That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite. Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof? Or prosecute someone? Maybe more of those banking restrictions they place on particular individuals? Oh, right.
The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true, but the anonymous people with rumors are going to say our allies gossiped about this? And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that. We already discussed just yesterday how Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam, but presumably here they're talking about the DNC leaks, which Wikileaks says came from a DNC insider. You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish. They're simply laundering anonymous rumors with no factual basis and referencing each other's stories that have no factual basis. The emperor has no clothes.
You know it's bad when my own Slashdot comments scooped the NYT on that Podesta email story by weeks and given that I provided more actual, verifiable sources than their article. Seriously, if you can't even beat Slashdot comments by some random guy on the internet, maybe it's time to give it up, guys? You don't even bother to link to the actual sources lest someone do a real investigation, what a pathetic joke.
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees), specifically it was the: "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security "
The latest intelligence said to show Putin's involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia.
I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do. Also, we've seen random probes from Russia. Which everyone who has a network has seen all the time (same for China, incidentally), making it utterly meaningless. Everyone with an SSH server has seen this kind of crap and Slashdot has reported many such stories in the past, like this one. A nice quote from the comments in that story sums it up: "If you truly expect no traffic from those places, dropping China, Brasil and Russia from ever reaching your ssh port is a great idea."
As for this story, it makes no sense. The email in question is here and for some reason, I was unable to find any links to it in either article. As an aside, why do media outlets fail so badly at citing sources like this? It should be utterly basic journalism, but the major papers routinely fail to do this very basic step and wonder why bloggers eat their lunch... This was first reported many weeks ago, they're severely behind the times on this. I mean, you know it's bad when you're scooped by Slashdot commenters.... sheesh!
Back on topic, the relevant part of the response to the spear phishing email says this:
This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account. He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/s... to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP.
If you or he has any questions, please reach out to me at [redacted]
It's definitely an illegitimate email, but there's more wrong with the statement above than just typing "a legitimate email" instead "an illegitimate email." Being illegitimate means they DON'T yet have his password, so there would be no reason to change it and no good reason to advise that! Two-factor authentication, however, is very reasonable.
You realize there are many sets of leaks at different times and not many people even took Trump seriously back in the summer of 2015, right? (Many still do not, but I digress...)
Oh, and we have an email from them in 2015 saying "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."
> why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium? Flag as Inappropriate
If you look at the PDF attached to this email, you'll see that it was the DNC's own "pied piper" strategy wherein they had their allies in the media promote Trump early on believing him to be one of the weakest candidates who would hurt the Republican party.
It's amazing how they didn't manage to link to any of the actual emails or other original sources on this. No, I don't want to read your other 10 related articles on the subject, I'd like to see the damned emails in question, please.
I covered this exact story quite thoroughly just the other day, not to mention several other comments which you can find if you go back further, wherein I covered the DKIM signatures, stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page, etc. which all proved this to be real.
We figured this out many weeks ago, they're really behind the times on this one. Anyone who read/r/wikileaks could have told you about this a long time ago.
> What part of irrelevant do you fail to understand?
It was relevant--to the charges you made of having posted something not true or not supported by fact.
I never said it proved anything about Hillary Clinton. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Anyhow, it's clear that you're reading what you imagined I would say and not what I've actually said, so I don't suppose there's any reason to reply further at this point.
Which is doubly interesting given that the CIA thinks we know the Russians did the hacks (which? the DNC leaks? Podesta dump? HRC's server [which hasn't been released save for some redacted paper copies from the US Government]?)... based not on new evidence, but on circumstantial evidence... which they won't show us.
You're reading too much into things, then. Your definition of "factless" also needs work given that I've given verifiable sources for my statements while you have yet to pick out even one single statement to confront head on, presumably because the ones you wish to confront aren't things I've actually said...
> Everything else you wrote is bullshit conspiracy theory
Everything else? Not going to be specific, just going to write off everything?
I said we don't know who killed him and why. Surely you're not actually contradicting that part? Look at the police report, there's just not much there.
Are you contradicting the part where I said there are security cameras in the area? Here's a nice list of them and maps. You can walk all around Flagler Place & W St. NW and look at them if you want. The linked thread has a picture of each one. Feel free to post your own photos showing the cameras aren't where they are shown to be.
Now if you're saying the killer(s) were found on camera, contrary to what I said above, well, the only source I can find claiming that is Fox News and there's been nothing public about it since then as far as I know. Should I be taking their word for it? Is that the point you want to argue?
I can go over DKIM cryptography if you want or pull the keys for you directly from the relevant DNS servers (they're still there... for now). Anyone who tries to tell you they've modified those has apparently hacked both Google and Hillary, or broken DKIM's cryptography. Do you need a lesson in exactly how to pull the keys from the DNS servers? Would you like to look at the RFC? Should we discuss what non-repudiation means and why it's important here?
But it's probably the Wikileaks thing, right? All I've said is "this is what Wikileaks said and why." I can only really go on what they've said, which is that they don't know who their sources are exactly. This implies that the only way they know a source is gone is that they cannot contact them any longer. There are surely many ways for this to be purely coincidental and I've said as much. But that puts you in the position of not disagreeing with something I said, but something I said someone else said. And they certainly did say what they said, you can go read it on the Wikileaks Twitter account if you wish.
Perhaps you are you disagreeing with the parts where I said Clinton didn't actually lie? You weren't very specific, you know. I pretty much have to guess here.
So please identify the specific item(s) you're disagreeing with here. I have specific, public sources that I have linked to. And if you're going to natter on about conspiracies based on "literally no evidence" please actually talk about the evidence I have presented instead of pretending you can't see it. Or make sure you disagree with claims I've actually made, not something someone else said.
As you may note, my posts above did not say that Clinton did anything to Seth Rich, nor have I alleged any direct evidence thereof, I just pointed out that people, like Wikileaks, have been suspicious, which is demonstrably true however much you hate them for it.
Wikileaks trying to glom onto his murder was one of the biggest reasons I stopped trusting them.
Its yet another variation on the bullshit "clinton murders" conspiracy theory and not only is it intellectually bankrupt it is demeaning to Mr Rich himself, making his death into a tool to diminish his own work and political beliefs.
If you're saying there's no proof that Clinton is in any way connected, I'll agree with you. If you're saying we know who killed Seth Rich or why, I'll have to disagree. There are public facing surveillance cameras all around that area, many of which have been mapped out by volunteers. Somehow, his killer or killers have thus far avoided being identified on any of them, though it's being actively investigated. Wikileaks lost their source and then a DNC staffer happened to die. There are enough staff that this could be simply coincidental and it's not clear that even Wikileaks knows who its source was with any certainty. We won't really know anything about this until the actual killer(s) are caught.
You can mistrust Wikileaks' motives all you want, but the email I linked to can be verified cryptographically. It's not like all the Wikileaks docs are even harmful to Clinton. They actually did have an analysts report claiming there was some video causing unrest in Benghazi at the time. We're not able to find any other evidence to support that, but they did actually have a reason to believe that particular claim, even if it appears to have been incorrect in hindsight. Also, they've started leaking items related to Trump now, but that hasn't really been noticed yet.
Hmm, I wonder how many copyright infringement lawsuits the big labels have faced? Could they be considered a "repeat infringer" based on those?
If not, why does it apply to normal people who know little to nothing about copyright law, but not to sophisticated parties with many lawyers who reasonably should know their own business?
That would be great, if not for the fact that Hillary didn't release all of the emails to the FBI to begin with. The FBI only got paper copies after a lot of them were deleted and/u/stonetear (AKA Hillary's IT guy, Paul Combetta) had done whatever he was doing in that infamous post.
Also, we know now that they use a bunch of aliases that make it hard to tell who is who. Here's a short cheat-sheet of those I happen to know. All of this is easily discovered by reading Wikileaks, so every item is an open secret at this point to anyone who cares to find out. I'm sure I forgot a few so feel free to correct me. This is interesting because sometimes there are subpoenas / FOIA requests that only target specific email addresses or names.
Yes, there was in some other investigation a claim that a RAT was found that was Russian. Problem is, it was later shown to be common to underground forums but the first analysis of that didn't know this. And then we had ridiculous things like allegedly some bank was, I dunno, making DNS queries about a Trump server or whatever that nonsense was that hit Slashdot some time ago.
Or there were some people complaining about, I think it was Guccifer's use of language saying they thought s/he was Russian? Of course, they never bothered to quote anything that someone could actually research. If it's not already clear, if someone should have evidence but they're unwilling to show anyone, I penalize their credibility proportionately. See also: Russell's teapot.
The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:
Hillary's emails
Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by/u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that/u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad:)
Podesta's Gmail account
This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.
We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+
That bit.ly link resolves to a.TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.
DNC Leaks
This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.
> Was last Friday's vote simply a Quixotic tribute to a dying cause or -- as some are asking -- does Mr. Abe know something that others don't?
I read something else in this part. Obama killed the TPP because Trump was against it and he couldn't pass it in the lame duck session, so he might as well deny others credit for killing the deal he & Hillary negotiated.
So I assume they're wondering if Abe either knows that Hillary has a non-zero chance or they think Trump could be persuaded to go for it.
Personally, whatever happens, I want this to die and stay dead.
> These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.
An odd statement. If you go back to read up on Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" he justified his intolerance of intolerance by pointing out the fear that such people would resort to "fists or pistols" instead of debate. And so he justified his idea by the right of self-defense.
In other words, anyone who is inciting or committing violence should not be tolerated.
Georgia isn't really a state that would have much value for them to flip even assuming they could do so.
That said, you have to think there's some kind of political shenanigans going on behind it.
Then again, maybe if this is a thing going forward, we'll end up selecting for fewer luddites and more people interested in proper opsec, rather than compromising it the moment it becomes too inconvenient.
Correction, a statement about the art was later discovered. It apparently wasn't modeled after his victims directly, but it was supposed to be a tormented person. It does bear similarities to the poses of his victims, though the artist said it was modeled after people suffering hysteria. Take from that what you will.
What I don't get is why they're willing to sell this to anyone but the police. If it's somehow private and sensitive, why are they allowed to sell it at all?
Slashdot Mirror
If someone posting verifiable facts makes you uncomfortable, it says more about you than it does about me.
That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite. Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof? Or prosecute someone? Maybe more of those banking restrictions they place on particular individuals? Oh, right.
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true, but the anonymous people with rumors are going to say our allies gossiped about this? And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that. We already discussed just yesterday how Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam, but presumably here they're talking about the DNC leaks, which Wikileaks says came from a DNC insider. You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish. They're simply laundering anonymous rumors with no factual basis and referencing each other's stories that have no factual basis. The emperor has no clothes.
You know it's bad when my own Slashdot comments scooped the NYT on that Podesta email story by weeks and given that I provided more actual, verifiable sources than their article. Seriously, if you can't even beat Slashdot comments by some random guy on the internet, maybe it's time to give it up, guys? You don't even bother to link to the actual sources lest someone do a real investigation, what a pathetic joke.
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees), specifically it was the: "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security "
I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do. Also, we've seen random probes from Russia. Which everyone who has a network has seen all the time (same for China, incidentally), making it utterly meaningless. Everyone with an SSH server has seen this kind of crap and Slashdot has reported many such stories in the past, like this one. A nice quote from the comments in that story sums it up: "If you truly expect no traffic from those places, dropping China, Brasil and Russia from ever reaching your ssh port is a great idea."
Let's also not forget that the DHS was
They leaked some old ones, actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0
As for this story, it makes no sense. The email in question is here and for some reason, I was unable to find any links to it in either article. As an aside, why do media outlets fail so badly at citing sources like this? It should be utterly basic journalism, but the major papers routinely fail to do this very basic step and wonder why bloggers eat their lunch... This was first reported many weeks ago, they're severely behind the times on this. I mean, you know it's bad when you're scooped by Slashdot commenters.... sheesh!
Back on topic, the relevant part of the response to the spear phishing email says this:
It's definitely an illegitimate email, but there's more wrong with the statement above than just typing "a legitimate email" instead "an illegitimate email." Being illegitimate means they DON'T yet have his password, so there would be no reason to change it and no good reason to advise that! Two-factor authentication, however, is very reasonable.
We know from the stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page that Podesta didn't follow his instructions to go to https://myaccount.google.com/security though, and it's true that we can't hold Charles Delavan responsible for that part.
> No doubt, but notice that they waited until after Sanders lost the primary to out Clinton.
For which hack? I covered the list of them just the other day - https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9986237&cid=53472053
You realize there are many sets of leaks at different times and not many people even took Trump seriously back in the summer of 2015, right? (Many still do not, but I digress...)
Oh, and we have an email from them in 2015 saying "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."
Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651
> why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium?
Flag as Inappropriate
If you look at the PDF attached to this email, you'll see that it was the DNC's own "pied piper" strategy wherein they had their allies in the media promote Trump early on believing him to be one of the weakest candidates who would hurt the Republican party.
So that would appear to be your answer.
It's amazing how they didn't manage to link to any of the actual emails or other original sources on this. No, I don't want to read your other 10 related articles on the subject, I'd like to see the damned emails in question, please.
I covered this exact story quite thoroughly just the other day, not to mention several other comments which you can find if you go back further, wherein I covered the DKIM signatures, stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page, etc. which all proved this to be real.
We figured this out many weeks ago, they're really behind the times on this one. Anyone who read /r/wikileaks could have told you about this a long time ago.
"Google signs colocation deal"
Yeah, but if they wrote that, nobody would have clicked on the story because it's too boring.
> What part of irrelevant do you fail to understand?
It was relevant--to the charges you made of having posted something not true or not supported by fact.
I never said it proved anything about Hillary Clinton. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Anyhow, it's clear that you're reading what you imagined I would say and not what I've actually said, so I don't suppose there's any reason to reply further at this point.
The claims were largely hyperbolic, out of anger that he'd ban pizzagate but he would not ban various allegedly pedo-related subs.
Which is doubly interesting given that the CIA thinks we know the Russians did the hacks (which? the DNC leaks? Podesta dump? HRC's server [which hasn't been released save for some redacted paper copies from the US Government]?) ... based not on new evidence, but on circumstantial evidence... which they won't show us.
You're reading too much into things, then. Your definition of "factless" also needs work given that I've given verifiable sources for my statements while you have yet to pick out even one single statement to confront head on, presumably because the ones you wish to confront aren't things I've actually said...
> Everything else you wrote is bullshit conspiracy theory
Everything else? Not going to be specific, just going to write off everything?
I said we don't know who killed him and why. Surely you're not actually contradicting that part? Look at the police report, there's just not much there.
Are you contradicting the part where I said there are security cameras in the area? Here's a nice list of them and maps. You can walk all around Flagler Place & W St. NW and look at them if you want. The linked thread has a picture of each one. Feel free to post your own photos showing the cameras aren't where they are shown to be.
Now if you're saying the killer(s) were found on camera, contrary to what I said above, well, the only source I can find claiming that is Fox News and there's been nothing public about it since then as far as I know. Should I be taking their word for it? Is that the point you want to argue?
I can go over DKIM cryptography if you want or pull the keys for you directly from the relevant DNS servers (they're still there... for now). Anyone who tries to tell you they've modified those has apparently hacked both Google and Hillary, or broken DKIM's cryptography. Do you need a lesson in exactly how to pull the keys from the DNS servers? Would you like to look at the RFC? Should we discuss what non-repudiation means and why it's important here?
But it's probably the Wikileaks thing, right? All I've said is "this is what Wikileaks said and why." I can only really go on what they've said, which is that they don't know who their sources are exactly. This implies that the only way they know a source is gone is that they cannot contact them any longer. There are surely many ways for this to be purely coincidental and I've said as much. But that puts you in the position of not disagreeing with something I said, but something I said someone else said. And they certainly did say what they said, you can go read it on the Wikileaks Twitter account if you wish.
Perhaps you are you disagreeing with the parts where I said Clinton didn't actually lie? You weren't very specific, you know. I pretty much have to guess here.
So please identify the specific item(s) you're disagreeing with here. I have specific, public sources that I have linked to. And if you're going to natter on about conspiracies based on "literally no evidence" please actually talk about the evidence I have presented instead of pretending you can't see it. Or make sure you disagree with claims I've actually made, not something someone else said.
As you may note, my posts above did not say that Clinton did anything to Seth Rich, nor have I alleged any direct evidence thereof, I just pointed out that people, like Wikileaks, have been suspicious, which is demonstrably true however much you hate them for it.
Wikileaks trying to glom onto his murder was one of the biggest reasons I stopped trusting them.
Its yet another variation on the bullshit "clinton murders" conspiracy theory and not only is it intellectually bankrupt it is demeaning to Mr Rich himself, making his death into a tool to diminish his own work and political beliefs.
If you're saying there's no proof that Clinton is in any way connected, I'll agree with you. If you're saying we know who killed Seth Rich or why, I'll have to disagree. There are public facing surveillance cameras all around that area, many of which have been mapped out by volunteers. Somehow, his killer or killers have thus far avoided being identified on any of them, though it's being actively investigated. Wikileaks lost their source and then a DNC staffer happened to die. There are enough staff that this could be simply coincidental and it's not clear that even Wikileaks knows who its source was with any certainty. We won't really know anything about this until the actual killer(s) are caught.
You can mistrust Wikileaks' motives all you want, but the email I linked to can be verified cryptographically. It's not like all the Wikileaks docs are even harmful to Clinton. They actually did have an analysts report claiming there was some video causing unrest in Benghazi at the time. We're not able to find any other evidence to support that, but they did actually have a reason to believe that particular claim, even if it appears to have been incorrect in hindsight. Also, they've started leaking items related to Trump now, but that hasn't really been noticed yet.
Hmm, I wonder how many copyright infringement lawsuits the big labels have faced? Could they be considered a "repeat infringer" based on those?
If not, why does it apply to normal people who know little to nothing about copyright law, but not to sophisticated parties with many lawyers who reasonably should know their own business?
That would be great, if not for the fact that Hillary didn't release all of the emails to the FBI to begin with. The FBI only got paper copies after a lot of them were deleted and /u/stonetear (AKA Hillary's IT guy, Paul Combetta) had done whatever he was doing in that infamous post.
Also, we know now that they use a bunch of aliases that make it hard to tell who is who. Here's a short cheat-sheet of those I happen to know. All of this is easily discovered by reading Wikileaks, so every item is an open secret at this point to anyone who cares to find out. I'm sure I forgot a few so feel free to correct me. This is interesting because sometimes there are subpoenas / FOIA requests that only target specific email addresses or names.
Hillary Clinton
hrod
HRC
Evergreen
Chelsea Clinton
CVC
Diane Reynolds
Anthony Wiener
Carlos Danger
Yes, there was in some other investigation a claim that a RAT was found that was Russian. Problem is, it was later shown to be common to underground forums but the first analysis of that didn't know this. And then we had ridiculous things like allegedly some bank was, I dunno, making DNS queries about a Trump server or whatever that nonsense was that hit Slashdot some time ago.
Or there were some people complaining about, I think it was Guccifer's use of language saying they thought s/he was Russian? Of course, they never bothered to quote anything that someone could actually research. If it's not already clear, if someone should have evidence but they're unwilling to show anyone, I penalize their credibility proportionately. See also: Russell's teapot.
The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:
Hillary's emails
Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by /u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that /u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad :)
Podesta's Gmail account
This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.
We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+
That bit.ly link resolves to a .TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.
DNC Leaks
This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.
You can find more discussion about that here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
> Was last Friday's vote simply a Quixotic tribute to a dying cause or -- as some are asking -- does Mr. Abe know something that others don't?
I read something else in this part. Obama killed the TPP because Trump was against it and he couldn't pass it in the lame duck session, so he might as well deny others credit for killing the deal he & Hillary negotiated.
So I assume they're wondering if Abe either knows that Hillary has a non-zero chance or they think Trump could be persuaded to go for it.
Personally, whatever happens, I want this to die and stay dead.
> These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.
An odd statement. If you go back to read up on Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" he justified his intolerance of intolerance by pointing out the fear that such people would resort to "fists or pistols" instead of debate. And so he justified his idea by the right of self-defense.
In other words, anyone who is inciting or committing violence should not be tolerated.
Source
Georgia isn't really a state that would have much value for them to flip even assuming they could do so.
That said, you have to think there's some kind of political shenanigans going on behind it.
Then again, maybe if this is a thing going forward, we'll end up selecting for fewer luddites and more people interested in proper opsec, rather than compromising it the moment it becomes too inconvenient.
> Because overly broad government surveillance sucks and they don't want to be a willing participant?
But over-broad private surveillance is A-OK to sell to the highest bidder?
And it's not like the government can just set up fake companies. Why, the CIA never does that!
I had to read this carefully before I realized that the US state of Georgia was complaining, rather than the country of Georgia.
I don't think they need to worry about their firewalls, they need to worry about falling prey to obvious phishing scams (note the bit.ly link...) and not working together to compromise their own OPSEC by bypassing all the controls.
Correction, a statement about the art was later discovered. It apparently wasn't modeled after his victims directly, but it was supposed to be a tormented person. It does bear similarities to the poses of his victims, though the artist said it was modeled after people suffering hysteria. Take from that what you will.
What I don't get is why they're willing to sell this to anyone but the police. If it's somehow private and sensitive, why are they allowed to sell it at all?
> There's so much market for warrantless spying that people are starting for-profit companies to support it.
I can't believe how many of you people are spying on my post right now...