Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 67799 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #800 on: July 30, 2017, 01:33:42 PM »
You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.

What exactly is "red string evidence?"  Is there "blue string evidence" as well? If so what would be the difference? 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #801 on: July 30, 2017, 01:43:42 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #802 on: July 30, 2017, 02:45:30 PM »
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.

Really?  Even the part about the Russians trying to undermine American democracy by interfering in our elections?  How about the part where Trump went on national tv to ask the Russians to hack his opponents?  What about the part where he admitted to firing the FBI director for refusing to shut down a criminal investigation?

Because those three parts are pretty well established facts.  I don't think anyone really disputes those.

But lots of folks, even liberals, are still unclear on whether Trumps deference to the Russians is just bad policy because he's an idiot, or bad policy because the Russians have leverage over him and asked him to change it.  In the end, I'm not sure that part really matters.  They got what they wanted either way.

Quote
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You're confused.  Nobody brings up the popular vote as evidence of Russian hacking unless they fundamentally misunderstand the electoral college.  If anything, the only person who loves to bring up the election over and over again is Donald Trump himself. 

But the Russians did totally try to hack the election, by multiple means.  Right now, it looks like they infilitrated a variety of voting systems but were unable to change the vote totals, which is good.  What's no so good is that they were much more successful with convincing Americans to legitimately change their votes, with targeted fake news stories on facebook.  I'm not sure it still counts as "hacking" if you just trick someone into doing something you want them to do.

Quote
The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.

Is it also too vague to change the minds of the entire US intelligence community?  The Russian hacking facts I've laid out above aren't really in dispute among the people who have access to the relevant information.  The fact that parts of the public are still skeptical of these facts is a testament to the power of Donald Trump to mislead people, but a deceived public doesn't change the fact that they are still true facts.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #804 on: July 30, 2017, 04:07:45 PM »
You really have to be careful, here, to make the distinction between

1.  The Russians hacking the election, which is definitely a real thing that totally happened, and

2.  Donald Trump actually helping the Russian hack the election, which would be a crime.

Trump wants very much to conflate these two issues, for some reason that I've yet to fully grasp.  He's been trying to confuse people into thinking that #1 didn't happen, so #2 must not also have happened, but that seems exactly backwards to me.  He should instead by trying desperately to separate the two, because #1 is now an established fact and #2 would potentially send him to prison.  He should be forcefully defending himself from #2 while acknowledging #1 and what a big problem it is.

Unfortunately, lots of Americans have heard Trump outright lie about #1 often enough that they believe him instead of the collective conclusion of the entire US intelligence community in 100% agreement (about #1).

I think we're still up in the air on #2, whether or not his campaign aided the hacking efforts.  They certainly seemed eager for them to proceed, and both publicly (at the convention) and privately (like in Jr.'s emails) encouraged those activities.  They offered advice on how to maximally impact the election by hacking, but if they didn't actually do the hacking or disseminating themselves, is that really a crime?  If I tell you how I want you to murder someone and then you go do it, am I also guilty of murder?  Of some lesser crime, but still legally culpable?

We already know that most of his senior staff has been guilty of a variety of things regarding Russia.  Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, Marc Kasowitz, Michael Cohen, Jeff Sessions, and Donald Trump Jr have each admitted to inappropriate dealings with the Russians, to varying levels of severity.  They met with Russian spies, or were literally being paid by foreign powers to work on their behalf.  Then they lied to security investigators, and/or the Senate, about meeting with Russian spies or working for foreign powers.  They all look dirty, but that doesn't mean Trump himself necessarily did anything illegal.  He could have been the clueless figurehead in the middle of a vast Russian conspiracy, rather than the head of the conspiracy.

And I'm still not sure it matters.  Russia has totally pwned us, one way or the other.  If they want to undermine American power and influence in the world, they've certainly accomplished that goal with this adminstration, and arguably they can continue to enhance it by feeding the story line that basically the entire White House staff is dirty, whether it's true or not.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #805 on: July 30, 2017, 04:13:01 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #806 on: July 30, 2017, 04:19:07 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #807 on: July 30, 2017, 04:57:39 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #808 on: July 30, 2017, 05:01:43 PM »
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.

Really?  Even the part about the Russians trying to undermine American democracy by interfering in our elections?  How about the part where Trump went on national tv to ask the Russians to hack his opponents?  What about the part where he admitted to firing the FBI director for refusing to shut down a criminal investigation?

Because those three parts are pretty well established facts.  I don't think anyone really disputes those.

But lots of folks, even liberals, are still unclear on whether Trumps deference to the Russians is just bad policy because he's an idiot, or bad policy because the Russians have leverage over him and asked him to change it.  In the end, I'm not sure that part really matters.  They got what they wanted either way.

Quote
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You're confused.  Nobody brings up the popular vote as evidence of Russian hacking unless they fundamentally misunderstand the electoral college.  If anything, the only person who loves to bring up the election over and over again is Donald Trump himself. 

But the Russians did totally try to hack the election, by multiple means.  Right now, it looks like they infilitrated a variety of voting systems but were unable to change the vote totals, which is good.  What's no so good is that they were much more successful with convincing Americans to legitimately change their votes, with targeted fake news stories on facebook.  I'm not sure it still counts as "hacking" if you just trick someone into doing something you want them to do.

Quote
The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.

Is it also too vague to change the minds of the entire US intelligence community?  The Russian hacking facts I've laid out above aren't really in dispute among the people who have access to the relevant information.  The fact that parts of the public are still skeptical of these facts is a testament to the power of Donald Trump to mislead people, but a deceived public doesn't change the fact that they are still true facts.

Point 1. They know. They just have more important things to do. And they figure Trump was the better choice.

Point 2. That was the "Communist" Liberal I was quoting. He goes well with the "I investigated Gamergate so I know corruption when I see it" Liberal.

Point 3. Didn't that assessment go from 17 down to 3? Also "hand picked for the job" doesn't reassure me.

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/evidence-of-russian-hacking-is-inconclusive-d485726b962f

Most of the evidence released publicly lists Tor nodes as the primary attacker. That won't stand up in a court of law.

http://g-2.space
"Guccifer" as he was called had no verifiable hacking successes.

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.


https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

The political side:
“If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” Jennifer Palmeri, Former Clinton Presidential Campaign communication manager. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.a2d2d8ddd159

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/
Yes. It is from March, before Comey. But it was the crime o the century! How could they back down or have doubts?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia?amp
And here are rank and file Democrats saying "Russia isn't a big issue to voters. Back off." Yet it continues.

http://disinfo.com/2017/05/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque/
It's almost like someone is protecting their brand.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #809 on: July 30, 2017, 05:47:06 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #810 on: July 30, 2017, 05:57:19 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #811 on: July 30, 2017, 06:03:50 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :

https://pics.me.me/me-explaining-conspiracy-theories-to-my-friends-😂😂-we-all-3326447.png
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #812 on: July 30, 2017, 06:04:31 PM »
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :
You may be missing the point of this series of quotes, that starts with
Quote from: MasterStache on Today at 03:33:42 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3840
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #813 on: July 30, 2017, 06:33:02 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #814 on: July 30, 2017, 07:04:28 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3840
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #815 on: July 30, 2017, 08:21:29 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #816 on: July 30, 2017, 09:21:36 PM »
So now that the US Congress is likely to pass sanctions against Putin and cronies and Putin is retaliating by kicking out many US diplomats, where can this seriously strained relationship lead ?

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #817 on: July 30, 2017, 09:49:53 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3840
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #818 on: July 30, 2017, 10:22:45 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

I have no idea. My problem is with your claim "The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack" which is based on speculation. The source you cited also claimed that speed is 80% of gigabit LAN rate, which is completely wrong. It's approximately 20% of gigabit ethernet's capability.  They were called out in the comments and admitted fault but still have not corrected the article.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #819 on: July 30, 2017, 10:44:10 PM »
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):



That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

I have no idea. My problem is with your claim "The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack" which is based on speculation. The source you cited also claimed that speed is 80% of gigabit LAN rate, which is completely wrong. It's approximately 20% of gigabit ethernet's capability.  They were called out in the comments and admitted fault but still have not corrected the article.

I tried to write a quick and dirty summary for people. I did post a bunch of stuff. And you found the comments. Thanks for that.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #820 on: July 31, 2017, 06:31:48 AM »
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.
"There cannot be two skies"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #821 on: July 31, 2017, 08:06:49 AM »
and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

A frugal choice!

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #822 on: July 31, 2017, 08:43:10 AM »
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3840
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #823 on: July 31, 2017, 07:06:08 PM »
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.

I work in IT. The datacenter gear I manage uses $30k/mo in electricity.

There are a lot of questions without enough answers to make the claims they're making.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3532
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #824 on: July 31, 2017, 07:31:49 PM »
Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.
To answer this specifically: there's usually nothing to be gained from disclosing internal infrastructure with conspiracy theorists, or even fans.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #825 on: August 01, 2017, 08:41:00 AM »
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.

I work in IT. The datacenter gear I manage uses $30k/mo in electricity.

There are a lot of questions without enough answers to make the claims they're making.

And we have a lot of disturbing saber rattling over those claims.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #826 on: August 01, 2017, 10:39:19 AM »
Another one for the recommended reading list. This is an op-ed from TPM putting the WaPo article in context:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-big-wapo-story-and-the-false-statement

And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #827 on: August 01, 2017, 12:32:38 PM »
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4

Today's news about Trump intervening in the Trump Jr. Russia meeting affair certainly looks like some of the first hard evidence of the President being directly involved in a secret cover-up.  And for what reason?  He didn't have to do that.  He could have kept his hands clean and just stayed out of the entire affair.

Until this, I was holding out hope that Trump was just a clueless idiot surrounded by conspirators.  Now it looks like, in at least this one case, be was not only not clueless but purposefully and actively involved the conspiracy.

It would be delicious irony if the the thing that finally brings down Trump is totally unnecessary meddling in the criminal proceedings of his own family.  For all his spurious talk about loyalty, and his simultaneous wanton destruction of his supposed political allies, he suddenly seems uniquely vulnerable to weaknesses in the very family he previously claimed made him so robustly qualified to be president.

I love it when incompetent people fail publicly, I just wish it wasn't my country at stake this time.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #828 on: August 01, 2017, 03:45:31 PM »
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4

Today's news about Trump intervening in the Trump Jr. Russia meeting affair certainly looks like some of the first hard evidence of the President being directly involved in a secret cover-up.  And for what reason?  He didn't have to do that.  He could have kept his hands clean and just stayed out of the entire affair.

Until this, I was holding out hope that Trump was just a clueless idiot surrounded by conspirators.  Now it looks like, in at least this one case, be was not only not clueless but purposefully and actively involved the conspiracy.

It would be delicious irony if the the thing that finally brings down Trump is totally unnecessary meddling in the criminal proceedings of his own family.  For all his spurious talk about loyalty, and his simultaneous wanton destruction of his supposed political allies, he suddenly seems uniquely vulnerable to weaknesses in the very family he previously claimed made him so robustly qualified to be president.

I love it when incompetent people fail publicly, I just wish it wasn't my country at stake this time.

Not to mention Trump's lawyer point blank lied about Donnie "weighing in" claiming originally that it wasn't true. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #829 on: August 02, 2017, 01:02:29 PM »
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress


Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3532
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #830 on: August 02, 2017, 02:28:34 PM »
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #831 on: August 02, 2017, 02:53:05 PM »
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #832 on: August 02, 2017, 03:15:31 PM »
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
But he did! See the last sentence.
"That is a big part of the reason I was elected."

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #833 on: August 02, 2017, 04:49:48 PM »
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
But he did! See the last sentence.
"That is a big part of the reason I was elected."

Oh shit I missed that. Probably laughing way too hard!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #834 on: August 03, 2017, 04:51:44 PM »
Is impaneling a grand jury considered fake news?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287

.... and the plot thickens. It is also possible that Mueller found malfeasance that is unrelated to Russia and is following through on that as a matter of due diligence. Regardless, it is an interesting and important development.

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #835 on: August 09, 2017, 09:31:06 AM »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6510
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #836 on: August 14, 2017, 06:24:30 PM »
.... adding more evidence that "this Russia thing" just isn't going away...

Quote
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”
(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)

Between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump... or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials.

To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the [email] chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign.

Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

SoundFuture

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #837 on: August 15, 2017, 03:15:32 PM »
.... adding more evidence that "this Russia thing" just isn't going away...

Quote
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”
(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)

Between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump... or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials.

To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the [email] chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign.

Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9

And it doesn't matter if you actually get anywhere or not, because sowing seeds of doubt are just as, if not more useful, than actually having operatives. Anything that reads like this will be found and it will look damning regardless of the outcome.  This was a strategy classically employed by the USSR, and is no doubt just one more piece in Putin's reunification day dream.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #838 on: October 10, 2017, 11:36:27 AM »
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/10/u-s-media-help-russia-destabilize-united-states/

Relevant article. I read it, makes more sense of the whole situation.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #839 on: October 10, 2017, 04:50:54 PM »
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #840 on: October 11, 2017, 01:44:30 PM »
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.
Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #841 on: October 11, 2017, 03:19:04 PM »
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.
Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.

Don't get too invested.

H2r has a long history of posting inflammatory garbage links to this forum.  I don't even click on them anymore.