The Hillary Thread II

[Jason]

It appears that certain folks aren't willing to believe the unanimous findings of government intelligence agencies, and when offered information from non-government entities, they'd rather glance at it and pronounce it inadequate. So it goes.

Because a) it is inadequate and b) I suspect their motives are self-serving. They wish to secure their budgets from the incoming administration that promises to move away from the "soft-power & special forces" tactics of dealing with terror to something more conventional. If they have any evidence let them provide it, I'm not against it, but I will not accept their assertions in the absence of evidence.

[Sean Hayden]

They can't give you the evidence. It would reveal secret methods of analysis, real stomach turning shit.

That's what my ceiling fan said anyway, and it's never been wrong.

[JimC]

It's unlikely that Russian election hacking could ever be proved in a court of law, but there's enough smoke to suggest the fire which is "on the balance of probabilities"

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. The report is a conclusion. As I said - either the US intelligence services are trustworthy, or they aren't. The standard of evidence required in, say, a court of law is unlikely to be forthcoming from a state's security establishment.

[L'Emmerdeur]

No it isn't you execrable little turd of a sniper.

That's some devastating 'argumentation' there, Śiva.

Where do you normally frequent? Ratskep?

It appears that you normally frequent playgrounds, if the above is anything to go by.

It is not sufficient to provide a link to material which you claim substantiates your point.

My "point" was that private cyber-security firms have evidence that has convinced them that the Russians were responsible for the hacking. I provided links to articles by those private cyber-security firms in which they described at least some of the evidence. By doing so, I substantiated my "point" to anybody who's capable of basic rational thought, including yourself, if you'd bothered to actually read what they've written. It's clear that you'd rather fling puerile insults, though.

Try that for a research project and see how far it gets you.

I provided access to the things that I said existed--the reports by private cyber-security firms in which they stated that they were convinced that the Russians were responsible for the hacking, and described some of the evidence that lead to their conclusion. I provided access to multiple instances of this--all of the private cyber-security firms agree. This is leaving aside the fact that they produced these reports before the October statement by the US intelligence community that agrees with their conclusions.

I don't have access to all of the files of the private firms, but they're not in the business of giving out detailed information about their operations. They make their money by obtaining accurate and useful data about breaches of internet security, and by formulating countermeasures to protect their customers. They wouldn't continue in business long if they weren't very good at what they do. CrowdStrike, for instance, has been in business for over four years and has customers world-wide. I'm more likely to listen to what they say about cyber-security issues than to some internet tough guy who won't even spend the time to examine what is publicly available.

I did you the favour of looking at it, which is more than is reasonably required of me to do for my opponent, found nothing and asked you to point to where this evidence you claim exists is.

You didn't do me any favors, Śiva. You didn't even bother to actually read what I provided.

Perhaps we have different standards of evidence. By my standards I found none. You've done nothing but snipe, waffle, and try to shift the burden of proof for your claim on to me.

Of course you found "none." You seem to believe that I should cut your information into baby-sized portions and coax you to take it in. Before this conversation, I would have thought that an insult to your intelligence. Now, I'm not so sure. Go ahead, call me some more names; I enjoy watching your version of "argumentation."

[Jason]

No it isn't you execrable little turd of a sniper.

That's some devastating 'argumentation' there, Śiva.

It's all you are. The rest of your drivel doesn't merit a response.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, they aren't. So that's that then.

Or, they are mostly, and something else could be an issue. Really, this just depends on how you're using trustworthy here.

Of course someone could be lying and still get it mostly right too, it happens.

Trust but verify

[L'Emmerdeur]

It appears that certain folks aren't willing to believe the unanimous findings of government intelligence agencies, and when offered information from non-government entities, they'd rather glance at it and pronounce it inadequate. So it goes.

Because a) it is inadequate and b) I suspect their motives are self-serving. They wish to secure their budgets from the incoming administration that promises to move away from the "soft-power & special forces" tactics of dealing with terror to something more conventional. If they have any evidence let them provide it, I'm not against it, but I will not accept their assertions in the absence of evidence.

If you won't even properly examine the evidence that is provided, you'll always be able to say that it's inadequate, but you'll look a total prat doing so.

[Tero]

This just in! It was all about hate and racism after all
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/us/lo ... index.html

[Brian Peacock]

This just in! It was all about hate and racism after all
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/us/lo ... index.html

We knew this already: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 2#p1680062

[Jason]

Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say
Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.
Friday night, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) called on federal officials “to conduct a full and complete investigation of this incident and undertake remedies to ensure that this never happens again.”
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/rus ... spartandhp

The Russians are hacking everything! Then again maybe it's more reasonable that that code has been bought and sold on the Darknet. I won't be surprised to hear of more "Russian" hacking in the future.

[pErvinalia]

In Soviet Russia, code hacks you!

[Tero]

In Soviet Russia, Hillary hacks you. To pieces!

[Brian Peacock]

putin_backdoor.jpg (22.17 KiB) Viewed 2926 times

[pErvinalia]

In Soviet Russia, Hillary hacks you. To pieces!