U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Stasis
14,534 posts, read 8,071,299 times
Reputation: 7550

Advertisements

I'm confused by the time line (see below).
The hack and Wikileaks publication happened in June 2016 but VIPS analyzes the speed of a July 2016 hack.

"The Time Sequence

June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June 14, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/2...hack-evidence/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
4,959 posts, read 2,157,721 times
Reputation: 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat View Post
Gee...... I wonder why the DNC would not turn over the servers to the FBI....

RR
That is common practice when a organization is hacked. Standard procedure is a outside security company investigates the hack and the security company then gives copies of the information they obtained to law enforcement.

"That division of labor saves time, but it also protects companies from what could potentially be seen as an invasion of privacy. Turning over a company’s entire network to a law enforcement agency can be an awkward proposition, particularly before the nature of the compromise is clear."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/5/14...rensics-russia[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 08:56 PM
 
60,868 posts, read 24,012,941 times
Reputation: 11883
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
That is common practice when a organization is hacked. Standard procedure is a outside security company investigates the hack and the security company then gives copies of the information they obtained to law enforcement.
It is not common practice where government computers are concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Stasis
14,534 posts, read 8,071,299 times
Reputation: 7550
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It is not common practice where government computers are concerned.
The DNC server is not a government computer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 09:00 PM
 
10,267 posts, read 4,161,436 times
Reputation: 6657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
British intelligence warned the US in 2015 that the Russians got into the DNC servers, long before this supposed "inside download job" happened.

And yes, the credibility of these ex-employees is questionable. Happens all the time where former employees become expert witnesses in lawsuits. What they say depends on who pays them.
Expert witnesses don't lie because then they lose their credibility and their livelihood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 09:02 PM
 
60,868 posts, read 24,012,941 times
Reputation: 11883
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
The DNC server is not a government computer.
Hillary was supposed to be using government computers. Obama warned her about this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 09:05 PM
Status: "Conservative Liberal" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: USA
16,440 posts, read 11,921,166 times
Reputation: 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
They were looking for someone with an industrial metal shredder, and the FBI didn't have one. So why turn it over?
I could only imagine the outrage if Trump or any other Republican destroyed their servers and cell phones
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 09:34 PM
 
5,689 posts, read 5,710,355 times
Reputation: 4384
The British intelligence turned out to be GCHQ which happened to be spying on Trump in 2015 also. They were trying to build a case against Trump on the basis of ties to Russia.

The 17 intelligence agencies assessment turned out to have been a misrepresentation.

There are a lot of credibility problems on the Russia hack case that were brought up before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Texas
19,827 posts, read 8,047,165 times
Reputation: 4332
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Expert witnesses don't lie because then they lose their credibility and their livelihood.
When they get caught.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
19,827 posts, read 8,047,165 times
Reputation: 4332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
British intelligence warned the US in 2015 that the Russians got into the DNC servers, long before this supposed "inside download job" happened.
The rub was why and how GCHQ came up with this since it's not the type of thing intelligence agencies share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
And yes, the credibility of these ex-employees is questionable. Happens all the time where former employees become expert witnesses in lawsuits. What they say depends on who pays them.
Show proof why their credibility is in question.

Two expert witnesses can disagree. It happens enough. Sometimes you don't have to pay them for the "truth".

Lack of credibility to anyone who said there were 17 intelligence agencies who were in on the Russia report when only 3 were. The FBI, CIA, and NSA. When someone says another is guilty and offers no physical evidence they lack credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top