The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Oops

What did he mean by this?

pulleeez that's the best you've got ? that's not even young turks quality level. it all happens in bollywood-style montage where he remixes the excerpt he's satisfied with 20 times over to try and dramatize it.

but he can dramatize all he wants there's really nothing to him saying "nothing burger" that's technically what it is right now though it's a real appetizing burger because it could turn into a three course meal. otherwise it wouldn't merit the current level of interest.

keep believing it'll turn out to be nothing whatever good that does you. I dunno what you see in trump. of all the idols one would pick ....wtf

So the investigation into the ties with russia are just a big CNN conspiracy? because there's an actual investigation going on. Is CNN aware of more proof (or lack thereof) in the investigation than the US government? I mean they probably know more than trump knows, but that's a low bar to set.

I'm also not putting things in your mouth. It just seems to me you're mixing up russia-related things. You also keep reacting quite hostile to fairly neutral stuff i say.

Why don't you ask him what it means?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

I'd urge people to read the whole thing, it's quite interesting.

So you're saying CNN is a bad source of information but some random single CNN guy saying what you like to hear in some unofficial capacity is a good source?

Do you see the irony?

I don't care what CNN says.

Fact is parts of the US government are investigating Russia-connections of various kinds.
Fact is Flynn had to leave over such connections.
Fact is Sessions had to excuse himself from such investigations as he had lied about his own Russia-connections for no apparent reasons.
Do you believe CNN saying stuff to get more viewers (and they totally do that all the time, no question) is the reason why official US investigation offices would investigate stuff. Do you not believe them to be a bit better informed?

I mean we all know that Trump is using Fox News as his main information source, but most of the people working in the intelligence agencies are a bit better than that.

What did he mean by this?

that in his opinion it's not russia that did the hack. this piece could not be more misleading : they're trying to make it sound as if there was no hack at all: but i'll translate for the non tech savyy he's just saying he doesn't think it originated from russia specifically rather some kid or kids.

but I digress i'll address this anyways.

in ghost in the shell (1995) : a fiction, the world's most powerful hacker and the only possible thing to logically be able to hold that title : the world's first AI, uses downgraded years old viruses with high tractability to remove leads as to it's own level of access and power. and this 20+ year old movie keeps been realist and surprisingly intelligent. I find it's more in the right than pro trump mcAfee CEO.

I think these pro-tumpists are deliberately omitting that hiding in plain sight in order to be better hidden is a widespread and effective strategy. Also it's not as if there aren't actually motives for Russia currently to take credit for these attacks. you'll notice they themselves haven't exactly gone out of their way to denounce them. Putin himself did not even TRY to deny it came from russian soil. he seemed content leaving it at that. I think it's a power-play strategy.

plus let's just take this thought to it's fruition : so some kid not from russia did it. I highly doubt it. the odds are really in the millions to one. just out of the sheer skill willpower and intellect required. that a couple kids would surpass a large state's organisation's combined manpower in those, is POSSIBLE just incredibly unlikely.

but whatevs you know. think think think. hard evidence does us better good. in the meantime. there's russian in the malware it was typed out on a russian layout and in russian timezones. the best you got to counter that is buzzfeednews and theories?

Who the hell cares what failed libertarian presidential candidates think?

Better take:

Who cares what the creator of McAfee has to say?

McAfee speaking stuff on Russia's Propaganda Channel.

Now you didn't say much about your reason for posting this, I hope it is not as a reasonable source for ... anything at all?

Untrustworthy + Untrustworthy does not make reliable again.

You don't have to trust him or any other guy. The argument that it was Russia because of those 4 reason is plain stupid, anyone who knows a little about cybersecurity will agree.
So we have 2 options:
-Those 4 are not the reasons pointing to Russia, there are other clues they don't wanna tell to hide their tricks, so they say those stupid things instead.
-It wasn't Russia at all.

You'll have to choose the first one if you wanna keep on going

I'd argue a lot of people informed about information security, or infosec as it's commonly known to professionals in the field (i.e. not "cyber" security) are worried.

Because, well, they are.

well i have a background in cyber-security and I disagree. : /

also theories VS facts here. your point is an illusion

Well I'm not worried, and that infosec sounds really odd to me.
Then let's debate about the facts: You are a top notch hacker working for the Russian government but you don't hide your IP address because that's rude.

Infosec and Cyber-security, are two different things. This technically falls under both, but yeah, since Apple and Windows are made to intentionally be unaccessible by random strangers through an internet connection, I have a problem believing a government agency's claim that their above-par security was compromised without inside help, and that they were still able to trace it to an IP at all.

How can Anonymous, any other hacker organization, or any other cyber threat, be untraceable, but Russia's wasn't???

Don't answer "you don't know because let professionals handle it", or I'll PM every red and orange name in this forum and demand them to delete this entire politics thread because none of us are professionally paid politicians. That's the worst **** ever, you don't have to be a professional, for it to concern you, it's a whole government and the people operating it are doing so with the authority and funding of the entire nation, so the answer is an absolute necessity in everyday english explanation for every single taxpayer who's dollars fund their agency among all the other bloatwork bullshit. I pay my percent of income, it isn't much, but if I don't get an answer because I'm no professional, I want a refund.

I'd say it heavily depends on the nature of the attack, the attacker and the defender. The recent Wannacry attacks show that there's still plenty of vulnerable targets left, even within the government. If it was a relatively low-level attack, i don't see why it wouldn't leave evidence behind.

I mean look at the DNC hack: it happened because someone made a typo. It wasn't some sort of Stuxnet attack, some sort of ultra-clever worm that worked it's way though layers of defense. It was just a click and boom, access. I doubt the hackers expected it to succeed at all, it was just a shot in the dark.

Which is why i believe what i said earlier: this whole hacking business was more or less a lucky shot. Perhaps comparable to 9/11, it's not the shot that hurt, it's the USA hurting itself in confusion. This story would be a fraction of it's size and weight now, if the republicans had simply stuck to one story and avoided stupid lies.

And it's that bumbling of the administration is what makes me think there's more going on in the first place.

anonymous is totally traceable and is traced. people believing it is a legit hacker organisation are blind. no hacker worth their metal wants to be part of a such garbage pile as anonymous.

but if you pull off a good hack that's well covered up letting anonymous claim it is a good way for it to never be traced back to you.

because that can be a misleading IP and since this is a known tactic it can also be another tactic known as "hiding in plain sight".

I think we ought to let the professionals do their work here. do you always second-guess the surgeon that operates on you too?
@thetrophysystem :>

Well it wouldn't be the first (or last) time the russians used Refuge in Audacity. It's pretty much their favorite tactic

Facts, not theories people...