[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /sec/ - 3258



File: 1483483119501.png (145.45 KB, 300x169, trump-minus-trump.png)

No.3258

I often get the impression that the majority of cybersecurity problems arise from the immense knowledge gap between people who genuinely understand the issue and the general public. I don't mean only the technical intricacies---which are understandably outside the realm of public knowledge---but also the broader, "obvious" concepts, like what constitutes a security breach. Then there's the press who, in a race to see who can get the more click-baity headline, will publish things which are misleading at best or totally fabricated at worst. This kind of sensationalism only expands this gap and, in my view, is making the general discipline of cybersecurity more difficult. The media's recent characterization of the recent election as having been "hacked" is one of the more egregious examples of this behavior.

An election has two parts. In the first part, votes are cast. In the second part, the votes are counted. This is an essential point, because if you do not understand that, then nothing that will follow can make sense to you.

Headlines that read some formulation of "Russia Hacked the US Election" are, to put it bluntly, wrong. They are fantastically wrong. It may be the case that bad actors intended to influence voters to cast their votes in a particular way. However, the continual repeated assertion that the election was "hacked" has given a large percentage of the voting population the impression that the casting or counting of ballots was affected. No credible source has made this assertion. Even if for the sake of argument it were the case that certain districts were hacked, many states do not use machines connected to the Internet, so flipping the election on a national scale would likely not be possible. Yet somehow, that has become a part of the national zeitgeist.

I am probably just ranting. I guess my larger question is, "How do you talk about this subject with people who are fundamentally clueless?" Furthermore, "How do you *unteach* someone who has accepted as fact an incorrect premise?"

  No.3262

>>3258

To be fair I think you missed another common use of the word 'hack'. That is to say, engineer a way to control. Now the election, in your definition is a particular narrow set of events. Which you aren't incorrect in saying so, but again, the colloquial understanding of the "election" is often used to include the campaigning, fundraising, and other aspects the US often focuses on during the entire process. The part I think you avoided, by the virtue of using a far too narrow a definition, is the social aspect of "hacking." Social engineering fits perfectly find into the domain of "hacking" or "breaches". Since hacking, if we use even the self-described definition of the word, is often used in a context that deals with the metaphysical relationship between the hacker and their exploits.

And on the whole, I think its pretty well understood that state-sponsored acts tend to involve a large social component when that particular state seeks to change some fundamental fact pertaining to /a large portion of a population/.

Now, the issue I DO have is with the evidence pointing the finger at Russia. Someone hacked Clinton's email server. Someone leaked to wikileaks during the election cycle. It's not far fetched to believe that maybe that singular someone (or some group) wanted to influence public opinion by doing so. And in that respect, is par for the course in social engineering.

  No.3265

>>3262
Sounds like you have legit autism there buddy boi

  No.3266

>>3265

that's some quality baitposting.

  No.3267

>>3266
>people telling me that I am overly analytical to the point of pure autism must be giving me a ruse

Do you honestly believe a common place simpleton will think the same way you do?
They will hear "russia hacked the election", see retards gathering money for recounting the votes and they will jump to conclusions about what is happening. And that is what the media and DNC really wants.
They want idiots to trust them and smug autismal deceiving users like you that will peddle the lies for some higher end goal, but everyone sees the lies through the thin veil.

  No.3268

>>3267

I gave you a full fledged answer, you react by claiming 'muh autism'. At that point you ceased discussing in good faith. Don't post if you can't take a measured response to your OP (yes people might hold differing opinions), don't post. At this point, I lost respect for you and any fruitful conversation.

Ciao.

  No.3300

File: 1483495734709.png (64.12 KB, 200x126, countymapredblue.png)

>>3268
You are not talking to OP, because I am OP and that guy is just being overly critical.

Still, to your point about social engineering I have to disagree. Your definition is broad to the point of being meaningless. Entities trying to persuade the public to act in a certain way is not something out of the ordinary in an election campaign. If I were to include your understanding of social engineering in "hacking" in regards to a political campaign, then literally every single election that has ever happened since the dawn of democracy has been "hacked."

The average person hears "Russia hacked the election," and understands that to mean "The voting that occurred on election day was in some way modified so that the results would be different." That's fundamentally different from what you're suggesting.

This kind of reporting does a disservice for the general public because it gives them a false impression of reality. It further increases the gap between the people who know about these things and the people who don't.

  No.3316


  No.3334

Here is Assange talking about this stuff himself
https://youtu.be/fGlYf7UPTM4

  No.3341

Maybe it's my sources of information, but I haven't heard it phrased the way you describe. Russian influence yes, claims of russian state actors as responsible for DNC/DCC hacks (actual).

  No.3352

>>3341
Just search for "russia hacked the election"
You will see what we are talking about

  No.3360

>3352
You can put anything in a search engine and find results.

It's called Fake News. i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TChnz9K4q-Q

Do we have any real examples of OP's allegation to critique?

  No.3361

>>3360
At this point I think OP and the /rest/ of /us/ are debating the semantics of the word "hack".

Literal vs. Figurative

  No.3363

>>3361
Semantics of words are irrelevant and meaning of the words used are vague for a reason.

What matter is how general population reacts to the news of "russia hacked the election". And by those standards 52% of democrats believes that votes have been rigged.

That tells you everything m8.

I mean, when you listen to Obummer talk, he never say "hack" even. He just says "Russia influenced the election". Its obvious that these fuarrrkers try to run as far away as from talk about DNC/Wikileaks as possible.

  No.3364

>>3363
A pat statistic really tells you nothing. What is that supposed to say in of itself? One could cite the systematic statistical failures where they over projected voter turnout for Hillary as the cause for this belief. Continuously toeing the issue of influence points right back to wikileaks. The two concepts cannot be decoupled from each other given our collective memory of the overall election period.

Anyways, the semantics is referencing OP vs. replies in this thread, not the greater news sphere as to what constitutes "hacking".

But of course we can argue semantics in that greater sphere as well.

  No.3365

>>3258
>How do you *unteach* someone who has accepted as fact an incorrect premise?"

Present them with the information you found and encourage them to do their own research. That's all we can ever do really.

  No.3376

>>3258
If Wikileaks had released another batch of secrets about corruption of some dictator in say, the Middle East or Latin America, then the people and the system of that country had proceeded to throw that fuarrrker down, would anyone speak about a 'hacking' of that country?
Wikileaks did what Wikileaks does, which is to impose transparency on powerful parties which try to avoid it.
Unless someone can prove that some or all of the leaked material was false, anyone spreading the 'election was hacked' narrative is simply attesting they are against transparency, and don't want corruption exposed (or at least don't want it when they support they people doing it, which is basically the same thing).

To the more meta question on the thread, I believe what we're seeing now with internet and everything surrounding it is an evolutionary leap. Think of when men discovered the wheel, or started manipulating fire. Those that caught on with the discovery survived, the others were slowly exterminated. It's a very harsh point of view, but since it is now pretty clear that this technology is here to stay, and not just some passing phase, I don't think there's any other way of looking at it.

  No.3379

>>3376
>would anyone speak about a 'hacking' of that country
If the information was acquired through illegal means by a group operating out of another country that regularly went after targets that would benefit their country's government and the leaks consisted of politicians being politicians, then yes people would complain. Do you honestly think the international community wouldn't be railing against the US if the roles were flipped?

>they are against transparency

Except only one side having this happen to them is not transparency, just like turning a blind eye to criminals who's actions benefit you while at the same time going after other criminals is not justice.

  No.3381

>>3379
>Except only one side
Perhaps the leaked "grab them by the pussy" statement that the Democrats ran with was also treated with contempt, no? Oh wait, no one cared about Trump's privacy because his morals were being called into question, as they should have been. If someone is being corrupt or secretive, we have a right to know (though personally I view Trump's leak a little personal, but I know my audience).

  No.3383

People on the Russophobia bandwagon need to understand that the leaks aren't what did $hillary in, it was that she was a terrible candidate. People aren't dumb, they know that that the DNC and the RNC are corrupt.

  No.3384

>>3379
>Do you honestly think the international community wouldn't be railing against the US if the roles were flipped?

They probably wouldn't. US is still viewed as stronk by the nations that would care. The UN would probably just give the US a slap on the wrist and it would be back to normal.

  No.3386

>>3381
Except that quote wasn't leaked, it resurfaced as people fought to discredit Trump. It wasn't a personal comment recorded behind closed doors; the recording in question was from candid conversation with an interviewer, and to claim you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking to a member of the press without explicitly speaking off-record is laughable. Trump's assumption that his mic was off doesn't confer a reasonable expectation of privacy and to make that recording an issue of privacy is ridiculous.

Attempting to discredit Trump was clearly a bad strategy, but liberal media outlets don't know how to constructively communicate to a voting public any more and voters across the spectrum have little faith in media and the political system. For all the liberal hoopla about being intellectually superior to all those knuckledragging right-wingers, they sure as hell can't see the bigger picture. Personally, I see Trump as a symptom of late-stage capitalism, nothing more. "We're trapped in the belly of this machine and the machine is bleeding to death." Accelerationism at its finest.

More to OP's point, however, I think it's impossible to communicate intermediate or advanced concepts to a public that cannot fathom the basic information necessary for comprehension of those concepts. It's a losing battle. You'd have to completely re-educate those people in order for them to gain understanding. Modern media, especially given its sensationalist bent and obsession with turning any event into a distilled newsbyte devoid of context, is completely unsuited for the task of education.

  No.3387

>>3376
If you're saying that information leaked through illegal means is not valid as means for transparency, then you're against transparency. Or at least against any possibility of it in the present world situation.

> Do you honestly think the international community wouldn't be railing against the US if the roles were flipped?

Are you joking? How many times has the US been involved in this kind of thing, or even much worse, and nothing happened? Even when there was proof of it. And in this case, there are no proofs of any kind yet. You are aware of that, right?

> Except only one side having this happen to them is not transparency

Yes it is. It's more transparency than there was before, if more information of things before hidden have been revealed. Now you may say that the intention behind it was not transparency, but then you'd need to show evidence that Wikileaks had things against Trump and willingly withheld it. Do you have it?

  No.3388

>>3376
my issue isn't that the DNC was hacked, but that the RNC wasn't hacked. Shows partisanship on the part of the wikileaks-hacker relationship.

Also, "complete transparency always," on its own is a bad ideal. Innocent people could be targeted, and there's a lot that you probably don't want out in the open.

  No.3390

>>3387
>If you're saying that information leaked through illegal means is not valid as means for transparency,
No, I'm saying that information being leaked about one side in an issue through illegal means is not transparency.

>and nothing happened

The US kicks around smaller countries that can't actually do soykaf in return.

>And in this case, there are no proofs of any kind yet. You are aware of that, right?

Multiple computer security companies such as CrowdStrike, FireEye, and Fidelis agree on what I posted. What are your credentials for claiming they're all wrong?

>but then you'd need to show evidence that Wikileaks had things against Trump and willingly withheld it.

Assange has been all over about having information on Trump. Here he will neither confirm or deny having information about Trump:
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=489386392
Here he said they had information but it wasn't controversial enough:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-donald-trump/
Here he said he never received any information about Trump:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-dirt-donald-trump-founder/story?id=43390617
Here he said they had information about Trump but didn't release it because it was already posted elsewhere without saying anything about what the information was or where it was posted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/16/wikileaks-founder-assange-on-hacked-podesta-dnc-emails-our-source-is-not-russian-government.html
Between his claim about not having information when he previously claimed to have information and him saying the information wasn't controversial enough when they release a good amount of data that isn't controversial at all anyways, I'd say the situation seems rather odd.

  No.3391

>>3388
>Shows partisanship on the part of the wikileaks-hacker relationship.

I think you mean on whoever is wikileaks' supplier. Which is certainly possible.

It's also possible that the RNC just happens to have better security.

>Innocent people could be targeted, and there's a lot that you probably don't want out in the open.


Wikileaks claims they try to only publish things that contain relevant information.

  No.3392

>>3388
> Shows partisanship on the part of the wikileaks-hacker relationship.
> shows
Wrong word. It may suggest, but it doesn't show. There are several other possible reasons for that besides intention. Unless you can prove it was intentional, then it's just stupid to just assume it was, and make serious accusations, with geopolitical consequences, based on your assumptions.

  No.3395

>>3391
>Wikileaks claims they try to only publish things that contain relevant information.
Like when they published the names, addresses, and political affiliations of a ton of Turkish citizens after the recent coup? That seems completely relevant and unlikely to result in innocent people being targeted.

  No.3396

For OP:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
Useful guide I read a few years ago

>>3391
>I think you mean on whoever is wikileaks' supplier
no wikileaks too see >>3390 (not me)
>It's also possible that the RNC just happens to have better security.
I really doubt that, but it is possible
>Wikileaks claims they try to only publish things that contain relevant information.
a friend of mine was mentioned in a podesta email and shortly after attacked by the tea party so I know that's bullsoykaf (not saying who)

>>3392
semantics, u no wut wuz ment
>it's just stupid to just assume it was, and make serious accusations, with geopolitical consequences, based on your assumptions.
do you think someone's going to start a war over a lainchan thread? Putin is that you??

for more evidence, see >>3390 . Or how wikileaks and assange have a history of anti-semitic statements: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/wikileaks-accused-of-anti-semitism-for-using-echoes-in-tweet-insulting-critics/ . does it indicate partisanship? no, but it suggests it considering which presidential candidate had the nazi vote.

  No.3397

I still don't get how people assume he's this magical, non-political fairy when he's been sucking Ecuador's dick for the past 4.5 years and likely any other nation state who's not in NATO on the down low. There was nothing inherently wrong with the leak but taking him at his word about it not being Russians or politically motivated is absurd. Why would he double-cross a source who can and quite possibly would kill him if he did?

  No.3401

>>3397
>I still don't get how people assume he's this magical, non-political fairy
Not the case here. What people refusing to attack him are doing is to assume innocent until proven guilty. A process involved in a greater scope called being ethical.

> Why would he double-cross a source who can and quite possibly would kill him if he did?

Why assume this is the reason he is protecting this one source, if he's spent ten entire years protecting all his sources, no matter who they were, flawlessly?

> Assange has been all over about having information on Trump. (many sources)

Congratulations! You just proved Assange is a manipulative son of a bitch. Something everyone who's accompanied Wikileaks trajectory was aware for the best part of its existence. I would give you that this is enough reason to suspect him. Well yeah! Suspect everyone, and I'll respect you and most definitely listen to what you're saying. Assume something is true because things indicate it looks like that, and you're just being either a desperate puppet (Op's point) or have bad intentions.

> Multiple computer security companies agree on what I posted. What are your credentials for claiming they're all wrong?

When an expert says something seems to be the case, and ignorant or malicious people start claiming that this is certainly the case, any sane person has more than enough credentials to remind the others that there haven't been any proofs yet, and that they should calm down until those are presented.

  No.3406

>>3388
>neurosuggesting DNC was hacked
DNC insider leaked the info after he has seen what soykaf went against Bernie Sanders. Then he was found dead "from robbery" with a bullet in back of his head that didnt steal anything from him.

>"waah why didnt RNC got hacked too"

Nice partisanship bruh
No need to debate this point though, it's pretty self evident how much you would ignore DNCs bones in closet by shifting discussion on RNC and how "its da russians".

  No.3408

>>3258
By now what's going on in the thread probably answered OP's question
> stupidity
or
> deliberate lying?
Some people doing the first, and others the latter, both cases helping the world, and especially America, become a worse place.

  No.3409

>>3401
You really need to learn how to quote people on an imageboard.

>Congratulations! You just proved Assange is a manipulative son of a bitch. Something everyone who's accompanied Wikileaks trajectory was aware for the best part of its existence. I would give you that this is enough reason to suspect him. Well yeah! Suspect everyone, and I'll respect you and most definitely listen to what you're saying. Assume something is true because things indicate it looks like that, and you're just being either a desperate puppet (Op's point) or have bad intentions.

Assange's own comments point to bias considering he claims to have had information about Trump but treated it differently from how he has treated the other information that he's leaked in the past, such as when he claimed that he didn't post information about Trump because it wasn't controversial enough when the vast majority of the information he has posted isn't controversial at all. Believing that he's lying instead of taking him at his word here would be assumption.

>When an expert says something seems to be the case, and ignorant or malicious people start claiming that this is certainly the case, any sane person has more than enough credentials to remind the others that there haven't been any proofs yet, and that they should calm down until those are presented.

>this doesn't conform to my world view so I will just ignore the evidence that these companies have given, claim that it doesn't prove anything, and claim that anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or malicious

  No.3410

File: 1483815339822.png (41.82 KB, 200x124, wat2.jpg)

>>3406
>>neurosuggesting DNC was hacked
>multiple cyber security companies confirm it
>the alleged hacker has the documents posted on their blog
>the alleged hacker has even done interviews with news websites and says they hacked the DNC's computers
This news is almost 7 months old now. Stop acting like a child and claiming everything you don't like is fake.

  No.3412

File: 1483818682083.png (3.47 MB, 200x113, Serial_Experiments_Lain.webm)

>>3410
>he thinks Guciffer 2 leaked emails talking about DNC conspiring against Bernie Sanders or any of the juicy stuff

I was amongst the first people to download his files m8
He only posted soykaf about who donated to DNC and Clintons and what DNC schemes were to go against Trump (basically MSM talking points)

The reason why nobody even talks of Guciffer 2.0 is because
1) he is irrelevant (didnt leak anything of value)
2) he's ukranian

You're just trying conflate the main MSM story of "russian hacking", the emails from DNC and Guciffers 2.0 leaks as the same thing. It aint working m8.

Yea DNC was hacked, but we are talking about WL soykaf. The WL leaks about DNC. Keep up the pace.

  No.3413

>>3412
Either way the DNC was hacked and claiming they weren't hacked is a lie.

  No.3418

File: 1483828773856.png (65.54 KB, 134x200, 25bc7b75395348ab690a51f2fc073e1a934f534ff78cede3a4e3f06b471c76ab.jpg)

>>3413
For the purpose of this discussion, which is Podesta mails and DNC (wikileaks) leaks that information is irrelevant.

As I already said, by making these kind of vague statements without clarification of who did it (ukranian under name Guciffer 2.0) and what he leaked (pdfs of donations and talking points of DNC) you are concioussly or unconcioussly helping the misguided populace be outraged about this "russian hacking". By ommiting important information about irrelevant hacking you are conflating the talk of thread with something completely insignificant.

Either you DESIRE that these seperate stories conflate in people who are misguided by mainstream media or you are sperg who just cant get over technicality of matter.

Lets face it, Guciffer 2.0 hack of DNC has nothing to do with DNC (wiki)leaks.
Guciffer 2.0 hack showed no information of significance, and most people who voted against Hillary could utter the hacker allias if they had all but 1 letter of the allias.
And nobody knows about him because he is a ukranian kid who thinks he is hot soykaf because he "leaked" a donations list.

Do you know who knows/cares who Guciffer 2.0 is?
The same partisan hacks that wrote articles and had 1on1 chats with him, making "news" articles about how "he hacked the DNC, look, he's admitting it".
They, along with you, purposefully conflate the stories, omitting critical information. The only thing saving your asses is clear technicality.

And lets be totally honest with each other.
>>3388
Wasn't angry because donation lists of DNC were leaked. Or that the pdf of talking points against Trump were leaked.
He was angry about Podesta mails and Wikileaks DNC leak. And those two have NOTHING to do with DNC hacking.

You partisan fuarrrkheads have conflated the stories so hard that you plant ideas in brains in population who reads the title of "Russia hacked the election" and thinks that votes have been rigged.

Omitting information, using vague terminology and conflating stories to meet your end goals.
ALL TECHNICALLY CORRECT THOUGH.

DNC was hacked. Yep.

fuarrrking knobhead

  No.3422

File: 1483832269060.png (36.09 KB, 200x85, total_flip.png)

>>3408
Yeah this is my general feeling, though it does give me some insight. It's reasonable to assume that if you're on lain, you have a better understanding of these subjects than the average bear. And yet, all I see in this thread is
>But why wasn't the RNC hacked too?
>Who is Assange *really* working for?
>Wouldn't it be bad if the US did this to another country?
All irrelevant. The only person who seems to get it is >>3418

While it may (or may not) be true that the DNC was hacked, and while it may (or may not) be true that the culprit was a Russian state actor, the entire issue of the DNC leaks is completely separate from the election itself. As I said, an election has two parts: voting, and counting the votes. Yet while that remained unaffected, half of the Democrats think the election (again, the voting process itself) was modified. This is because headlines that read "US Election Hacked by Russia" communicates to normal literate people something that simply is not true. They are trying to convince people to believe in a falsehood. Anyone who tries playing some sort of semantic argument over the meaning of the word "hack" is being deliberately disingenuous. In the 1970s, a Nixon administration insider came forward with information that the president had been using the country's intelligence apparatus to spy on his political enemies. The ensuing scandal led to his resignation. No one in their right mind would say his resignation was "hacked."
(Source of poll: http://dailycaller. com/2016/12/27/poll-52-percent-of-democrats-believe-russia-rigged-voting-tallies/)

>>3360
>Do we have any real examples of OP's allegation to critique?
Some examples of irresponsible headlines. This list is by no means exhaustive. I don't want to spam the thread with links so google it if you think I'm fabricating any of these:
"How would computer hackers have rigged the US election against Hillary Clinton? A computer scientists explains" by Andrew Griffin, posted 11/24/2016 in UK Independent
"The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate." by David Corn, posted 11/16/2016 in Mother Jones
"Congress Must Investigate After NSA Chief Confirms Russians Hacked Democracy" by R Muse, posted 11/19/2016 in PoliticsUSA
"By any definition, Russia hacked the election." by Mark Sumner, posted 11/25/2016 in the Daily Kos
"A Muted Alarm Bell Over Russian Election Hacking" by Liz Spayd, posted 11/5/2016 in the New York Times

All I would ask any of these authors is what evidence do they have, if any, that the results of the November 8th election were modified by a hack? If the answer is "I don't have it," then you cannot argue in good faith that the election was hacked. You certainly cannot argue it was hacked "by any definition."

My problem is this entire conversation is leading us to a place where I think people will be inherently distrustful of technology for the wrong reasons; a distrust born out of a place of ignorance rather than knowledge. That cannot be healthy, and is an ill-omened portent of how the public will understand genuine cyberthreats in the near future.

  No.3425

The best way to secure yourself against "russian hackers" is to not be a dirty corrupt sack of soykaf.

  No.3440

>>3418
>by making these kind of vague statements
Like the one I was originally calling out here: >>3406 where the poster failed to differentiate what they were talking about from other events?

>goes into extreme us vs them bullsoykaf for the rest of the post and insults everyone who doesn't take his exact position on a complex issue

That's nice.

>>3422
>>But why wasn't the RNC hacked too?
One poster has said that.
>>Who is Assange *really* working for?
No one has said that. Some posters said that they believe Assange is biased in a discussion about if leaking information about only one side when you appear to have information on both is actually transparency and posted sources as to why they believe Assange is biased when asked, which is more than the people in this thread claiming the current information about the earlier DNC hacks being tied to later leaks isn't enough without giving any direct complaints about any part of the information available or what more information is needed when multiple cyber security companies have released information about it and the US government just declassified their report on it.

>While it may (or may not) be true that the DNC was hacked, and while it may (or may not) be true that the culprit was a Russian state actor, the entire issue of the DNC leaks is completely separate from the election itself.

And some posters in this thread are choosing to discuss the other aspects around this issue instead of following the strict framing of discussion about that you are trying to push because you want nothing other than insider trading that supports your view point on a complex issue.

  No.3441

>>3440
>insider trading
C!rc1e jerk!ng is filtered to insider trading now?

  No.3446

>>3418
>(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)
What did he mean by this?
If it was for Wrongthink, wouldn't it just be a silent deletion / shadowban?

  No.3448

>>3446
I think it was the rising cursing/ad hominem, and the mods wanted to avoid a flamewar

  No.3460

File: 1483950793321.png (209.83 KB, 200x200, hate_marine.gif)

>>3418
>(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)
Total digression for a moment...But I swear to Christ on the Cross the mods on this board must be either invertebrates or fungoid, because they're either spineless or brainless. Warned for what? Making sense? Steering the conversation towards the actually heart of the issue? Even if he were breaking a rule, you can't think to include that with the warning so the rest of us can understand your rationale?

I'll never understand this site that tries to exude this grungy, subversive, "cyberpunk" subculture, and then punishes its users when they behave as if they are part of that subculture. Why don't we just get it over with already? Change the color scheme to white, have each of us get our own profile with photos, and call it Lainbook.

Digression concluded.

  No.3461

>>3446
>>3460
Read the rules, the post was obviously breaking rule 3.

  No.3469

A video explaining why we shouldn't blindly trust the intelligence agency claims about russian hacking
https://youtu.be/S0xKvjRATJI

  No.3479

>>3461
And so is everyone else trying to conflate the DNC email leak with the idea that the Russians "hacked the election since they cannot be arguing such a crock "in good faith." Yes, one of these things did happen. The other didn't. Engaging in a disingenuous semantic game where you change the widely accepted meaning of words so that the DNC email leak can be called "Russians hacking the election" is an act of deliberate deception and it's blatantly partisan. If you think saying "Russia hacked the elections" is a factual statement, you're either deliberately uninformed (deliberate in that the truth is easily accessible to you) or you're being deliberately misleading. Calling someone out on that kind of behavior isn't a "personal attack."

In any case now that the CIA's declassified report has been widely discredited, demonstrating that this assertion of Russian interference is basically groundless, I'm glad that people who prioritize being informed over being "right" can put that myth to bed. The question now becomes, "Since this story is evidence free, why is the media still pushing it?"

  No.3480

>>3479
>now that the CIA's declassified report has been widely discredited

how so? I'd imagine if they were going to try to discredit the guy who's going to be their boss in 11 days, they wouldn't publish something if they didn't know for sure it was true.

  No.3481

>>3479
>And so is everyone else trying to conflate the DNC email leak with the idea that the Russians "hacked the election
Only discussion about hacking here has been talk about the Guciffer 2.0 hacks and the Podesta phishing which some have attributed to Russia. Despite constant attempts to paint people in the thread that way, no one has said they agree with ridiculous sensationalist headlines that some news companies have put out. Posters in this thread are just choosing to discuss the other aspects around this issue instead of following the strict framing of discussion about a complex issue that you are trying to push where either agreeing with you 100% or agreeing with sensationalist headlines are the only option.

>Calling someone out on that kind of behavior isn't a "personal attack."

Calling someone a "partisan fuarrrkhead" and "fuarrrking knobhead" while attacking a straw man sounds like a personal attack and not arguing in good faith to me.

>In any case now that the CIA's declassified report has been widely discredited

Where has it been discredited?

  No.3482

>>3481
>>In any case now that the CIA's declassified report has been widely discredited
>Where has it been discredited?
See, this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say someone is "deliberately uninformed." The following is by no means exhaustive:

From CNN:
>Michael Hayden, a former head of the CIA and National Security Agency, said Saturday that the newly-released intelligence report describing Russia's efforts to undermine the US election was "a brick short of a load."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/politics/michael-hayden-russian-intel-report-cnntv/

From a socialist publication:
>With the stakes being so high, the report itself is shockingly underwhelming. The 15-page report consists of, in addition to various cover pages and explanatory sheets, five pages recapitulating information already released by the government—without any evidence, even of the most general kind. Then, seven pages of bizarre content analysis and freshman-level marketing summaries on the television channel RT. Even more bizarre, the bulk of the information related to RT is five years old, yet somehow is being used as evidence of interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.liberationnews.org/highly-flawed-us-intelligence-report-on-russia-released/

From the Daily Beast:
>The unclassified report is unlikely to convince a single skeptic, as it offers none of the evidence intelligence officials say they have to back it up—none of those emails or transcripts of phone calls showing a clear connection between the Russian government and the political intrusions.
>This is the second official U.S. report in eight days to undercut the government’s assertion that Russia was behind the election-related hacks. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical document that was widely criticized by cybersecurity experts...“At every level this report is a failure,” security researcher Robert M. Lee told The Daily Beast about the DHS/FBI document. “It didn’t do what it set out to do, and it didn’t provide useful data. They’re handing out bad information to the industry when good information exists.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/u-s-spy-report-blames-putin-for-hacks-but-doesn-t-back-it-up.html

From Glen Greenwald on Democracy Now!:
>The real issue, though, is that there has been a very extreme dearth of evidence to actually support the claims that have come from the U.S. government, largely, though not exclusively, through anonymous sources laundered through newspapers. People were very skeptical, rightly so, when Julian Assange came out and declared that his source was not the Russian government... Unfortunately, there is very little skepticism being applied to the agencies that have repeatedly misled and deceived and lied to the American public, which is the CIA and other intelligence agencies, who, when they’re not lying, are often simply wrong, particularly when it comes to things like attribution of a hack, which is a very difficult thing to pin down.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_on_dearth_of_evidence

Too long? Didn't read? Here's a 5 minute video that requires no reading!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDR3TeLjNI

  No.3487

File: 1484025287055.png (46.03 KB, 200x200, 1456974192860.png)

>>3482
>asking someone to cite their claim is being "deliberately uninformed"

  No.3488

>>3487
>asking someone for google something for you is asking them to "cite their claim"

  No.3491

>>3487
it's a side effect of ironic people (who usually only care enough about a conversation to greentext and pair it with expressive faces :^] ) asking for source all the time even when they don't want to know it; people grow tired of being informative with trolls and other doohickeys and conclude that it's more fruitful for serious discussion to ignore people who don't show some effort before asking for source.
in this case, I have provided your a theory off thin air. if you were genuinely interested it's good, but if you were just an irony person, it's wasted effort. see how it works?

  No.3493

>>3487
>he doesn't want to inform himself on matter himself, he would rather like to be spoonfed like a baby in elementary school

  No.3494

File: 1484045199699.png (18.28 KB, 200x200, a074d1b6ebfdad1d18d8414c9bce57a49949b51b5bcef5107402b94601bd5aa2.jpg)

>>3493
Forgot picture
Here it is

  No.3495

>>3481
>no one has said they agree with ridiculous sensationalist headlines that some news companies have put out
What about >>3388 ?
(S)he believes that wikileaks has some kind of connection to hackers that leaked them info. No proof of such claims only news articles climing russians hacked and then leaked to Julian.

  No.3496

>>3481
>attacking a straw man
>>3418 didn't attack a strawman. He merely explained every possible scenario for why people act the way they do. Either cant get over technicality or purposefully just says "DNC hack" without mentioning Guciffer 2.0 or Russian in hopes those 2 stories are conflated.

Did you even read his post or did you just latch onto those insults ? It seems to me that the post was directed at you, because you can't get past the insults, as if they stiffle discussion, when in fact his post was more informative than posts of person he was responding to.

  No.3501

>>3482
coolio. Thanks kiddo.

  No.3502

>>3501
>the baby is spoonfed and ready for nappy
What?
I expected a burp, now for you to thank and go away.

  No.3504

>>3502
I asked for info, you gave me some, I thanked you. Stop being a bitch about it.

  No.3505

>>3504
Bitch about what?
Schooling you and you taking it like a dog with tail between his legs?
Pff bahahhaha

  No.3509

>>3504
Okay this person
>>3502
>>3504
is not the guy who posted all that stuff.

The lack of ID #s on this site is remarkably frustrating.

But you're welcome all the same.

  No.3514

>>3482
>http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/politics/michael-hayden-russian-intel-report-cnntv/
>main complaint seems to be not enough information for some of the accusations
>Hayden also urged the American people to have faith in the US intelligence community, even if the details weren't clear.
>Hayden warned against a partisan reading of the report
All right.

>From Glen Greenwald on Democracy Now!:

Source is from before the report was declassified and is irrelevant to this discussion.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDR3TeLjNI

>goes back to the "Russia hacked the election" sensationalist headlines and tries to divert to that whenever Russian influence is mentioned in ways other than hacking
>complains about people using "influence" instead of "hacking" trying to change the narrative
>cites an editorialized
>wants more of the CIA's evidence of Russian state involvement (nothing wrong here)
>deflects to Hillary did X and disregards that she was running in the election and isn't part of a foreign power, also disregards that some people will see problems with both
>claims that previous biased reporting from news agencies isn't evidence that they are biased because those actions were in the past
If this one is representative of the two that I skipped, then it really doesn't seem like the report has been discredited at all like you claim it was.

>>3496
>Did you even read his post or did you just latch onto those insults ?
The poster started attacking someone for using "vague statements" after simply being corrected for saying that the DNC was never hacked instead of saying that they weren't hacked in one specific case. There's also still reason to believe that the Podesta emails were retrieved through phishing (which still falls under hacking unless you don't think Kevin Mitnick was a hacker) and not from an inside source who leaked them as well.

>>3501
>>3502
>>3504
>>3505
Stop arguing with yourself.

  No.3515

Without becoming too engrossed in this discussion for the good, cease pointless insulting on either side of this.

To further this, the discussion should be shifted back to this aspect of the opening post, perhaps becoming more general in some aspects:
>I guess my larger question is, "How do you talk about this subject with people who are fundamentally clueless?" Furthermore, "How do you *unteach* someone who has accepted as fact an incorrect premise?"

Discussing the specifics of the election more, as this thread has been doing, may have it moved to /civ/.

  No.3564

>>3515
The challenge I'm realizing is that there's a strong political incentive for people to lie, mislead, and omit information when it comes to this particular case. Even so called experts will deliberately lie to their audience if it provides a political win. I don't know if you can correct someone of a falsehood when their worldview depends on it being true.

  No.3570

File: 1484361193107.png (343.55 KB, 200x170, PSYOPS_leaflet_Somalia_1993.jpeg)

>>3383
While no one can say for certain if the leaks did her in, they had a huge impact. Think of all the Bernie voters who would have been fine voting for Clinton but decided not to after all the internal DNC leaks which showed how the DNC treated him.

Anyway the whole thing about Russia hacking the election is way overblown. From all the information I've gathered, what Russia did was psychological operations on the American public in order to get them more on the side of Trump. If you read the emails, you would know that the DNC was running their own psychological operations on the American public as well in order to turn them more towards Clinton (Change the Record comes to mind). Not only that, but psychological operations aren't anything new, and the USA, Russia, China, and countless other countries have been running psychological operations in multiple countries for decades now. Some examples that come to mind is America dropping flyers in the Middle East (yes this is still a psychological operation), Russia in Eastern Europe, China going back to Sun Tzu, etc. You will find countless examples if you just google "psychological operations"

  No.3574

Why the hell was >>3409 warned and not >>3410 or >>3406? Admin bias? But the second two seemed to have opposite opinions...

  No.3575

>>3300

Your concept of hacking only being technical exploits are wholey unfounded. There was never a period where your definition of hacking was ever accepted. Ever.

I guess by your definition, Kevin Mitnick isn't much of a hacker because %60 of the work he did was social engineering. Even many more technical attacks like phishing require an element of social engineering.

The election "system" is just as much if not more a system of people than it is a system of machines, and that both are tightly woven together that you really cannot separate the two.

  No.3576

>>3381

When someone is running for public office they become a public figure and do not have the same expectations of privacy as everyone else does.

To a certain extent, their private life is now a matter of public importance.

  No.3580

>>3514
>arguing with yourself
Am I that obvious :|

  No.3598

File: 1484425098651.png (692.64 KB, 150x200, strawman.jpg)

>>3575
>Your concept of hacking only being technical exploits
Not even remotely what I was saying. But now that you've established a strawman, let's see how you do.

>I guess by your definition, Kevin Mitnick isn't much of a hacker because %60 of the work he did was social engineering.

My problem with what you are suggesting is that every single act of "social engineering" that Mitnick involved himself in included one extremely important element: fraud. Whenever he told someone "Hey I'm Mr. X from the telephone company and I need access to Y," he was lying. Whenever you get an email from the Prince of Nigeria saying that he'll wire you 10 trillion schmeckles if you give him your credit card number, he's lying. When someone sends you a virus executable disguised as a PDF, they're lying. When "Steven" from Punjab calls your house and says he's from the IRS, he's lying. When Mary from HR says she's needs your social security number for a legitimate reason, when in fact she intends to steal your identity, she's lying. Get my drift? If we were to accept your definition, every teacher must be some sort of "hacker" because they "socially engineer" their students into accepting the contents of their curricula as fact.

That extremely important element---deception---is not present here. The DNC has yet to deny the veracity of the documents that were leaked. The release of the documents cannot be called an act of fraud. On the contrary: when Donna Brazile denied that she had supplied the Clinton campaign with verbatim questions before a CNN town hall, *she* was lying. And when Buzzfeed and CNN just a few days ago reported on a dossier from an "ex-spy" detailing completely baseless accusations, they were acting deceptively. Would you now like to posit the argument that CNN and the DNC hacked the election, and are continuing to do so, but have so far failed to get their intended result? Or is your incredibly inclusive definition of hacking now suddenly inconvenient for you?

If we accept your remarkably broad definition of hacking which appears to include any and all forms of communication intended to persuade, then it includes such a wide array of activities as to render the term meaningless. If your friend calls you and says "Hey man, let's go to the mall, there's a sale at Hot Topic," and you agree to go and upon arrival discovery there is indeed a sale a Hot Topic, did your friend "hack" you into going to the mall? If you're driving and see a billboard for a strip club with the word "GIRLS" on it, and when you go to the strip club you do indeed find girls in there, did the strip club "hack" you? According to you, yes! I guess DEFCON ought to include "The Cyber Threat of Highway Billboards" into the agenda this year.

>The election "system" is just as much if not more a system of people than it is a system of machines, and that both are tightly woven together that you really cannot separate the two.

Right, but you (seem) to be arguing that this system was "hacked," and your argument is that basic persuasion and advertisement counts as hacking. In that case, every election that has ever happened since the very first election on planet Earth was "hacked." In that case, would you mind demonstrating how this election was any different, aside from your side losing?

  No.3604

>>3386
>More to OP's point, however, I think it's impossible to communicate intermediate or advanced concepts to a public that cannot fathom the basic information necessary for comprehension of those concepts. It's a losing battle. You'd have to completely re-educate those people in order for them to gain understanding.
>Modern media, especially given its sensationalist bent and obsession with turning any event into a distilled newsbyte devoid of context, is completely unsuited for the task of education.
It would seem then that the proper response is to get people to turn off the news. It's becoming increasingly clear that these news agencies are totally uninterested in giving their audience an accurate image of reality and are solely interested in advertising.

Again, the reason I think these distinctions between what constitutes a hack and what doesn't are important is because when the media reports "Russia hacked the US election," and then reports on unrelated vote recounts and unrelated cyberterrorism, they are deliberately giving the public a false impression of what happened. They are making people believe that the results of the November 8th election were in some way modified, which is an untruth. It causes the public to embrace an incorrect premise, and further increases the knowledge gap between those who are "in the know" and those who are not. Among the myriad of reasons I find this problematic, is that when the nation eventually faces a genuine cyberthreat, the public will be utterly unprepared to deal with it.

  No.3619

File: 1484459255274.png (2.28 MB, 200x133, 1433791194906.gif)

>>3598
>If we were to accept your definition, every teacher must be some sort of "hacker" because they "socially engineer" their students into accepting the contents of their curricula as fact.
Except Kevin Mitnick's actions were to achieve the goal of accessing computers, which is what makes his actions "hacking".

>The DNC has yet to deny the veracity of the documents that were leaked. The release of the documents cannot be called an act of fraud.

No one is talking about this situation involving fraud in that context.

  No.3632

>>3619
>>Except Kevin Mitnick's actions were to achieve the goal of accessing computers, which is what makes his actions "hacking".
Computers? I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the far broader domain of "systems?" Or was this >>3575 not you?
>The election "system" is just as much if not more a system of people than it is a system of machines

>>The DNC has yet to deny the veracity of the documents that were leaked. The release of the documents cannot be called an act of fraud.

>No one is talking about this situation involving fraud in that context.
I am asking you that if you think the election outcome was changed as a result of social engineering, where do you see the essential element of fraud? More to the point, if you believe the statement "Russia hacked the US election" is true, I would like you to explain specifically in what way you think that statement is true.

  No.3890

>>3570
>Anyway the whole thing about Russia hacking the election is way overblown. From all the information I've gathered, what Russia did was psychological operations on the American public in order to get them more on the side of Trump. If you read the emails, you would know that the DNC was running their own psychological operations on the American public as well in order to turn them more towards Clinton (Change the Record comes to mind). Not only that, but psychological operations aren't anything new, and the USA, Russia, China, and countless other countries have been running psychological operations in multiple countries for decades now. Some examples that come to mind is America dropping flyers in the Middle East (yes this is still a psychological operation), Russia in Eastern Europe, China going back to Sun Tzu, etc. You will find countless examples if you just google "psychological operations"

I'd agree with that, but I also think that Russia running psyops on our political processes is something about which we should get upset. I think it's different from the DNC running their campaign because the DNC is a group within this country that openly nominates a candidate. I would think that the middle Eastern countries to which the US does similar things would get angry in exact proportion to how much they think that they can do about it.