Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
mikey mikey is either a useful idiot or a useless idiot and my money's on the latter
The DNC "hack" was a leak from within the US and not Russia.
- Thread starter mikey mikey
- Start date
extra dry
Happy to be here
They will have a man who looks like an orange for their leader soon, so it could be said, it is turning into a fruit cake of a country.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Sean Hannity is the go-to guy for impartial reporting. Right.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
I'd just say post some evidence or stfu
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Unless, we had this all wrong. And it's "infinite the monkees". I'm fairly certain Mickey, Mike, Davy & Peter could knock out the complete works of Shakespeare given enough time. "Last Train to Clarkesville" is quite underrated.
As to mikey mikey and the bullshit bunch, is Pro Russian Pro Putin Bullshit the new 9/11 truth movement?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Assange is repeatedly claiming Rich is the source of his leaks, but
A) Rich's parents denied it.
B) Rich was conscious and speaking to the police before he died.
Assange is scum.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Nah, didn't Micky Dolenz fail the military IQ test? Not deliberately, you understand. Anyway, who in their right mind would have wanted to go to Viet Nam.
Yossarian
⏭️
Certainly seems to be a lot of InfoWars - Russia Today crossover.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No you wouldn't. You'd post up a ready made defence from someone else stripped of links to make it look like you produced it.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
I think there's plenty of new 9/11 truth movement to go around, plenty of it on the other side as well, sadly
mikey mikey
Active Member
Infowars? I'll have to add that to the list.
1) Accuse them of anti-Semitism when they criticise Israel's foreign policy.
2) Accuse them of backing terrorists when they meet people that are from pro-Palestinian organisations.
3) Accuse them of being anti-Western for opposing the arming and funding of terrorists in Syria.
4) Accuse them of being pro-Trump when they criticise the DNC ongoing shenaningans.
5) Accuse them of being a Brexiter when they object to the ongoing corporatisation of the EU.
6) Accuse them of being "letting the Tories in" when they fail to support a member of Progress.
7) Accuse them of being "cultists" and "hard left" when they fail to back NewLabour's proposals of further austerity.
8) Accuse them of being sexist when they fail to support Liz Kendall or Angela Eagle.
9) Accuse them of trolling when using the term "Blairite" (and suspending them from the party before a leadership election) while calling them "dogs" (literally).
10) Accuse them of being pro-Putin when they express skepticism of their intelligence services who llied to us about Iraq.
Jeremiah18.17
Well-Known Member
"Inside the paranoid mind of a package deal "leftist" with a victim complex"?
that's, um, not quite correct, official position of wikileaks is that it does not comment on its sources.
One cannot give what one does not have.
in which case anything he said might have gone no further.
No he ain't
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Yeah they're much more conniving and underhanded
ASSANGE JUST LEAKED PROOF IMPLICATING HILLARY CLINTON IN THE MURDER OF DNC WHISTLEBLOWER SETH RICH -
Oh fuck off this is David Kelly all over again.
Once again, fuck. off.
Hiding from rape charges, and acting as Putin's puppet? He's scum.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Putin on his puppet Trump-
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
How to wi...err loose the Labour leadership challenge 2016 edition
What you call 'conniving and underhanded', others call 'whistleblowing'.
Of course this email is not 'proof' of anything. It is however quite chilling and disturbing reading. Thank you for the link.
There are certainly some similarities.
grow up
mikey mikey
Active Member
It's more like a summary of shitty tactics. I am sure none of them have been used here.
Yossarian
⏭️
It's more like a summary of shitty tactics. I am sure none of them have been used here.
11) Accuse them of being "incoherent" when they post up lists that are really summaries
12) Accuse them of being "passive aggressive" when they say something and follow it up with a smiley that suggests they are being insincere
13) Accuse them of being "triggered" when you say things like "Russia Today is a really shitty news source"
mikey mikey
Active Member
Obama tells Putin to stop hacking (!)
US hacking claims: Obama told Putin to 'cut it out' - BBC News
FBI now agrees with CIA on the matter
FBI and CIA now agree that Russia hacked to help Trump win
Pretty obvious to see what's going on here. You keep repeating your lie in the media as often as you can. Treat it as a fait accompli.
US hacking claims: Obama told Putin to 'cut it out' - BBC News
FBI now agrees with CIA on the matter
FBI and CIA now agree that Russia hacked to help Trump win
Pretty obvious to see what's going on here. You keep repeating your lie in the media as often as you can. Treat it as a fait accompli.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
It's not a sudden drop - he's comparing it to the Facebook average, which is probably puffed up a little by Facebook in the first place, to increase sales. It's not that surprising that his link has way fewer clicks than that.
A click through rate of 1 in a hundred thousand, for a widely shared contributor with a popular blog looks pretty absurd to me.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
What's that got to do with your being snotty?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
There's some quite interesting analysis of propaganda network flows here (if you'll forgive the use of US criteria in respect of what 'left' is supposed to mean)
Left + Right: The Combined Post-#Election2016 News “Ecosystem”
#Election2016 #FakeNews Compilation
As I was commenting on another thread, there seems to be a mechanism such that, once people stop believing 'official reality' it becomes all too easy for them to fall into a sort of conspiratorial bricolage in which any form of stigmatised knowledge becomes potential raw material for ideological entrepreneurs. So you get a lot of crossover between previously disparate flavours of 'truthseekers' and political propagandists.
It now seems like that sort of mechanism is moving from the Icke/Jones fringes and becoming part of the toolkit of 'serious' politics.
Last edited:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
As to the Russian hackers thing, the 'Dukes' / APT29 group that have been mentioned have been around for a while and is most likely Russian based. Credible old-school security outfits have studied them for years.
See e.g. The Dukes: 7 Years Of Russian Cyber-Espionage and Group: APT29, The Dukes, Cozy Bear - ATT&CK
I'd say there's a reasonable case to be made that they're state aligned if not actually state sponsored. They may well be a free-enterprise initiative with tacit state sponsorship rather than spooks though.
There's also credible evidence that they've been fucking around with think tanks and political parties in the US and elsewhere, but it's as part of a pattern of activity going back many years. Not something they've just started doing since Trump. While they do seem to have become especially active in the US in the last 18 months or so, it's hard to tell if that's a higher level of activity or just more people paying attention to it.
See e.g. PowerDuke: Widespread Post-Election Spear Phishing Campaigns Targeting Think Tanks and NGOs | Volexity Blog
As far as I can make out, the CIA claim is that this group (among others) have been fucking with the DNC, and were responsible for leaking embarrassing emails to Wikileaks, according to circumstantial evidence (e.g. the use of their characteristic techniques and tools)
This is supported by the analysis of the "cybersecurity and threat intelligence" firm apparently called in by the DNC https://www. crowdstrike. com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ (link broken due to xss warnings)
They also mention another probably Russian, probably state-sponsored group.
Group: APT28, Sednit, ... - ATT&CK
Operation Pawn Storm: Fast Facts and the Latest Developments - Security News - Trend Micro UK
https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/global/en/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-apt28.pdf
... who they say appear to have been acting independently of APT29/Duke.
Crowdstrike's claimed evidence is pretty much along the lines of that in the Volexity article I just linked. Persuasive enough within the limits of similar technical assets and operational method, but not conclusive and not really hugely useful for judging intent. It also doesn't show responsibility for the data breach in question but describes two independent groups, stealing authentication credentials and installing backdoors. If Crowdstrike do have forensics showing that one of these groups took the email in question and gave it to Wikileaks, they haven't published them and as far as I can tell, haven't specifically claimed to have any.
In addition, we've had claims of responsibility casting doubt on the attribution of the DNC data breach to Russian groups. Although doubts were immediately cast in turn on those claims by tech journalists. (Claimed 'Romanian and not Russian' hacker who can't speak Romanian properly etc) See e.g. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack..
My take on all of this is that credible security outfits have been reporting on APT28 and APT29 activities for long enough that I'm pretty sure they do exist, are most likely Russian and state aligned (especially APT28) and do go after political targets.
Whether they specifically gave anything to Wikileaks seems to me unproven, at least in the public domain. It's probable that these aren't one-offs, but persistent long-term collection activities of the sort that both of these groups specialise in. What I'm still getting my head around, is what else (besides publishing DNC email) is being implied by claims that Russian cyber-spooks were trying to 'influence US election'
I *think* what's really being argued is that the exploitation of the DNC data breach (and others) by parcelling out curated data sets to influence propaganda narratives around the US election was a Russian policy. This article summarises what I take to be the gist of that narrative How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History
See e.g. The Dukes: 7 Years Of Russian Cyber-Espionage and Group: APT29, The Dukes, Cozy Bear - ATT&CK
I'd say there's a reasonable case to be made that they're state aligned if not actually state sponsored. They may well be a free-enterprise initiative with tacit state sponsorship rather than spooks though.
There's also credible evidence that they've been fucking around with think tanks and political parties in the US and elsewhere, but it's as part of a pattern of activity going back many years. Not something they've just started doing since Trump. While they do seem to have become especially active in the US in the last 18 months or so, it's hard to tell if that's a higher level of activity or just more people paying attention to it.
See e.g. PowerDuke: Widespread Post-Election Spear Phishing Campaigns Targeting Think Tanks and NGOs | Volexity Blog
As far as I can make out, the CIA claim is that this group (among others) have been fucking with the DNC, and were responsible for leaking embarrassing emails to Wikileaks, according to circumstantial evidence (e.g. the use of their characteristic techniques and tools)
This is supported by the analysis of the "cybersecurity and threat intelligence" firm apparently called in by the DNC https://www. crowdstrike. com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ (link broken due to xss warnings)
They also mention another probably Russian, probably state-sponsored group.
Group: APT28, Sednit, ... - ATT&CK
Operation Pawn Storm: Fast Facts and the Latest Developments - Security News - Trend Micro UK
https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/global/en/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-apt28.pdf
... who they say appear to have been acting independently of APT29/Duke.
Crowdstrike's claimed evidence is pretty much along the lines of that in the Volexity article I just linked. Persuasive enough within the limits of similar technical assets and operational method, but not conclusive and not really hugely useful for judging intent. It also doesn't show responsibility for the data breach in question but describes two independent groups, stealing authentication credentials and installing backdoors. If Crowdstrike do have forensics showing that one of these groups took the email in question and gave it to Wikileaks, they haven't published them and as far as I can tell, haven't specifically claimed to have any.
In addition, we've had claims of responsibility casting doubt on the attribution of the DNC data breach to Russian groups. Although doubts were immediately cast in turn on those claims by tech journalists. (Claimed 'Romanian and not Russian' hacker who can't speak Romanian properly etc) See e.g. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack..
My take on all of this is that credible security outfits have been reporting on APT28 and APT29 activities for long enough that I'm pretty sure they do exist, are most likely Russian and state aligned (especially APT28) and do go after political targets.
Whether they specifically gave anything to Wikileaks seems to me unproven, at least in the public domain. It's probable that these aren't one-offs, but persistent long-term collection activities of the sort that both of these groups specialise in. What I'm still getting my head around, is what else (besides publishing DNC email) is being implied by claims that Russian cyber-spooks were trying to 'influence US election'
I *think* what's really being argued is that the exploitation of the DNC data breach (and others) by parcelling out curated data sets to influence propaganda narratives around the US election was a Russian policy. This article summarises what I take to be the gist of that narrative How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History
Last edited:
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Isn't in 1 in 1000? He said 0.001.
It's going to be a lower rate than average - it's not cute, personal, car-related, likely to turn a profit, funny, or likely to be a quick read, and the odds are fairly good that the people sharing it do share a lot of posts. But 1 in 1000 isn't that low anyway.
I think an error has crept in somewhere, I thought he mentioned %, 0.001% is 1 in 100,000. Referring to his original article he says 22 clicks out of 200,000 estimated views, which is 1.1 in 10,000 or around 0.01%. Although his estimation of 200,000 might be questionable (there will be duplication) that is still very small.
Perhaps the matter is settled by looking at the screenshots of his traffic before and after he claims they put him back on: there are no facebook referrals in the former, and about half his traffic is from facebook in the latter.
Last edited:
Similar threads
