The US told Ecuador to give Wikileaks 'an eviction notice' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;51248991]Don't worry, the media is already doing that plenty by itself.[/QUOTE] No kidding. They seem to be getting more insane about it over time too: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A[/media] [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dolton;51251311]"waaaaaa" there was nothing damning in the leaked emails so we have to make up bullshit to spin about the evil clinton murder machine. Waaaaa pay no attention to the obvious Russian connections or assange's self admitteted bias and agenda the clintons are eeeevvvvviiiillllll[/QUOTE] There were quite a few things, though? [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1538340"]To my knowledge the official campaigns aren't supposed to work closely with Super PACs for example.[/URL] (I'm aware that you're trying to mock Trump supporters, but what you're doing is equally as ignorant.)

[QUOTE=Dolton;51251311]"waaaaaa" there was nothing damning in the leaked emails so we have to make up bullshit to spin about the evil clinton murder machine. Waaaaa pay no attention to the obvious Russian connections or assange's self admitteted bias and agenda the clintons are eeeevvvvviiiillllll[/QUOTE] Sorry, who is making things up? Do you think NBC fabricated testimony from what they call "senior US intelligence officials"? catbarf makes a good point, it could just be some low level idiot speculating, but this story isn't from WikiLeaks' lips so you're only serving to reveal how inept and biased you are by trying to mock WikiLeaks for a story that the mainstream media is breaking on their own accord. And what of the Russian connections? Do you think the leaks are fake because Russia hacked the DNC? If not, what is your point?

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51250678]No, he didn't. The release concluded that it was a possibility. [URL]https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement[/URL] This isn't an absolute inditement of Russia, this is simply saying "yeah it could've been them i guess.". What gets me is that it's framed as a conclusion, even though no evidence beyond "IT FITS THE PATTERN!" is given. That is some disingenuous shit right there, treading the line that closely can't be an accident.[/QUOTE] It's not "It was the Russians", but it sure as fuck isn't "yeah it could've been them I guess" and describing that statement as such is some disingenous shit. They are saying that all signs point to Russia and cap it off that only Russia would be capable of conducting those sorts of attacks. [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51250678]Also hillary's claim that "17 agencies" back the conclusion that russia is the culprit is a lie. From what i can find, only the DNI and DHS even began to support that, both being equally loose and ambiguous with that above official statement. This wouldn't be the sort of thing you'd have to lie about[/QUOTE] There are 17 agencies that are under the DNI. Technically it's not a lie, but those agencies in all liklihood didn't all have their own separate investigations. [QUOTE=srobins;51250786]The link to Russia is confirmed by CrowdStrike, a security firm that investigated the hacks. [/QUOTE] I'm glad to see you caught up after I told you this months ago and got blown off for my efforts. [QUOTE=srobins;51250786]I think it's kind of futile to argue against Russia being the perpetrator, largely because it makes no difference. The leaks are legitimate, WikiLeaks dumps whatever they're given, and the fact that their source isn't handing them dirt on Trump does nothing to indicate Assange is a "Russian puppet" or that the leaks should be discounted. It's the ugly truth and all the anti-Russian shitflinging is just to try and get people to ignore the information being leaked itself.[/QUOTE] I mean ideally one could simultaneously be concerned about the content of the leaks regarding our government while also being uncomfortable with Russian attempts to influence an election and compromise our domestic political parties but clearly people like you and Trilby have agendas to push and it's vividly clear when you say shit like "well we know it was Russia but I don't want my countries intelligence experts to actually say it was Russia because it might distract people from totally inconsequential emails".

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51251347] There were quite a few things, though? [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1538340"]To my knowledge the official campaigns aren't supposed to work closely with Super PACs for example.[/URL] (I'm aware that you're trying to mock Trump supporters, but what you're doing is equally as ignorant.)[/QUOTE] Pretty much nobody really believes that Super PACs and campaigns don't coordinate at some level. The head of a candidate's PAC is usually always someone extremely close to the candidate themselves, which always breeds question of conflict of interest. Its yet another reason why super PACs themselves are terrible institutions. as far as actual enforcement of this, the FEC is toothless by design, and any penalty they may ever apply would be a slap on the wrist compared to the effect of a PAC has on the election.

My rudimentary information technologies knowhow makes me believe that if you can figure out its russia in the first few weeks its probably not russia... The tools used to investigate hacks might catch some idiot just messing about not knowing what he is doing but a state body like russia the first signals will be made to look like someone else. Or if you arent russia made to look like its russia since most hacker crime cartels are from russia. My point is ignore the politics for a second... Hillary calling this a sure thing on russia is dangerous and irresponsible.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51251914]My rudimentary information technologies knowhow makes me believe that if you can figure out its russia in the first few weeks its probably not russia... The tools used to investigate hacks might catch some idiot just messing about not knowing what he is doing but a state body like russia the first signals will be made to look like someone else. Or if you arent russia made to look like its russia since most hacker crime cartels are from russia. My point is ignore the politics for a second... Hillary calling this a sure thing on russia is dangerous and irresponsible.[/QUOTE] oh good, your rudimentary IT knowhow is greater than [I]literally all of the US intelligence gathering community[/I]. Hillary is not blaming the Russians because she has proof, she's blaming the russians because the people who's jobs are to say who it was, say its the russians

[QUOTE=Sableye;51251892]Pretty much nobody really believes that Super PACs and campaigns don't coordinate at some level. The head of a candidate's PAC is usually always someone extremely close to the candidate themselves, which always breeds question of conflict of interest. Its yet another reason why super PACs themselves are terrible institutions. as far as actual enforcement of this, the FEC is toothless by design, and any penalty they may ever apply would be a slap on the wrist compared to the effect of a PAC has on the election.[/QUOTE] I really need to reduce my expectations towards US legislature. Probably to zero :surrender: That said, this doesn't diminish the importance in terms of public interest of this being definitive proof.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51251940]I really need to reduce my expectations towards US legislature. Probably to zero :surrender:[/QUOTE] anything to do with election law is pretty much broken on delivery since both parties benefit from deregulation and messy regulations.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51251945]anything to do with election law is pretty much broken on delivery since both parties benefit from deregulation[/QUOTE] I'm aware, I just didn't think it was [I]this[/I] bad. I was really glad to hear about that one state(?) possibly voting for more proportional representation though.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51251920]oh good, your rudimentary IT knowhow is greater than [I]literally all of the US intelligence gathering community[/I]. Hillary is not blaming the Russians because she has proof, she's blaming the russians because the people who's jobs are to say who it was, say its the russians[/QUOTE] It took me literally 5 seconds to google and find people in the IT busness with a name for knowing this kind of stuff to agree with my general premise. [URL="http://www.csoonline.com/article/3133735/data-breach/john-mcafee-iran-hacked-the-dnc-and-north-korea-hacked-dyn.html"]http://www.csoonline.com/article/3133735/data-breach/john-mcafee-iran-hacked-the-dnc-and-north-korea-hacked-dyn.html [/URL] Besides, as far as i am aware, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia"]offered the public[/URL] any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks “[I]are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts[/I].” It fits their MO, during a time where Russian and US relations are already on the low, and Russia is one of the most favourite fall guys for hacker crime circles... Yea... sure. Dont get me wrong it was probably a government entity, but claiming its definitely Russia is the same shit as 9/11 was definitely Saddam... Maybe it IS putin, but lets not draw rash conclusions and cause a possible next cold war. This is why i say it was dumb of her and i want to bet she did it to draw away attention from what was actually in the emails and id say it worked.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51251945]anything to do with election law is pretty much broken on delivery since both parties benefit from deregulation and messy regulations.[/QUOTE] Yeah but they also benefit from getting votes and people tend to care about that sort of thing. It's why Campaign Finance Reform is becoming a bigger topic to both parties.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51251952]It took me literally 5 seconds to google and find people in the IT busness with a name for knowing this kind of stuff to agree with my general premise. [URL="http://www.csoonline.com/article/3133735/data-breach/john-mcafee-iran-hacked-the-dnc-and-north-korea-hacked-dyn.html"]http://www.csoonline.com/article/3133735/data-breach/john-mcafee-iran-hacked-the-dnc-and-north-korea-hacked-dyn.html [/URL] Besides, as far as i am aware, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia"]offered the public[/URL] any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks “[I]are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts[/I].” It fits their MO, during a time where Russian and US relations are already on the low, and Russia is one of the most favourite fall guys for hacker crime circles... Yea... sure. Dont get me wrong it was probably a government entity, but claiming its definitely Russia is the same shit as 9/11 was definitely Saddam... Maybe it IS putin, but lets not draw rash conclusions and cause a possible next cold war. This is why i say it was dumb of her and i want to bet she did it to draw away attention from what was actually in the emails and id say it worked.[/QUOTE] If you're about to claim John Mcafee is a sane and reliable individual for information like this I have some bad news for you.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51250358]Didn't a single guy from /pol/ figure out the password to Podesta's iCloud and Twitter afterwards? It implies the original "hack" is more simple than the narrative is being put out[/QUOTE] I remember seeing a screencap of /pol/ finding a passworded attachment in the Podesta e-mails and the password was (I'm not fucking kidding) "2016" If that's the kind of security that the Hillary campaign enforces on it's files then Trump's "400-lb hacker" joke looks like it could be pretty close to the truth. (In fairness it wasn't even an important file, something like a powerpoint)

[QUOTE=plunger435;51252470]If you're about to claim John Mcafee is a sane and reliable individual for information like this I have some bad news for you.[/QUOTE] He still is one of /the/ public experts considered hacking... even if a tad unstable. Besides, you are arguing against the source, not the claim... why should i take you serious now?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51252788]He still is one of /the/ public experts considered hacking... even if a tad unstable. Besides, you are arguing against the source, not the claim... why should i take you serious now?[/QUOTE] The only argument you gave is an appeal to McAfee's authority, so logically people are going to question his authority rather than the baseless 'I think it's true because this guy said so' claim.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51252788]He still is one of /the/ public experts considered hacking... even if a tad unstable. Besides, you are arguing against the source, not the claim... why should i take you serious now?[/QUOTE] Not really, McAfee is a hack and he demonstrated this with his weird little plot on TV claiming he could hack the San Bernardino iPhone using a technique that was thoroughly debunked multiple times by actual security experts.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51252971]The only argument you gave is an appeal to McAfee's authority, so logically people are going to question his authority rather than the baseless 'I think it's true because this guy said so' claim.[/QUOTE] Thats not entirely true, You questioned my story quoting "literally all of the US intelligence gathering community" opposed it, i disproved that with my links then threw in the Mcaffee quotes in as the cherry on top. Nice picking your fights though.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51251400] There are 17 agencies that are under the DNI. Technically it's not a lie, but those agencies in all liklihood didn't all have their own separate investigations. [/QUOTE] Oh so it's a disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts to support what appears to be a false narrative. That's fine then