My post talking about how to catch a hacker and only covering that technical information touched off a nerve. It of course inspired a couple of people to come at me defending the narrative of the government with regards to the "Russian" hacking.
It has of course resulted in deflection. I've been told by one of the people that I may have proven the technical side, but there are other factors. I never claimed to PROVE anything. I spoke of things in terms of probabilities and how unlikely something might be. I did not use absolutes, and I did not say I proved anything. No one can prove anything without access to the requisite information.
I did state that information from the DNC server alone would not be sufficient to prove Russian hacking. Hacking is a technical task. Therefore, I approached ONLY that aspect. That is what my article was about, how you could catch a hacker.
It was written mainly because most people have a view of hacking that is shaped by Television shows, and movies. It is actually not remotely like that. It would make for a very boring movie.
Source: hackersnewsbulletin.com
It is also nothing like tracing a call. Even that is not 100% accurate in the age of VOIP and the fact that so many carriers are switching to VOIP.
Source: Reverse Phone Lookup
First... I did not state I proved anything. Others stated that who replied to me. I didn't prove anything. I was not trying to prove anything or disprove anything. I was simply trying to INFORM people of the type of information you would need and steps you would need to take to definitively PROVE a certain person/entity hacked something.
Source: Daily Mail
Second... I did not endorse Trump or Hillary in that post. I did not post that for political reasons because I am on either side of that political issue. I posted it primarily because I could see that the narrative on the news was passing off "proof" of Russian hacking which is a technical issue when I know they couldn't have the PROOF for that.
If you still didn't get it from my post... they could prove that it SEEMED to be coming from Russia. They would then need to go there and see if someone was physically doing it from there.
In the internet world it is not difficult to appear to be coming from any country. In fact, that is what truly intelligent hackers will do. You don't hack and leave a trail back to yourself.
From the technical side of the things...
Here is an analogy in non-internet terms...
Let's say that the leaked documents were kept in a safe in a bank in Kansas.
The argument comes out that Russians broke into the bank and stole those documents.
The evidence available would be surveillance cameras, finger prints, audio recordings of speaking, travel plans, witness reports, etc.
Well the bank won't let the FBI go into the bank to investigate.
That means none of the internal surveillance, finger prints, and audio recordings are available to the FBI.
The information that was provided is told to them or provided on a communication from a Bank employee. This is NOT access to the information in question.
The FBI expands and finds out there were some Russians who traveled to Kansas. They even find some witnesses that claim to have seen the Russians in that town on the given day.
The FBI comes out to the public and says "The Russians did it".
Source: Embracing our differences
End of Analogy
From a technological point of view this essentially the case with the current hacking story. If there is indeed GOOD evidence that could change this it is currently hidden behind a "it is classified" wall which these days is used with impunity.
Source: giphy.com
THAT was the focus of my article. My article was not about whether the hacking/leaking swayed the election or not. I know with a certainty the leaks influenced the election, but so did many other things.
The video footage from Iraq war, and many other incidents showing CNN blatantly faking stories in parking lots, and in front of green screens severely damaged their credibility. This at a time they were trying to ram Hillary into everyones mind and call Trump the devil incarnate. Their questionable credibility likely made people question this narrative. So that is likely ANOTHER factor of why Hillary lost.
There were many factors. I actually thought she would win. I was surprised when she lost.
@telos brought up Podesta and the Phishing. That did sound like he was caught by a phishing scam at some point. I don't know if that was a separate hack, or if that was revealed by simply reading the emails that were leaked and seeing the phishing email and that he fell for it.
If that is indeed the case that Podesta's phishing was the leak then you can visit my previous article, because you have an email address (which I can create one right now in my house on a PC, or on many servers in various places around the country). If I hacked another server I could create one there. You need more than just the information from a server. That is but the starting place, and much of what is required after that requires active investigation to catch them in the act unless the hacker is VERY stupid.
Don't get me wrong. Russia does hack. They have great hackers. They have a policy in their country last I heard that citizens are free to hack, as long as their targets are not in Russia. There is even an episode of the Cyberwar documentary series dedicated to that topic and they travel to Russia and speak to Russian hackers.
Some of that type might be SLOPPY as they are learning, but they are not part of the government. If it was the government calling for hacking us, they wouldn't be even remotely close to that sloppy.
Did I claim to prove ANYTHING in this document, or the previous one? NO. Not that I saw.
Did others say I proved the "technical" side? YES in comments before coming at me with their BUT/HOWEVER. Though I do not agree that I proved anything. Proof is not possible without access to all of the information. Which is conveniently "classified", yet they still are willing to fire people up on the news about it. They are willing to talk about it openly and state it is the truth and expect us to fall for their Appeal to Authority.
On the NON-TECHNICAL side which was not what my post was about...
Do I have any doubts that Russia tried to influence our elections? No, every country that could likely tried to influence our elections in some way. We do it too, and sometimes we interfere to a large degree by even funding activists/rebels to undermine a government we do not like.
Source: giphy.com
Do I think Russia tried to influence our elections? Without a doubt. Putin press comments warning his people to prepare for possible Nuclear war if Hillary is elected is pretty influential PRESS.
Yet, many nations said many things to influence the elections. Nations were also saying anti-trump things. Were they trying to influence our elections?
The fact of the matter is Hillary LOST. I did not vote for either of them, so I have no horse in the race.
Then the hypocrisy began to fly...
Listen to Hillary here...
Or how about Obama?
I guess that is only the truth as long as THEY win. ;)
She lost. The popular vote does not matter, as there is no reason for states to be part of the union if California, New York, Florida, and Texas get to tell all the other states what they must do. That is why the electoral college exists...
She lost by A LOT in that regard. Did she win the popular vote? Yes. I went to bed about 1:30am MST (UTC -7) that night and she was a million popular votes behind. She had been awarded the electoral college votes for California, but those actual totals were not in yet. The next day she was ahead in popular vote.
I don't live in California.
Source: giphy.com
I will say as a disclaimer. I'm actually an anarcho-capitalist (not to be confused with the anarchists in the news that blow up shit, and perform vandalism, and acts of violence). Ideally I would like to see us not NEED a government. I do not expect that to happen in my life time, or perhaps even that of my children. It is a process that would require changing a lot of bad habits and teaching everyone how critical thinking and different types of logical fallacies occur from a VERY early age to make it a reality. Is it a Utopian idea? No, we're human. We can corrupt and mess up anything. :)
This post is MORE passionate than others. This is primarily due to getting tired of the words people keep putting into my mouth that I didn't say. They don't taste very good.
Edit: - It has been several days since I posted this blog entry. I did however, just come across an article today that is relevant to this discussion. http://www.returnofkings.com/112038/how-the-media-lies-through-omission-and-distortion
Steem On!
Not sure why you are an anarchist. I will illustrate why I am not. Some people claim it's fake, others claim it's real. It doesn't even matter. The lesson contained in the protocols of the elders of Zion shows you why anarchists will always just be useful idiots that create a power vacuum for someone else to take control. A segment showing why below:
"6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism."
"14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism."
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Anarchism in the form of Anarcho-Capitalism has not had a state it can exist in in history yet. There is no precedence. I should also mention I am also an Atheist/Deist, so what the Elders of Zion may have to say does not particularly appeal to me.
I am an Anarchist due to the actual interpretation of that word. I believe in Leaders, but I do not believe in Rulers. One is voluntary and you can choose when you follow them, you yourself can even be a leader if the endeavor in question is more your specialty, and thus the role of leader can shift to fit the situation. Conversely a Ruler is someone who uses appeal to authority to dictate their rules that OTHERS must follow. I do not believe I have the right to tell you how to live, or that a billion people with me have the right to tell you how to live. If what you do does not harm another directly/indirectly then what you do has no bearing on me or others, and you should be permitted to do it. I also believe strongly in the Non-Aggression Principle which does not mean I will not defend myself. It simply means I will not initiate aggression.
Yet for anarchism to work all of society must understand critical thinking, logical fallacies just like they do Math, Reading/Writing, etc. For only if a person is well versed in such things will the be mostly immune to manipulations and usage of such things against them.
For example your mention of the Elders of Zion and then using their statements to justify your argument actually be considered at least two forms of logical fallacy. The first is an Appeal to Authority if you had any idea that I should believe it is true simply due to the source. The second is an Appeal to Tradition. Neither meet the burden of proof. That does not mean they are NOT worth consideration, it simply means I need not blindly agree. There certainly is wisdom in the past, and past knowledge. We should study such things. Yet we also shouldn't blindly follow such things without question.
I did provide some contradictions in that statement and some hints of some of my CURRENT (and ever changing) beliefs. I have written past blog entries about them.
So that makes it easy for me to be an Anarchist, since that word technically means NO RULERS. It does not mean the violence, vandalism, and rebellion that it has a modern double meaning for. Because there are people who do practice such things I have to accept it does have two definitions. I adhere to the older one when I refer to myself as any form of anarchist.
These are my ideas. I do not expect you to believe them because I stated them. You are free to have your own ideas, and that is a good thing.
EDIT: I actually lean more towards Deism than atheism.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I did up vote your post by the way. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"If what you do does not harm another directly/indirectly then what you do has no bearing on me or others, and you should be permitted to do it."
This is the general summary of libertarianism, but it's a false premise. Such a thing could only work in an OPEN ecosystem, not a closed ecosystem, which the earth is. This is why the idea of libertarianism will always be a complete logical fallacy.
Libertarianism basically claims the butterfly effect does not exist. Both it and anarchy in the modern nation state context are used solely to weaken and destabilize areas so another may come in to exploit it or take it over.
As for the protocols of the elders of Zion, it is VERY similar to The Art of War, maybe a more in-depth version, which is why I view it as having valuable lessons whether people believe it's real or not.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting. OK. Not enough information to know. This is what I've heard from other sources too. I think the same thing:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Cant wait to be able to hack one day :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is not as glamorous as TV makes it out to be. Better to focus on how to stop, or detect hacking. You need the same skill sets and it can be just as challenging. You can also make good money at it without going to jail. :)
It can be exhilarating, but so can other things.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Maybe before you can find hackers you have to be one
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually they use the same skill sets. So yes to catch a hacker, you have to visualize how to hack. You can even hack your own servers.
And in reality that is not always the case then either...
Server is doing something strange...
look at that... who is that? What the hell is that?
You can learn that way too... but it can be bad. In fact, no matter how good you are there will be some of that type of learning. As a new technique used must have some impact before people start poking and prodding to see what is going on, and then learn how it is done.
And yes you can white hat hack and not get into legal trouble either.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit