Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box.
Then the canards:
"You have that image from the machine live in the network including its memory content, versus a server that someone physically carries into the FBI headquarters. It's unplugged, so there's no memory content because it's powered down.
As if the FBI has to have the hardware transported to a lab to analyze it. They have agents with functioning legs who could examine the servers while they are powered on.
And finally the crux of the issue:
"To keep it simple, let's say there's only one server. CrowdStrike goes in, makes a complete image including a memory dump of everything that was in the memory of the server at the time, including traffic and connections at the time," Rid said.
The FBI wouldn't trust CrowdStrike to make such an image. Not one involving multiple servers allegedly hacked by high level foreign intelligence operatives. Not when the FBI has long had access to sophisticated malware, malware that other nation-states could also use, malware that could be missed by civilian tools.
Not only does this stand out for people who have bullshit detectors after 2002, it should upset partisan Democrats who are true believes in Russiagate. Why, there could have been the old KGB telnet handle from Pootie Poot himself buried in some encrypted memory, if only the FBI had access to the hardware to analyze it....
There's always the standard issue "we wont extradite to countries that torture or execute prisoners", which easily applies to the U.S. Torture recently applied to Chelsea Manning for being a Wikileaks source.
Whatadumbfuck. As in 99.9999999% of cases, "whataboutism" is just the shrill cry of western exceptionalists whining when someone points out their hypocritical firing of cannons from within glass houses.
As you say, both BP and WW also had "Wah wah SJWs!" type attacks on them
No, they didn't. That was just Demagogue Culture scrounging Twitter comments to find a stupid post they could blow out of all proportion and pretend it was some kind of movement. That's the model they used for Force Awakens on a black stormtrooper, as if Star Wars fans haven't been aware of Lando for the last few decades.
I'm shocked, shocked that's the case. Again: throwing up a link to a wall of text isn't a citation, it's laziness, which is easily demonstrated. I hereby assert that a cheeky page inserted a line into the 2017 federal omnibus bill stating Ray Morris is incredibly lazy and likes to make up nonsense, a bad combination. If you disagree, feel free to read said bill to prove me wrong.
Unless they're racist imperialist sacks of crap. Go wipe the spouge off your Bluray copy of Red Dawn and watch it again, this time noting how every person killed by the invading Soviets 'had it coming' because they 'were in a war zone'.
So you're gonna be that way. There's no shortage of 100% legit reasons for Assange to fear being handed over to the US in the same way Gottfrid Svartholm was brought to Sweden as a pretext, interrogated for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact before being deported to another country for a completely unrelated charge.
There is no reason whatsoever Sweden couldn't have promised Assange they wont extradite him if they were actually serious about wanting to question him for an alleged rape. Again, even if you're drinking the Assange Hatorade and think his promise was a lie, Ecuador would have had no reason to continue his asylum, and he would have ended up in Swedish custody regardless.
Okay so you're saying if you did read the rule, you'd find I'm not making this shit up. Knowing what it says would prove my point, you say.
Not how this works. It's the job of the person making the affirmative claim to back it up as it's near impossible to prove a negative. If you're so confident in your talking point, you'll have no problem citing the part of the 2015 rules that would prevent QOS. Throwing up a link to a wall of text isn't a citation, it's laziness.
Oh please. Citing a single case from 17 years ago as an excuse to completely flaunt the entire justice system of a country isn't even hyperbole, it's borderline tinfoil hattery. Get a grip man.
You're only insulting your own intelligence here. Remind us (and by us I mean you) who's the current head of the CIA? How many high level politicians have openly called for Assange's assassination? The number of whisteblowers persecuted in the previous administration's war on sources - three times as many as all previous presidents combined? The same president who had a foreign head of state's plane forced down because Edward Snowden might be aboard? All much more recently than 17 years ago. Hate Assange all you want, it's a free country, but to deny that his fear of Swedish complicity in US persecution is completely justified takes a powerful level of dumbfuckery.
Sweden could easily do a lot of things that breach the legal framework they have set in place. But in doing so they would confirm to do the very thing about which you just criticised them.
Oh, do pull out of this neocon narrative. After being interviewed by investigators Assange was cleared to leave the country. It was only after he left that another prosecutor decided to blow a couple of women who asked for an STD test to an Interpol case. And Sweden, despite its hippie health care and free college, is positively medieval when it comes to how it deals with suspects. Holding them in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer & using an arrest as a pretext to interrogate and deport to another country didn't start with Gottfrid Svartholm, he's just the perfect example of how Assange haters are full of crap.
Assange has offered to be interviewed remotely or in person if Sweden were to send an investigator abroad - something Sweden has done dozens of times since 2011 - or to return to the country if the government promises not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden has refused both offers. Even if you think Assange is merely posturing, such a promise would mean Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum, meaning Assange would end up in Sweden's custody whether he meant that promise or not.
If this was really about an alleged rape case, Sweden could have made it be about a rape case years ago. This tells anyone with two functioning neurons this is not about alleged rape and never was.
When in a racist hole, put down the Klan shovel. 1) You're ignoring the fact the people on the ground were minding their own business 2) as if you can tell nationality from a helicopter 3) it's still wasn't your business as it wasn't your country.
So like that old sketch on SNL, I gotta ask - is your head filled with human excrement, or dog excrement?
This is the same country that had the flight of a foreign head of state forced down because he may have been carrying Edward Snowden aboard. Of course the US wants Assange and is willing to apply enormous pressure to do so.
Of course he can. Not his fault that Sweden has ignored Assange's offer to be interviewed abroad, or his offer to return to Sweden if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the U.S.
Swedish prosecutors have never proposed such silly idea
A "silly idea" they've done dozens of times since 2011. But not for Assange. Hmm, almost like the charges are a transparent pretext to hand him over to US custody, or at least interrogate him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact. They've done it before.
Yeah I know. All our legal systems let fugitives decide the terms of their interview.
When your "legal system" has a penchant for kidnapping, murder and torture? That's exactly what you get to do. This line of CIA apologia is also rendered mute by the fact that Sweden has interviewed dozens of suspects abroad since 2010. Moreso by the additional fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if Sweden promises not to hand him over to US custody. Even if you are an Assange hater and think that offer is a bluff, if Sweden were to take it up, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to offer Assange asylum.
Sweden could easily make this be about rape charges if its only about rape charges, and could have done so years ago. They've chosen not to. Which means this isn't about an alleged rape and never has been.
The case of Gottfrid Svartholm neatly answers the concerns of those who dismiss Assange's (perfectly justified) fears of being interrogated without a lawyer and being handed over to the U.S.
You mean do a great deal of reading to prove your talking points for you? Yeah, I'll pass on that. If you think the net neutrality rules would have prevented ISP's from using QOS to support VOIP (as opposed to prioritizing VOIP from a specific provider) feel free to make your case with citations.
The CIA was agitating for "regime change" in Syria long before the Arab Spring protests came along. CIA operations that armed and funded your "moderate" ISIS and Al Queda jihadists in invading that country to cause it's "civil war".
The fact, that Assange has sided with Russia well before the 2016 election meddling
The only fact here is that is a dumbfuck talking point. One noticeably absent from when Wikileaks was unveiling corruption and war crimes from the Bush Administration - but that's before Americans became willingly propagandized back into outright McCarthyism.
Parent is more correct than you are. Sweden may have hippie health care and higher education, but their justice system is still medieval in how it treats people suspected by the state of committing crimes. Swedish prosecutors are allowed to keep people in solitary confinement for weeks at a time, without outside contact of any kind, including access to a lawyer. People have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time.
The naysayers dismissal of Assange's entirely justified fears are easily addressed by how Sweden treated one of the Pirate Bay founders.
Sweden couldn't legally do that: if they extradite him from the UK via a European Arrest Warrant, they can't then extradite him to anywhere without applying to the High Court in London.
Sweden has handed people over to the CIA who were promptly tortured. Sweden has also gone to great lengths to extradite people from non-extradition counties, interrogated them for weeks in solitary confinement without a lawyer, and then deported them to other countries to face unrelated charges.
Because it would be so damn difficult to get him extracted from the UK?
Yeah, it would. See the recent denial of extradition for an alleged hacker based on how the U.S. tortures and abuses prisoners. Which is no exaggeration after Obama had Chelsea Manning tortured for 18 months with solitary confinement and then sentenced in a kangaroo court.
Slashdot Mirror
First note the weasel words:
Then the canards:
As if the FBI has to have the hardware transported to a lab to analyze it. They have agents with functioning legs who could examine the servers while they are powered on.
And finally the crux of the issue:
The FBI wouldn't trust CrowdStrike to make such an image. Not one involving multiple servers allegedly hacked by high level foreign intelligence operatives. Not when the FBI has long had access to sophisticated malware, malware that other nation-states could also use, malware that could be missed by civilian tools.
Not only does this stand out for people who have bullshit detectors after 2002, it should upset partisan Democrats who are true believes in Russiagate. Why, there could have been the old KGB telnet handle from Pootie Poot himself buried in some encrypted memory, if only the FBI had access to the hardware to analyze it....
There's always the standard issue "we wont extradite to countries that torture or execute prisoners", which easily applies to the U.S. Torture recently applied to Chelsea Manning for being a Wikileaks source.
Whatadumbfuck. As in 99.9999999% of cases, "whataboutism" is just the shrill cry of western exceptionalists whining when someone points out their hypocritical firing of cannons from within glass houses.
No, they didn't. That was just Demagogue Culture scrounging Twitter comments to find a stupid post they could blow out of all proportion and pretend it was some kind of movement. That's the model they used for Force Awakens on a black stormtrooper, as if Star Wars fans haven't been aware of Lando for the last few decades.
I'm shocked, shocked that's the case. Again: throwing up a link to a wall of text isn't a citation, it's laziness, which is easily demonstrated. I hereby assert that a cheeky page inserted a line into the 2017 federal omnibus bill stating Ray Morris is incredibly lazy and likes to make up nonsense, a bad combination. If you disagree, feel free to read said bill to prove me wrong.
Unless they're racist imperialist sacks of crap. Go wipe the spouge off your Bluray copy of Red Dawn and watch it again, this time noting how every person killed by the invading Soviets 'had it coming' because they 'were in a war zone'.
So you're gonna be that way. There's no shortage of 100% legit reasons for Assange to fear being handed over to the US in the same way Gottfrid Svartholm was brought to Sweden as a pretext, interrogated for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact before being deported to another country for a completely unrelated charge.
There is no reason whatsoever Sweden couldn't have promised Assange they wont extradite him if they were actually serious about wanting to question him for an alleged rape. Again, even if you're drinking the Assange Hatorade and think his promise was a lie, Ecuador would have had no reason to continue his asylum, and he would have ended up in Swedish custody regardless.
You don't get to colonize a country, set up a puppet government, and then whine when the occupied fight for their independence or how they do it.
Human rights aren't dependent on citizenship.
Do you keep your head up your ass because it's a comfortable position, or for the the warmth, or what?
Not how this works. It's the job of the person making the affirmative claim to back it up as it's near impossible to prove a negative. If you're so confident in your talking point, you'll have no problem citing the part of the 2015 rules that would prevent QOS. Throwing up a link to a wall of text isn't a citation, it's laziness.
You're only insulting your own intelligence here. Remind us (and by us I mean you) who's the current head of the CIA? How many high level politicians have openly called for Assange's assassination? The number of whisteblowers persecuted in the previous administration's war on sources - three times as many as all previous presidents combined? The same president who had a foreign head of state's plane forced down because Edward Snowden might be aboard? All much more recently than 17 years ago. Hate Assange all you want, it's a free country, but to deny that his fear of Swedish complicity in US persecution is completely justified takes a powerful level of dumbfuckery.
TSTRT
Oh, do pull out of this neocon narrative. After being interviewed by investigators Assange was cleared to leave the country. It was only after he left that another prosecutor decided to blow a couple of women who asked for an STD test to an Interpol case. And Sweden, despite its hippie health care and free college, is positively medieval when it comes to how it deals with suspects. Holding them in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer & using an arrest as a pretext to interrogate and deport to another country didn't start with Gottfrid Svartholm, he's just the perfect example of how Assange haters are full of crap.
Assange has offered to be interviewed remotely or in person if Sweden were to send an investigator abroad - something Sweden has done dozens of times since 2011 - or to return to the country if the government promises not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden has refused both offers. Even if you think Assange is merely posturing, such a promise would mean Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum, meaning Assange would end up in Sweden's custody whether he meant that promise or not.
If this was really about an alleged rape case, Sweden could have made it be about a rape case years ago. This tells anyone with two functioning neurons this is not about alleged rape and never was.
When in a racist hole, put down the Klan shovel. 1) You're ignoring the fact the people on the ground were minding their own business 2) as if you can tell nationality from a helicopter 3) it's still wasn't your business as it wasn't your country.
So like that old sketch on SNL, I gotta ask - is your head filled with human excrement, or dog excrement?
This is the same country that had the flight of a foreign head of state forced down because he may have been carrying Edward Snowden aboard. Of course the US wants Assange and is willing to apply enormous pressure to do so.
Of course he can. Not his fault that Sweden has ignored Assange's offer to be interviewed abroad, or his offer to return to Sweden if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the U.S.
A "silly idea" they've done dozens of times since 2011. But not for Assange. Hmm, almost like the charges are a transparent pretext to hand him over to US custody, or at least interrogate him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact. They've done it before.
When your "legal system" has a penchant for kidnapping, murder and torture? That's exactly what you get to do. This line of CIA apologia is also rendered mute by the fact that Sweden has interviewed dozens of suspects abroad since 2010. Moreso by the additional fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if Sweden promises not to hand him over to US custody. Even if you are an Assange hater and think that offer is a bluff, if Sweden were to take it up, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to offer Assange asylum.
Sweden could easily make this be about rape charges if its only about rape charges, and could have done so years ago. They've chosen not to. Which means this isn't about an alleged rape and never has been.
The case of Gottfrid Svartholm neatly answers the concerns of those who dismiss Assange's (perfectly justified) fears of being interrogated without a lawyer and being handed over to the U.S.
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
You mean do a great deal of reading to prove your talking points for you? Yeah, I'll pass on that. If you think the net neutrality rules would have prevented ISP's from using QOS to support VOIP (as opposed to prioritizing VOIP from a specific provider) feel free to make your case with citations.
You're not bothering to respond to the point. Go on, give it a shot. You can do it.
The CIA was agitating for "regime change" in Syria long before the Arab Spring protests came along. CIA operations that armed and funded your "moderate" ISIS and Al Queda jihadists in invading that country to cause it's "civil war".
The only fact here is that is a dumbfuck talking point. One noticeably absent from when Wikileaks was unveiling corruption and war crimes from the Bush Administration - but that's before Americans became willingly propagandized back into outright McCarthyism.
Parent is more correct than you are. Sweden may have hippie health care and higher education, but their justice system is still medieval in how it treats people suspected by the state of committing crimes. Swedish prosecutors are allowed to keep people in solitary confinement for weeks at a time, without outside contact of any kind, including access to a lawyer. People have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time.
The naysayers dismissal of Assange's entirely justified fears are easily addressed by how Sweden treated one of the Pirate Bay founders.
Sweden has handed people over to the CIA who were promptly tortured. Sweden has also gone to great lengths to extradite people from non-extradition counties, interrogated them for weeks in solitary confinement without a lawyer, and then deported them to other countries to face unrelated charges.
Yeah, it would. See the recent denial of extradition for an alleged hacker based on how the U.S. tortures and abuses prisoners. Which is no exaggeration after Obama had Chelsea Manning tortured for 18 months with solitary confinement and then sentenced in a kangaroo court.