Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146026
    15 Dec '16 01:41
    The report is pretty cryptic, but they wouldn't run with this story absent solid sourcing. Doesn't mean the CIA conclusions are correct, and really we'll only be able to judge publicly if information is declassified. But this is hot off the press and if true it's huge.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NBC-Putin-involved-in-election-hacking-10796939.php#photo-12035939
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    15 Dec '16 02:32
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The report is pretty cryptic, but they wouldn't run with this story absent solid sourcing. Doesn't mean the CIA conclusions are correct, and really we'll only be able to judge publicly if information is declassified. But this is hot off the press and if true it's huge.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NBC-Putin-involved-in-election-hacking-10796939.php#photo-12035939
    They wouldn't run the story if it was fake because..

    Oh yeah because it is a mainsream left leaning propaganda outlet.
  3. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146026
    15 Dec '16 09:45
    NBC? Really?
  4. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    15 Dec '16 09:55
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    NBC? Really?
    Really?
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Dec '16 10:012 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The report is pretty cryptic, but they wouldn't run with this story absent solid sourcing. Doesn't mean the CIA conclusions are correct, and really we'll only be able to judge publicly if information is declassified. But this is hot off the press and if true it's huge.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NBC-Putin-involved-in-election-hacking-10796939.php#photo-12035939
    The Guardian also had it on its front page, lets look at the wording,

    Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in efforts to affect the 2016 election, according to a report by NBC News. The CIA announced earlier this month that Russia hacked into Democratic officials' emails and leaked information to the public to boost Donald Trump's chances of victory.

    NBC cites senior U.S. intelligence officials, who told them they believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin decided how the hacked materials were used and leaked. NBC reports Putin's motives may have been personal, at first; the hacking began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton, but then transformed into an effort to hurt America's image in the world.

    Scan the article for actual evidence and you will find not a shred. Instead we are treated to conjecture, clandestine anonymous sources and terms like, they believe, may have been etc There is not a shred of credible news in the story, its nothing but an empty propaganda piece.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '16 15:521 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Really?
    Not so, NBC is one of those non-biased news sources that knows the truthiness about everything.

    Brian Williams said so.
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    15 Dec '16 16:071 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The report is pretty cryptic, but they wouldn't run with this story absent solid sourcing. Doesn't mean the CIA conclusions are correct, and really we'll only be able to judge publicly if information is declassified. But this is hot off the press and if true it's huge.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NBC-Putin-involved-in-election-hacking-10796939.php#photo-12035939
    "...they wouldn't run with this story absent solid sourcing."
    Holy chips, that's some funny stuff.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Dec '16 17:07
    Originally posted by Eladar
    They wouldn't run the story if it was fake because..

    Oh yeah because it is a mainsream left leaning propaganda outlet.
    In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.


    Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    15 Dec '16 17:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly ...[text shortened]... rior tactical cleverness.


    Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
    This is exactly why people believe NBC when they say stuff without evidence.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    15 Dec '16 19:58
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The Guardian also had it on its front page, lets look at the wording,

    Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in efforts to affect the 2016 election, [b]according to a report by NBC News
    . The CIA announced earlier this month that Russia hacked into Democratic officials' emails and leaked information to the public to boost Don ...[text shortened]... c There is not a shred of credible news in the story, its nothing but an empty propaganda piece.[/b]
    To be clear, the position of you and the other right wingers is:

    A) That there was no hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies; or

    B) There was such hacking but Vladimir Putin didn't know anything about it?
  11. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    15 Dec '16 20:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    To be clear, the position of you and the other right wingers is:

    A) That there was no hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies; or

    B) There was such hacking but Vladimir Putin didn't know anything about it?
    There is evidence hacking occurred because emails became public knowledge, but we don't have evidence of who did the hacking.

    An IT guy working for the DNC/Clinton campaign was killed after the DNC was hacked, which suggests the killing may have been retribution for a perceived inside job. But I doubt it, the hacking was too sophisticated... there were no clear finger prints leading back to the hacker.
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    15 Dec '16 20:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    To be clear, the position of you and the other right wingers is:

    A) That there was no hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies; or

    B) There was such hacking but Vladimir Putin didn't know anything about it?
    The Russians hack us
    The Chinese hack us
    We hack us (Homeland Security hacking Georgia)

    The real question is where did the information come from.

    The other question is if the information is true.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    15 Dec '16 21:27
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    There is evidence hacking occurred because emails became public knowledge, but we don't have evidence of who did the hacking.

    An IT guy working for the DNC/Clinton campaign was killed after the DNC was hacked, which suggests the killing may have been retribution for a perceived inside job. But I doubt it, the hacking was too sophisticated... there were no clear finger prints leading back to the hacker.
    Actually, we do have evidence those what has been made public isn't conclusive, just merely strong:

    Beyond the statements of the public figures above, the only real evidence comes from the analyses of private cybersecurity firms that track and defend against hackers, often in concert with the FBI, NSA and other government agencies.

    One, CrowdStrike, was called in by the Democratic National Committee to analyze the hack against their computer system last April. With the DNC’s permission, CrowdStrike then posted details of what it had found. Attribution of hackers, whether by intelligence services or private firms, is a particular discipline. Much of it relies on signature methods used by the hackers, specific pieces of code, and distinguishing behavior.

    CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

    CrowdStrike also found the other group of hackers, Fancy Bear, was sending command and control instructions from a server with an Internet Protocol (IP) address of 176.31.112.10. This was the same IP address that was linked to command and control of an attack against the German parliament in 2015. The DNC attacker also used a special program to open a communication channel with the command and control server that was identical in form and function to the one used in the German hack. Microsoft had previously identified the communication program as belonging to Fancy Bear, which Microsoft had named “Strontium” at the time.

    Crowdstrike’s analysis includes other evidence of Russian connections. One of the elements of a truly advanced hack is that it opens, and keeps open, a hidden communication channel with the hacked network, allowing it to continue to avoid detection and to find and steal information in other parts of a hacked computer network. In the DNC hack, the software that opened the hidden communication channel was a piece of software known to have been used by Fancy Bear.

    Subsequent analyses by other private firms found other evidence that Russia was behind the hack. And as the attacks broadened over the course of the 2016 campaign to include the DCCC and the email of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, private firms found evidence linking the new hacks back to the DNC hack.

    The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released. President Obama has ordered a review of the influence operation, the results of which will be released before he steps down on Jan. 20, 2017.

    http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

    For your fantasy about a dead IT guy, I find nothing on the web, so until you produce a link I'll assume it's some fake news you picked up from your usual sources.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    15 Dec '16 21:30
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The Russians hack us
    The Chinese hack us
    We hack us (Homeland Security hacking Georgia)

    The real question is where did the information come from.

    The other question is if the information is true.
    The first question has been answered has had the second.

    The relevant question is who did the hacking and for what purpose. Another relevant question is why our supposed next President automatically dismisses any possibility of what appears to be most likely explanations while disparaging the US intelligence community (who's briefings he doesn't bother to regularly read because "He's a smart person" ). .
  15. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146026
    15 Dec '16 21:46
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Really?
    Let me guess. Breitbart is middle of the road.
Back to Top