kurtster wrote: 

I need to finish this up for the night very soon, but here: 

You argued that

"Adding to this, the FBI has confirmed the the RNC was not hacked in spite of many attempts.  That is why we only have info from the Democratic side of the fence."

I took issue with that. Having looked over your same post, btw, I also disagree with your statement that "What the most likely source of all the DNC info, other than Podesta's emails which were accessed in the method you described above, is a DNC insider who supported Sanders and got all of the dirt out into the sunshine for all to see as revenge for rigging the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie." 

You pointed me to a WSJ piece that stated the RNC was not hacked. I commented on that piece. 

You pointed me to the Reuters piece. I am quoting below from that piece. 

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named. 

...

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

 ...

The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

 

"THIN REED"

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.



kurtster, please note that the excerpt from the Reuters piece that you included in your post—namely, 

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

indicates that  ODNI agrees that the Russian "entities" hacked the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

The Reuters article reports that ODNI does agree with the CIA that Russians hacked both parties. ODNI does not agree about the CIA's assessment of INTENT, that the "Russian entities" were trying to swing the election to Trump. The FBI did not agree with the CIA's statement about the hackers' intent because the CIA could not prove intent, which apparently the FBI focuses on during investigations since the Bureau seeks to build criminal cases during investigations, cases that rely heavily on evidence of intent. 

ODNI is not willing to accept the CIA's conclusion as to the intent of the Russian entities. You and I were not discussing that subject of intent—we were arguing as to whether the RNC got hacked. Kaw and I were not discussing that subject either—Kaw does not believe that Russian entities were involved in the relevant hacking of American computer systems. I disagree with him. 

I also disagree with the alternative explanations about the hacking that you and Kaw provide. For instance, I have read no work of  journalism reporting that a disgruntled DNC insider leaked DNC material outside of Podesta's emails. If you have a news link supporting your notion, please supply it. 

Finally, I would not rely on Web-based surveys for accurate measurement of anything. That chart you posted has more significance for a discussion about PERCEPTIONS of trustworthiness amongst the news-gathering public than it does for any serious, scientific assessment of the reliability or accuracy of any of those news organizations. Perceptions about news organizations are not necessarily facts.

Your chart points to opinions on trustworthiness that were not gathered in a statistically reliable manner as far as I can tell. Your chart does not point to any attempt to accurately and impartially measure how well the news organizations perform.  

It would really be great if the WSJ piece could supply a little more hard information. I hope that piece you pointed me to was not the best that the paper can do because that piece was not great journalism. I freely admit that I don't read it much since I don't have a subscription. Finally, again, you may be right the hackers didn't get much at all from the RNC. But it does seem from what you and I have read that the CIA, FBI and ODNI agree that the RNC got hacked.

I think we can both agree that the DNC needs to learn a lot about how it handles cybersecurity. 

Good night. 

 kcar wrote: 

Here, try this on for size ...

 Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Reuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST
 
The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 kurtster wrote: 
kurtster, are you claiming that in general the WSJ is a better source than the NY Times, CNN or the Washington Post? I would strongly disagree with such a sweeping claim.

The WSJ piece may be accurate, but it doesn't name the "US officials" sources or specify whether they work for the federal government.  In fact, there are almost no names or even vaguely identifying details as to the piece's sources. The piece also does not directly rebut or address statements by the FBI and CIA that hackers supported by the Russian government obtained computer-based data from the RNC and Republican individuals. Also, the editing of this article is poor—see below. 

Here's a sentence from the piece: 

A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.

The piece gives no indication as to which agency, department or branch the "senior US official" belongs. And the analysts are...where? CIA? FBI? NSA?

Here's another goof: 

A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. 

The piece failed to point to a first or second person before the above sentence. 

Another excerpt below...Where are the names of the RNC officials? Why would they want to keep their names off the record? What is the name of the "private computer security firm"? 
RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.
If this truly is a WSJ piece, it's provided very little detail to back up its claims. 


Sorry about the broken WaPo link. Let's see if it works this time:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.e42bf71a31be 

 kcar wrote: 
With all due respect, I based my statement on a far better and more credible source than the ones you offered, the Wall Street Journal.  And your WaPo article is not available.

 Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers

 Updated Dec. 16, 2016 12:27 a.m. ET

{The only way to read the full article (unless you have subscription access to the WSJ) is to highlight the headline, search it on google and then enter it through google.}

Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said.
...
The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn’t necessarily conflict with the CIA’s conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.
...
Mr. Trump has discounted the U.S. intelligence assessments and disparaged intelligence officials. In a Twitter message Thursday, he wrote: “If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?”
...

Until now, few details had been disclosed about the nature of the targeting of Republican organizations, especially the flagship Republican National Committee, where hackers sent so-called phishing emails last spring to an email address there. Those emails were quarantined by a filter meant to detect spam as well as potentially malicious traffic that may carry viruses or trick recipients into divulging passwords, two officials said.

A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. Once inside, they reportedly were able to access a trove of DNC opposition research on Mr. Trump, then a candidate.
...

RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.

The apparently successful blocking of a Russian espionage operation offers one possible explanation why the GOP’s main political organization didn’t suffer the same fate as its Democratic counterpart—a deluge of leaked emails revealing private correspondence and internal strategy.

But the suspicion that Russians did try to break into the RNC, using the same techniques and tactics that worked so well on the Democrats, suggests that at least initially, they were trying to gather potentially incriminating or embarrassing information on both parties.

And to rebut your WaPo statement ...

A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counter­intelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.

Just what meetings and when are being referred to in the above ?

U.S. intelligence agencies feud with Republicans over Russian hacking

Reuters  Fri Dec 16, 2016 | 4:21pm EST

Republican members of Congress are complaining that U.S. intelligence agencies are refusing to brief them widely on a classified CIA report that concluded Russia hacked Democratic Party data in an effort to help Donald Trump win the presidency.

The Republicans said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has refused their requests for full briefings of Congress' two intelligence committees. U.S. government officials said the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the two intelligence committees, known as the "Gang of Eight," have been briefed on the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion.

Nevertheless, Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a member of President-elect Trump's transition team as well as the Gang of Eight, has called for a briefing for his entire committee on the CIA assessment.

"The committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign, and in particular we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us," Nunes said.Representative Ron Johnson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his panel also has asked for a briefing but the CIA refused.

"It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday.

Three U.S. government sources, who all asked for anonymity to discuss classified information, told Reuters that while the full congressional committees have not been briefed, the congressional leadership has, which is the standard procedure for briefing Congress on sensitive intelligence.

The sources said that Nunes was personally briefed on the CIA finding. A congressional official denied Nunes was briefed, however.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement that because President Barack Obama last week ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full-scale "review of foreign efforts to influence recent presidential elections – from 2008 to the present," the agencies would not comment further until the study is completed.

I am very tired of anonymous sources.

And lastly a summation ...

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Reuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST
 
The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 kurtster wrote: 
Your statement is not correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

...

One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.

It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote. 


See also this piece:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/gop-russia-hacking-trump/

See this 12/16/16 WaPo piece as well: 
FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

 

New revelations about Comey’s position could put to rest suggestions by some lawmakers that the CIA and the FBI weren’t on the same page on Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s intentions.

...

The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday.

 

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.
... 

A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counter­intelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.

 islander wrote: 
Wow. Cool-ish. In a strictly etymologically-speaking sort of way.

 kurtster wrote: 
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/analog_world/the_gruesome_or.php

 Kaw wrote: 

At this point, I have to ask how many people are using the account  under the name "Kaw." Your written English went from this sub-standard level

Trump is Russian hacks. We need moar money for weapons because Russian army. We need laws against privacy because Russian spies. Be affraid! Be very affraid! Look what they have done already! Look at that maniac that will be our president!

to your partly well-written Dec. 18 post @11:34 am.  The glaring difference in grammar and spelling between the two posts erodes your credibility. The sheer laziness of thought in your Dec 16, 2016 - 4:29am post and its lack of evidence to support your claims also undermine your Dec. 18 claim that "I am someone working in this field of expertise."  If that claim is true—and I have serious doubts that it is—you are clearly being paid too much for your work. 

It's not "my evidence", Kaw. It's part of the evidence that the CIA and FBI considered before concluding that the Russian government and individuals contracted by that government hacked into American computer systems. Was Crowdstrike also in on this "lie" that linked Fancy Bear with the Russian government? Note that Fancy Bear has attacked non-American governmental bodies and companies as well American ones, so your lazy claim that the US government is just trying to fuel Cold-War-type conspiracy theories doesn't stand up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear

Fancy Bear (also known as APT28, Pawn Storm, Sofacy Group, Sednit and STRONTIUM) is a cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU.

Likely operating since the mid-2000s, Fancy Bear's methods are consistent with the capabilities of nation-state actors. The threat group is known to target government, military, and security organizations, especially Transcaucasian and NATO-aligned states. Fancy Bear is thought to be responsible for cyber attacks on the German parliament, the French television station TV5Monde, the White House, NATO, and the Democratic National Committee.

As for your speculation that the Russian government wouldn't have used methods and individuals who could be traced, consider the following quote from this article:
There are several factors used to attribute these hacks to someone working on behalf of Russian intelligence. In the case of Fancy Bear, attribution is based on details from a number of assessments by security researchers. (These include: focus of purpose, the targets, long-term investment, language and location).

...

These don't necessarily point to Fancy Bear being directly operated by Russian intelligence. Other information operations out of Russia (including the "troll factory" operated out of St. Petersburg to spread disinformation and intimidate people) have had tenuous connections to the government.

Scott DePasquale and Michael Daly of the Atlantic Council suggested in an October Politico article that the DNC hack and other information operations surrounding the US presidential campaign may have been the work of "cyber mercenaries"—in essence, outsourcing outfits working as contractors for Russian intelligence. There is also an extremely remote possibility that all of this has been some sort of "false flag" operation by someone else with extremely deep pockets and a political agenda.

 
FYI—The intelligence agencies of the American government openly admit that they do electronic surveillance on computer networks, cellphone networks, etc.
 
Your English has improved considerably over two days, but you seem to struggle with logical thought and written expression of it. I'm not sure what your point is in the excerpt below from today's post: 

Would the Russian covernment seriously use a hacker group this low quality to influence the US elections? That owns domain names that are somehow traceable? Usually the servers behind those domains get hacked so the author is untraceable. Domain names are certainly not registered by the hackers themselves. Also those servers are used for 24 hours or so and then abandoned.

Here's how I read your excerpt: so hackers use traceable domain names. But the servers behind those domain names get hacked...so you can't trace "the author." And domain names aren't registered by hackers themselves, according to you. Oh and those servers that get hacked are used for 24 hours and then abandoned. So the Russian government couldn't have been involved! 

Do you drink a lot when you're posting here? Because you certainly don't do a very good job of showing how the Russian government couldn't have hired Fancy Bear or otherwise hid behind Fancy Bear's work. 
Consider how quickly the American press, with the help of CIA sources, revealed manipulation and distortion of intelligence (by Dick Cheney, Doug Feith and others) that led to the invasion of Iraq. Are you seriously suggesting that the US government could get away with lying about Russian hacking? Sources like Snowden would reveal such an effort in a heartbeat.

You wrote 

The evidence that fancy bear actually even exists is still a secret. We just have to believe the CIA and FBI for that. 

Fancy Bear has been known for at least 10 years to private companies and public intelligence organizations outside the US. 
 
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/  

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/0615/Meet-Fancy-Bear-and-Cozy-Bear-Russian-groups-blamed-for-DNC-hack

If you want me or anyone else here to take you seriously, try providing credible evidence to back up your claims. Fantasies about the American government conspiring to make false claims about the presidential election don't count. You can't even provide a semi-intelligent rationale for the US government to do such a thing. 

 Kaw wrote: 
Your reply is spot on.  And as Assange has said, his source is not Russian.  I believe Assange.  

Funny how no one has said any of the information revealed is made up or false.  It is authentic.

What the most likely source of all the DNC info, other than Podesta's emails which were accessed in the method you described above, is a DNC insider who supported Sanders and got all of the dirt out into the sunshine for all to see as revenge for rigging the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie.

Until I see proof otherwise, this is what I am going to believe.

Adding to this, the FBI has confirmed the the RNC was not hacked in spite of many attempts.  That is why we only have info from the Democratic side of the fence.  The Democrats just don't know shit about cyber security.  That is my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
 

A cabinet to serve the common people...

 kcar wrote: 
I wasn't aware of your lengthy reply. Sorry.

Your evidence consist of a succesful phishing attempt using a bit.ly url. Something that is done by for example Nigerian scammers on a daily basis. The 'proof' is that the 'hackers' used bit.ly 7000 times. Again just like the average scammer. That's also barely hacking in my book. You can call it social hacking but it is far from advanced. Especially when they are stupid enough to use an US based company as a backbone. All executed by a malicious group called fancy bear or 'fantazii medved' in the Russian language. In other words: Medved the fantasy hacker. Isn't that name ironic? Would the Russian covernment seriously use a hacker group this low quality to influence the US elections? That owns domain names that are somehow traceable? Usually the servers behind those domains get hacked so the author is untraceable. Domain names are certainly not registered by the hackers themselves. Also those servers are used for 24 hours or so and then abandoned.

Normally government sponsored hacks are highly advanced containing advanced abuses of security weaknesses that are unknown by all other parties. They are stealthy too. Many times only logs of unknown internet traffic is left after a good break in. They certainly don't give interviews and brag like: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview Sometimes they make a mistake like abusing weaknesses of certain hardware that has a specific origin. That's how certain advanced hacks are traced back to China. The only way the hacker could know that breach was by having access to the design of the chip/software and that was both made in China.

Trump has not spoken negatively about Russia. The hacks that could have been done by any average hacker are linked to Russia, the old reliable enemy of the USA. How convenient.
The evidence that fancy bear actually even exists is still a secret. We just have to believe the CIA and FBI for that.
Technically your lengthy reply contains a modus operandi. Not evidence.
In Europe we are not allowed to store confidencial information on servers that are linked to companies from the USA. China is still OK. USA isn't. Why? The NSA. The only proofed very serious hacks, break-ins and bugged computers upto the national government of Germany was from the NSA. Belgium was also hacked. There is a suspicion that France was hacked too. The Netherlands was at least bugged by the NSA. And we know this for sure because of Snowden. Tracing back a government issued hack is in practise almost impossible. That also makes the certainty of the claims from the CIA and FBI not so believable.

Source? I am someone working in this field of expertise.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I'd love to see the entire "defense" industry go the way of the dinosaurs, but...

My point was that in making the industry nervous he's making an oblique assault on a constituency he claims to embrace - 'Merican workers.

 Steely_D wrote: 
no!

well if i think about it rationally maybe

13 Helping Points When Things Don’t Go Your Way

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
behind the scenes...

we've got to make war great again, especially on a budget, but how?

can any of our geniuses make smart patriotic weapons that can discriminate by race, religion and sexual preference?

historically we've killed, maimed and murdered at large and really haven't worried about the cost

we need to negotiate, wait for sales and clip coupons to be sure we're getting the absolute best bang for our buck

"I just think that everyone is sitting here trying to pretend that this is normal. This is not normal. This is dangerous."

Trump strikes fear into defense contractors

TRUMP TO STEP AWAY FROM MAKING HIS BUSINESSES BANKRUPT TO FOCUS ON BANKRUPTING COUNTRY

 Steely_D wrote: 
Things that last are usually earned, which is a good thing.  Overnight change generally is not durable.  Such as changes made by executive fiat.  They can be undone the same way they are created.

I know we are only just getting started on all the hate towards Trump and his supporters.  But what kind of backlash will it generate.  That will be an even more interesting thing to watch.

There is some very concerning lunacy going on which is one of the reasons Trump was actually elected.  Such as things like this ...

 Activists at Ohio State Protest Killing of Student Who Launched Campus Terror Attack

 Protesters at Ohio State University are upset that police killed the student responsible for last month’s terrorist attack on campus as he was trying to stab others, calling him a victim of police violence.
...
 “So what would you have them do?” ... “Do nothing until he stabbed more people?”

Pardon the lack of a respectable link to the story as it does not seem to be getting any coverage in the MSM for some reason.  

I dunno WTF is going on in people's minds anymore.  But thinking like that illustrated above is just plain crazy, imo.  I certainly do not want someone running the country who thinks the same as these protesters, such as Ms. Clinton, to be sure.  I believe that I am far from alone in my thinking.

Don’t call it post-truth. There’s a simpler word: lies

Donald Trump and the Rise of Alt-Reality Media