Quote:Here's one take on his end game..
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/'>https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/</a>
Just read it there , what do you think this article says his end game is.
Quote:The legal concept is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, information obtained illegally cannot be considered admissible. The trouble with lawyers is that they cannot deal with real life outside the structure of the courtroom, in this case that the CONTENT of the e-mails still matter regardless of HOW the content was obtained.
Like illegally published tax returns?
Quote:Just read it there , what do you think this article says his end game is.
I thought that whole creating organizational stupor thing was pretty on point. Exposing corruption. What the DNC did was that.
It's an embarrassment they were hacked. But if you think the RNC is some noble institution where similar things don't occur, you are snowed. Politics is a dirty game. They were just smart enough to build a more secure network. Their secrets are just as damning. Maybe worse.
Setec Astronomy.
Quote:The legal concept is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, information obtained illegally cannot be considered admissible. The trouble with lawyers is that they cannot deal with real life outside the structure of the courtroom, in this case that the CONTENT of the e-mails still matter regardless of HOW the content was obtained.
I get what you're saying in regards to the legal aspect, but in the Big Picture of how it ruined Clinton's chances of winning, she was already a dead woman walking with all of her baggage. I don't see how what was put out there made that big of a difference in how people decided to vote for her. I wonder how many Sanders supporters still voted for her even after the DNC hung him out to dry. If I were a democrat I either wouldn't have voted or would have written a name in. And that would have nothing to do with anything that was leaked. She is just a hideous example of a human being.
Quote:I thought that whole creating organizational stupor thing was pretty on point. Exposing corruption. What the DNC did was that.
It's an embarrassment they were hacked. But if you think the RNC is some noble institution where similar things don't occur, you are snowed. Politics is a dirty game. They were just smart enough to build a more secure network. Their secrets are just as damning. Maybe worse.
Setec Astronomy.
The embarrassing thing should be that the Democrats and Republicans play the dirty games in the first place, nevermind getting caught. I know it's how DC works but it doesn't make it any more palatable.
Quote:I thought that whole creating organizational stupor thing was pretty on point. Exposing corruption. What the DNC did was that.
It's an embarrassment they were hacked. But if you think the RNC is some noble institution where similar things don't occur, you are snowed. Politics is a dirty game. They were just smart enough to build a more secure network. Their secrets are just as damning. Maybe worse.
Setec Astronomy.
Yeah that's about right. The author of the article got a few points backwards though. For instance by "secrecy tax" Assange was not actually talking about payment of money.
I'm sure the RNC is just as bad. You forget that I'm not republican.
Quote:Yeah that's about right. The author of the article got a few points backwards though. For instance by "secrecy tax" Assange was not actually talking about payment of money.
I'm sure the RNC is just as bad. You forget that I'm not republican.
What are you out of curiosity, Fine Gael?
Sigh...
There has been no evidence presented proving any kind of Russian involvement in the hacking.
FACT - The intelligence community which includes 17 different offices was not involved in the reports released by the Obama regime. Only 3 (partisan) of the 17 agencies were involved. Several other important intelligence agencies and their experts were excluded.
FACT - The attacks did not specifically target the DNC only.
FACT - It was the gross incompetence/negligence of the affected parties that pretty much caused the hacks.
FACT - The spreadsheet released by the intelligence agencies involved shows that the attacks originated from all over the globe.
FACT - The snippet of code released by the intelligence agencies comes from a piece of out-dated malware that is freely available for anyone to download.
FACT - The method used for the hacks is pretty simple (phishing)... not something that a government agency would use in a serious attack.
FACT - The media has downplayed the content of the leaked emails to the point that nobody really even realizes what was there.
FACT - None of the parties involved have disputed the authenticity of the released content.
Quote:What are you out of curiosity, Fine Gael?
No definitely not a blue shirt. I don't have a party. Dabbled with the socialist party as a teen but grew out of it.
Should we stop calling phishing a "hack"? There is no hacking involved. It is a form of social engineering. Hacking implies there was code manipulation.
John Podesta was phished, and phishing can be done with literally zero experience in "hacking".
Quote:I guess my question would be this. How many people were actually influenced by the information? I would be interested to know. And something I told my husband earlier.... Liberals are all about the "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" mentality. Until they're caught and all hell breaks loose and they try to shift the focus to the Blame Game in the hopes that people will forget they did something wrong. Of course if the 'offending party' broke the law to get the information out then they should be dealt with, but in no way should that take away from bringing justice to the person who did wrong in the first place.
Uhh... Liberals aren't about the 'well if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" mentality at all. That's conservatives. Conservatives don't think privacy should be a right. Liberals do. Conservatives have no problem with Stop and Frisk, for example. Liberals on the other hand tend to have an issue with NSA Surveillance (which is why a lot of Libertarians broke off from the Republican Party. Republicans LOVE their surveillance)
Quote:Should we stop calling phishing a "hack"? There is no hacking involved. It is a form of social engineering. Hacking implies there was code manipulation.
John Podesta was phished, and phishing can be done with literally zero experience in "hacking".
Regarding the part in bold, I could agree with you on that. However, it also depends on what the phishing phase is trying to accomplish. Getting someone to click a link to get them to change their password is one thing. Getting someone to click on a link to deliver a more damaging payload is another.
I agree 100% with the rest of your statement.
Quote:Uhh... Liberals aren't about the 'well if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" mentality at all. That's conservatives. Conservatives don't think privacy should be a right. Liberals do. Conservatives have no problem with Stop and Frisk, for example. Liberals on the other hand tend to have an issue with NSA Surveillance (which is why a lot of Libertarians broke off from the Republican Party. Republicans LOVE their surveillance)
Actually, I think it's more complex than that. It really has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.
In general, people want and value their privacy. With that being said, where the divide generally is has to do with profiling/targeting/national security.
Quote:No definitely not a blue shirt. I don't have a party. Dabbled with the socialist party as a teen but grew out of it.
I was independent for a while myself, but hated not being able to vote in the primary.
Quote:I was independent for a while myself, but hated not being able to vote in the primary.
Yeah we don't have any of that here. Tend to vote independent or some minority party like the people before profit one.
Quote:Uhh... Liberals aren't about the 'well if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" mentality at all. That's conservatives. Conservatives don't think privacy should be a right. Liberals do. Conservatives have no problem with Stop and Frisk, for example. Liberals on the other hand tend to have an issue with NSA Surveillance (which is why a lot of Libertarians broke off from the Republican Party. Republicans LOVE their surveillance)
I know both sides have their issues, my husband is a neocon and we have some pretty interesting conversations to say the least.
And you're right, what I said is more of a conservative thing than liberal so I'll say this, liberals don't concern themselves with the consequences of their actions unless or until they get caught and then they blame others for what happened or for getting caught, never owning up to what they did. Not all liberals, just as not all conservatives are okay with NSA surveillance, etc.
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how many people they believe were actually influenced by the hacking revelations.
Quote:I know both sides have their issues, my husband is a neocon and we have some pretty interesting conversations to say the least.
And you're right, what I said is more of a conservative thing than liberal so I'll say this, liberals don't concern themselves with the consequences of their actions unless or until they get caught and then they blame others for what happened or for getting caught, never owning up to what they did. Not all liberals, just as not all conservatives are okay with NSA surveillance, etc.
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how many people they believe were actually influenced by the hacking revelations.
I don't have any hard facts, but I have a theory.
Most lifelong democrats probably rejected Hillary from the start of her "win" of the nomination. I base this on what my own family members said prior to the election. I can't say that any of them voted for Trump, but I do know for a fact that none of them voted for Hillary. Most of them stated that they were going to vote for another party or write someone in. I doubt that this group of voters were influenced by the information released by Wikileaks.
The information presented probably got a lot of Bernie Sanders voters to do the same thing. I would bet that if they even bothered to vote, they either wrote Bernie's name in or voted for another candidate. I would guess that this group of voters probably were influenced at least partially by the information released by Wikileaks.
Hillary's "votes" came from those on the left that are "hardcore (D)" and will vote just for the "D" as well as those that "voted" from the grave.
Quote:Yeah we don't have any of that here. Tend to vote independent or some minority party like the people before profit one.
America today would be far better as a parliamentary government. There are wide array of ideologies lumped into two parties and all we have in Washington is gridlock where good ideas are stalled if the wrong party comes up with it. The two party system has become so toxic.. well.. we got Trump. A Republican who is not a conservative, who was buddy buddy with the Clintons and flip flopped on every major issue at least once. Did I mention he is a cantankerous jerk?
Quote:America today would be far better as a parliamentary government. There are wide array of ideologies lumped into two parties and all we have in Washington is gridlock where good ideas are stalled if the wrong party comes up with it. The two party system has become so toxic.. well.. we got Trump. A Republican who is not a conservative, who was buddy buddy with the Clintons and flip flopped on every major issue at least once. Did I mention he is a cantankerous jerk?
Is it even possible to run a huge country like that? China and Russian are pretty much one or two party systems arn't they?
Quote:Is it even possible to run a huge country like that? China and Russian are pretty much one or two party systems arn't they?
Russia has been a one party system for some time.
I think it would be great if we could. The problem is we have allowed extreme elements in both major parties to steer the direction of the country. Any of the true independent parties has no voice whatsoever. I feel most Americans are closer to the center than the fringe. A more moderate and reasonable government would benefit all. Instead we have a rift.
Parliamentary law would allow for more direct dialogue between groups of people that never truly hear each other.