3 ms·

The US intelligence agencies that - like here - fake evidence to further their own agenda as well as their friendly foreign colleagues? Must be true then i gues

The US intelligence agencies that - like here - fake evidence to further their own agenda as well as their friendly foreign colleagues? Must be true then i guess. And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
You’re effectively projecting your own version of reality right now. The Dutch had security camera footage. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch... All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.
- hallihax 7y ago
  It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you. https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    literally NONE of the arguments brought up in that post contradict the facts. Who gives a fuck about how the US government feels towards Edward Snowden? How does that prove that the Dutch are lying? It makes zero goddamn sense.
    - hallihax 7y ago
      I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort. Can you be more specific with your criticism?
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        1. the hackers were in a university building, and Snowden told us that university buildings are bugged So what? 2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence. 3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence? 4. Anonymous sources The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are. 5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA So fucking what? 6. The public won't get to see the evidence Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians. 7. The article mentions MH-17 So fucking what? 8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs So fucking what? 9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated lolwut? 10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other So fucking what?
        hallihax 7y ago
        1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative. 2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian) 3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax. 4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists' 5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_networ.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw... 6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work. 7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article. 8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking. 9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it. 10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
- sparkling 7y ago
  This article is taking about general hacks targeting 1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Security camera footage of people walking in a hallway.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

You’re effectively projecting your own version of reality right now. The Dutch had security camera footage. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch... All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.

hallihax 7y ago
It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you. https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  literally NONE of the arguments brought up in that post contradict the facts. Who gives a fuck about how the US government feels towards Edward Snowden? How does that prove that the Dutch are lying? It makes zero goddamn sense.
  - hallihax 7y ago
    I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort. Can you be more specific with your criticism?
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      1. the hackers were in a university building, and Snowden told us that university buildings are bugged So what? 2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence. 3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence? 4. Anonymous sources The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are. 5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA So fucking what? 6. The public won't get to see the evidence Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians. 7. The article mentions MH-17 So fucking what? 8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs So fucking what? 9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated lolwut? 10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other So fucking what?
      - hallihax 7y ago
        1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative. 2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian) 3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax. 4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists' 5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_networ.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw... 6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work. 7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article. 8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking. 9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it. 10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
sparkling 7y ago
This article is taking about general hacks targeting 1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
pessimizer 7y ago
Security camera footage of people walking in a hallway.