEING guilty even though he was acquitted. It doesn't stop people from convicting Hilary Clinton and/or Donald Trump in their own minds of everything from murder down to simple child molestation and rape and (while we are obligated to presume their innocence in all legal matters including not defaming them by asserting their ce
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Your comment makes me sadder than the OPs, because truth. :(
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
The Feds did their investigation, came up with more evidence and counter-evidence than you will ever know about, and judged that in total, it wasn't enough to even make a reasonable case.
The problem with this analysis is that there are people (e.g. Kristian Saucier) that are being prosecuted for doing much less than Hillary Clinton was proven to have done.
Hillary should be doing hard time for her mishandling of classified information.
Justin Amash representative from Michigan(R) He opposed, SOPA & PIPA, and stands firmly for fourth amendment rights.
Unfortunately, Michigan also has Mike Rogers (R). He and Nancy Pelosi California (D) would vote for tracking chips to be placed in everyone's forehead.
When I was hacking those I would put horrific porn on them, max out the volume and crash the control services.
The CIA is being given too much credit here. Take it from a security expert. There's very little here that's surprising or concerning. Much of it isn't truly owned by the CIA in any meaningful way and is more just how the world works.
The only real concern from this that wasn't pre-existing but again predictable is that details on their hacking program came out.
Not surprising, some people today are just as ignorant about computers.
Though it scares me to think I may be ignorant about some FUTURE tech that comes out when I'm old.
Future? I feel that way about some current tech.
I tell you, I have been using computers since the TRS-80 model III in the mid 80s, and I still feel ignorant about computers some days.
During one job interview I was asked about my experience on Linux. I said I have been using it as my home system since 1999, and I ran it and tested on it at a few jobs I had over the years. The interviewer said "oh, so you're an expert?" I replied "I think that the more I use it, and the more I learn about it, the more I realize how much I don't know about it. It's always evolving. I used to build my own kernel, and compile my own packages - and I still do that on occasion because I find it interesting. I can always dig in as deep as I want to go. But no, I don't think I am an expert and I never will be."
That wasn't just an interview answer, I firmly believe that. Everything seems so much deeper today. The IT industry has grown so much. Cryptography, mobile, security, hacks, viruses/malware, gaming, containers, cloud, GPUs, etc etc. The industry has really matured in the last 25 years, which really is a short time compared to other industries, and it permeates so much. There is no doubt in my mind that I will continue to slip away from understanding it all.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you look at cases of people who were negligent in handling classified material, or otherwise inadvertently leaked it, you don't find criminal prosecution. There was one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and wound up not having to, and I saw no sign of any criminal penalties in the other cases. Prosecuting Clinton would have been unprecedented.
Now, if you similarly mishandled classified documents, you might lose your job or your clearance, and it's likely to be a career-limiting move, but you wouldn't have to worry about prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Clinton was negligent in handling classified materials. Saucier deliberately broke the law. That is, from the cases I looked over, almost always the criterion for prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Name one. Just one. I haven't found one yet.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Your hero has been awfully quiet about the leaks... *taps foot, looks at watch*. I'm sure he'll start yelling about it any day now
Indeed, Europe, the continent that gave us enlightenment, the industrial revolution, marxism, world war i, world war ii, imperialism, etc. Not exactly a group to emulate really. Now the seeds of WWIII are being sown there.
I am saying the public needs answers
They got an answer, from the feds. It's not definitive, but it's indicative at least, and far more informed than public speculation.
I am saying major crimes were committed
This is exactly my point. Major crimes are alleged. The difference is crucial. Someone could indeed be charged and get their day in court, but whether major crimes were actually committed is still not proved, let alone who by.
I am not disagreeing with the feds judgement
It does kinda sound like you are (which is fine). And I'm right with you on the whole "too powerful for the law to apply" thing - politicians more than anyone must be subject to the law.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So you've pre-judged her as guilty, based on your incomplete third-hand hearsay, and you're further alleging that all prosecutors are too corrupt to take the case.
Have you considered perhaps that you simply don't have all the information, and what you don't know maybe indicates that she's not nearly as obviously guilty as you think, and possibly that's a much simpler explanation for why she's not being charged, rather than massive and widespread corruption throughout our entire legal system?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're presumed to be innocent (in the eyes of the law). There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
NOT THE SAME as saying you ARE innocent in reality, only that as far as the law goes, you have the benefit of any doubt (and various legal protections against others acting on their own as if you were guilty).
I take your point. My problem, however, is with people leaping to the conclusion that a person is guilty and therefore that respect for the rule of law requires a conviction.
The implication, of course, is that maybe it's not conducive to civil discourse to lead chants of 'Lock Her Up' at political rallies. Because that's un-American, in the sense that it deliberately and maliciously subverts the fundamental precepts of Common Law. And I'll remind you that respect for the rule of law was the jumping off point for these rants.
But you're welcome to your niggle about other interpretations of guilt. :-)
Regarding OJ, by the way: I have my suspicions about his guilt. But I will not entertain them in my newspaper. Nor should a political leader use such speculation as a rallying cry that has the effect of casting aspersions on him—or on black men in general.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I think the issue is that the only reason she did NOT go to trial is BECAUSE of political shenanigans.
Really? Do I really care if he lied to a massive group of self-righteous self-important, egotistical assholes who are taking their directions from corporations, illegal aliens, foreign gov esp china and Russia? Not one fucking bit. OTOH, I do care that he is obviously on the take from Russia like so many GOP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, I've judged her as having broken the law based on evidence that the FBI director provided to the public. I'm not saying all prosecutors are too corrupt to take the case, but that the FBI believes that is the case (again, the FBI director's words, not mine). If using evidence provided by the FBI director in a press conference is "hearsay" then what evidence would you accept? Good luck getting your hands on the server drives or phones that were confessed to have been destroyed by the Clinton staff.
I'm not claiming to have all of the information. The information I do have clearly indicates the law was not followed. If you want to call that guilty you are welcome to even if it doesn't fit the legal definition of guilty. I would argue it is far more likely that she is guilty of much more than just mishandling classified information and lying about it during congressional hearings. She's probably also guilty of obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, and racketeering. Conspiracy is also likely if she is guilty of those as well. But I'm content with giving her the benefit of the doubt and only being "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she mishandled classified information.
Furthermore, I don't need any of this information or legal proceedings to have ample evidence that there is massive and widespread corruption throughout our legal system. For that all you need to do is look at any case involving a politician or law enforcement officer. They are not held to the same standards as We The People are.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
You will have to have one clean room with nothing in it, and run it at a temperature at 98.6 Fahrenheit to hide infra-red?
enlightenment, the industrial revolution
I give up, what was wrong with The Enlightenment? And while The Industrial Revolution definitely messed things up in some respects, we do have the whole of modern life to thank it for.
not exempt from laws, you nitwit. criminal prosecutions of whoever loses an election for their "crimes" is third world shit.
expose what they have done, if they have stolen funds then use whatever civil and administrative tools are available to recover those funds unless it's something truely heinous such as if pizza gate turns out to be real, the costs to the nation far outweigh the benefits.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I've judged her as having broken the law based on evidence that the FBI director provided to the public.
Actually, you've pre-judged her as guilty based on media reports, almost certainly with some bias added by the outlets of your choice, and which further selectively filtered the already-limited information the FBI director provided. Is that not third-hand, at least?
I'm not saying all prosecutors are too corrupt to take the case, but that the FBI believes that is the case (again, the FBI director's words, not mine).
I must have missed where the FBI director said anything about their supposed belief of all prosecutors being corrupt.
The information I do have clearly indicates the law was not followed.
Yet you agree your information is far from complete. A body and a suspect do not a murder case make - that's why we have courts, and not trials by media.
I would argue it is far more likely that she is guilty of much more
That prejudice right there, based on little more than pure speculation, would disqualify you from any jury.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Nothing. All I'm saying is that some really good things, like enlightenment and the industrial revolution came out of Europe - just like the inquision, marxism, WWI, WWII, and so on. I was just kind of typing 'stream of consciousness' pointing out subtly that while some good stuff came from there - the largest mass murders in history did, too.
So, who's up for watching Will Smith and Gene Hackman in "Enemy of the State" this weekend?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
So yes, if you throw out everything the FBI director and media have reported, then there is no evidence against Hillary. What's the point of any of this discussion if you (with your apparent prejudice) refuse to accept the direct words of the FBI director himself in a press conference? That's as close to raw evidence as any of the public is going to get. It's so nice that she deleted all of the records when subpoenaed (well reportedly she did) so there can be no evidence you can review on your own.
Am I prejudiced? Yes. Are you? Also yes. I don't think you know what disqualifies one from a jury... Having any kind of prejudice and making a decision based on incomplete evidence is the norm for jurors. And luckily for Hillary, no jury ever will get to rule on it because the FBI said so. That is totally a more fair system...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
...there is nothing un-American about weighing such evidence as we have and leading chants of "Prosecute Her"....
Again, I would agree. If that's what they'd chanted. But it wasn't. The chanters are the people I have no truck with. I applaud anyone with a healthy scepticism toward the application of the law in America... as long as they're focused on fixing the system rather than bringing its injustice and inequity to bear on a different (class of) victim.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I'm certainly not throwing out what the director has said. He clearly found evidence against her - and also said it wasn't sufficient to make a robust case that a prosecutor would bother with. You're the one that listened to the first part but ignored the second.
My whole point is, there's certainly evidence, but no proof - and you can't (and shouldn't) arrive at a definite conclusion without a full trial, where all the evidence (for and against) is examined in detail. Until that happens, we have the presumption of innocence for a very good reason - and it's not me who's leaping to conclusions based on the trial by media.
The director's statements do not preclude a full trial, and the DoJ could still decide to make a case out of it - if they wanted to. They don't seem to, though. Perhaps that's because they're all corrupt, if you're inclined towards the conspiratorial view, or rather more likely it's simply because there just isn't enough evidence to actually convict her of anything - which is clearly the view of people who know a lot more about that evidence than you or I.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except everyone who is familiar with the law outside of Washington politics has called out the FBI director for a problem with his conclusion. His evidence against her is solid but he said it wasn't something a reasonable prosecutor would pursue because there was no evidence of Hillary's intent. However, intent is not a factor in the execution of the law. Even negligence without intent is enough to bring a case on.
I am all about a presumption of innocence for the defense in a court case. If there is suspicion of a crime and no court case will ever be held, I don't have to maintain a neutral stance and all I can do is consider guilt on my own knowing that for whatever reason she will never see a court room or a judge.
Conspiracies and a government where the leaders aren't held to the same standards as the citizens have very similar structures don't they?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Obviously the director *does* consider intent to be a factor, in this case.
But that's still largely irrelevant, because he's the director of the FBI, not the director of the Department of Justice. If the DoJ chose to take up the case, they could subpoena the results of the investigation and bring any case they wanted, regardless of the FBI's opinions. When asked why they haven't, you prefer to believe in massively widespread corruption, rather than the far simpler assumption that they merely know something you don't.
You claim without any basis that no court case will ever be held, you offer only speculation about conspiracies as to why that might be, then you use that to excuse your own premature assumption of guilt.
Presumption of innocence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a court case will be held in the future. It's needed because the evidence is not complete. If you could go around judging guilt based solely on a few selected facts and media reports, we wouldn't need court trials in the first place. I'm not sure why this means nothing to you.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'm not sure why you can't separate someone being guilty from someone being guilty under the law and punished for it. A child that tells a lie is guilty, but isn't going to be thrown in jail. There is a different standard for someone being guilty in a moral and objective sense and someone being legally declared guilty where the state can forcibly apply a penalty.
My question for you is why is it less concerning that the government is withholding information showing that Hillary broke no laws than it is that she broke the law and they are just sweeping it under the rug? What is the harm of showing whatever evidence is available proving Hillary was completely within the laws to do what she did? It's one of those questions that just can't be ignored. If the moon landing was faked, what incentive is there for people in on the conspiracy to not release the truth?
In Hillary's case, a lot of people's jobs and riches are all hinged on her never being prosecuted. And those people are the ones who decide if she is prosecuted or not. Sure there are people who want to see Hillary in jail, but those same people don't want a case because I'm fairly certain that both sides are doing shit like this and they don't want too much digging into how widespread the problem is. They are all in the same worm can and don't want anyone to dig.
I've never heard someone arguing so hard that a judge shouldn't hear a case because a prosecutor might have hidden evidence of innocence. Don't the citizens of a country deserve to hear in a court of law all of the evidence showing their leaders aren't corrupt?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
When did I ever argue that a judge should not hear any case, or this one?
What evidence is being withheld? Did you miss where the FBI released everything from their investigations?
I'll say it yet again: Presumption of innocence. It's important, regardless of your suspicions.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?