3 ms·

I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you w

I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear. I don't like a lot of things about politics these days, but excusing political violence because it's "your side", and you assume they would "never be actually violent" is a basic logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_. This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what". Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability. Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement. "Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim: > And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess. First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba... Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages." You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.
PathOfEclipse 5y ago
I stand corrected, thank you. I had not seriously dug into where the word "infiltrate" came from or what it exactly meant. This would be a case where the sources I trust are likely sharing misinformation. From this article: https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infiltrate-and-spy-appear-exactly-zero-times-in-john-durhams-recent-court-filing-heres-what-it-actually-says-and-what-it-doesnt/ https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infil... While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes. I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team, and I still believe that what they did there was worse than what Trump did on January 6, but this latest alleged Clinton scandal might be overblown.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > I stand corrected, thank you Big of you to say. > I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team Then you double down on more partisan nonsense. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell... The GOP-led bipartisan commission concluded Russia attacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump, their words. You are again to the right of your own party. Also nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven, and lots of it has been collaborated. If you are still interested in what is true and what isn't, please continue reading with an open mind: https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/ https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-la...

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_. This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what". Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.

fortuna86 5y ago
> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability. Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement. "Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim: > And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess. First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba... Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages." You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.

PathOfEclipse 5y ago

I stand corrected, thank you. I had not seriously dug into where the word "infiltrate" came from or what it exactly meant. This would be a case where the sources I trust are likely sharing misinformation. From this article: https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infiltrate-and-spy-appear-exactly-zero-times-in-john-durhams-recent-court-filing-heres-what-it-actually-says-and-what-it-doesnt/ https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infil... While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes. I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team, and I still believe that what they did there was worse than what Trump did on January 6, but this latest alleged Clinton scandal might be overblown.

fortuna86 5y ago
> I stand corrected, thank you Big of you to say. > I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team Then you double down on more partisan nonsense. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell... The GOP-led bipartisan commission concluded Russia attacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump, their words. You are again to the right of your own party. Also nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven, and lots of it has been collaborated. If you are still interested in what is true and what isn't, please continue reading with an open mind: https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/ https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-la...