The Hillary Thread II

[Forty Two]

As Emperor of Tasmania, what will you do to make amends for the treatment of indigenous Tasmanians, like the forced removal of indigenous peoples to Flinders island and subsequent genocide?

As far as I'm aware there aren't any descendants of the Tasmanian Aborigines. It was a complete genocide.

That's the best way to do a genocide. No pesky heirs to go on bleating about reparations and rights of return and whatnot.

[Forty Two]

Did they say how they identified the hackers in the "Grizzly Steppe" report? It seems to me they've done a fine job outlining how the hacks were achieved, but not so much on how the hackers were identified. They just seem to assert their identities.

So far, there has been no publication of who the hackers were, or how they know. Just general references to methods and capability and motive, and those references are always by "unnamed sources on condition of anonymity." I.e., bullshit.

[Brian Peacock]

Did they say how they identified the hackers in the "Grizzly Steppe" report? It seems to me they've done a fine job outlining how the hacks were achieved, but not so much on how the hackers were identified. They just seem to assert their identities.

So far, there has been no publication of who the hackers were, or how they know. Just general references to methods and capability and motive, and those references are always by "unnamed sources on condition of anonymity." I.e., bullshit.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/29/f ... ost-trump/

[Jason]

Did they say how they identified the hackers in the "Grizzly Steppe" report? It seems to me they've done a fine job outlining how the hacks were achieved, but not so much on how the hackers were identified. They just seem to assert their identities.

So far, there has been no publication of who the hackers were, or how they know. Just general references to methods and capability and motive, and those references are always by "unnamed sources on condition of anonymity." I.e., bullshit.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/29/f ... ost-trump/

And? We now know the codenames of those they claim are responsible. We still don't know who they are or how they know they're responsible.

[Forty Two]

Did they say how they identified the hackers in the "Grizzly Steppe" report? It seems to me they've done a fine job outlining how the hacks were achieved, but not so much on how the hackers were identified. They just seem to assert their identities.

So far, there has been no publication of who the hackers were, or how they know. Just general references to methods and capability and motive, and those references are always by "unnamed sources on condition of anonymity." I.e., bullshit.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/29/f ... ost-trump/

The occupy democrats site links to its source, The Hill, and apparently the report is short on actual evidence.

security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic "proof" to confirm the government's attribution. Private security firms — like CrowdStrike, who investigated the DNC breach — went much further, they say.

"The DHS statement is a restatement of already known public information, a series of technical indicators that are intended for use by cybersecurity professionals in finding and remediating APT28 malware on private sector networks, and some generic advice for companies as to how to improve their network security," said Matt Tait, founder of the U.K.-based security consultancy Capital Alpha Security.

APT28 refers to one of the hacking groups affiliated with Russian intelligence believed to have infiltrated the DNC.
The U.S. report, known as a “Joint Analysis Report” or JAR, refers to the Russian hacking campaign as “Grizzly Steppe.”

It comes as part of a slate of retaliatory measures against Russia issued Thursday by the Obama administration in response to the hacks, and expands on a joint statement issued by the two agencies in October, formally attributing the attacks to Russia.

In the October statement, officials described the the hacks and subsequent publication of stolen emails on WikiLeaks as an attempt to “interfere” with the U.S. election that is “consistent with the Russian-directed efforts,” but provided no evidence to support their assessment.

"That this document doesn't engage with the question of attribution seems, to me, to be quite deliberate," Tait noted. "It's purpose is to act as a measure against Russia (by adding a U.S. stamp of approval to private sector information, and making life harder for APT28 by exposing some of their malware), not to persuade the public that the DNC hack was by Russia."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ia-hacking

So..... we're not saying it's Russia, but it's Russia.

[Jason]

Exactly. These reports provide 2 diagrams of how they think the hacks happened and zero evidence to support any of it - most glaringly the assertion that Russia is responsible. They don't even present evidence that these "APTs" are responsible. It's just asserted.

The report is pure fluff.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It appears that neither Śiva nor Forty Two ever bothered to read the reports by private cyber-security firms that contain much more detailed evidence than the government has been willing to produce to date. When I provided links to a couple of these publicly available reports (there are more than those two), Śiva didn't bother to read them, and instead asked to be spoon-fed. So it goes.

[Forty Two]

I've read it, and it's a lot of assertion, with little offer of proof. The blurb you quoted, for example, was Crowdstrike standing by its findings that "two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network" - that's the best bit, I guess. Crowdstrike found russian intelligence AFFILIATED adversaries "present" in the DNC network. That's hardly damning and hardly evidence. What's the coup-de-gras? What's the best evidence that the Russians did the hacking?

[Jason]

It's your claim that they contain the evidence. The burden lies with you to prove it. You don't know how argumentation actually works do you?

For the record, I glanced at them, found nothing, and called on you to show me where this evidence is.

[Brian Peacock]

Hmm. You're saying the report is inconclusive because what it shares of the evidence isn't complete, or at least doesn't meet your particular standards to your particular satisfaction in this particular case. I guess you either trust the source or you don't - either the US intelligence services are trustworthy or they aren't.

[Hermit]

What's the coup-de-gras?

Finally getting fatally hit by a liver if you don't duck, you goose.

OK. Ask me another one.

[Jason]

Was there any evidence in it? It was a 2-page infographic and 12 pages of recommendations on how to deal with similar potential threats in the future. What it amounts to is a formal assertion, a paragraph or two long. I trust evidence, and they've provided none.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's your claim that they contain the evidence. The burden lies with you to prove it. You don't know how argumentation actually works do you?

For the record, I glanced at them, found nothing, and called on you to show me where this evidence is.

Your bleating about having "glanced at" the available information then accusing me of not knowing how argumentation works is amusing. I provided the sources of information, but it's not up to me to feed you pre-digested portions. If after actually reading what's there you can make valid criticisms, that would be an example of "how argumentation works."

This goes for Forty Two as well, who criticizes the quote that I provided, but appears not to have read either of the sources.

For good measure, here's another article about what private cyber-security firms have found:

"Findings from Analysis of DNC Intrusion Malware"

It appears that certain folks aren't willing to believe the unanimous findings of government intelligence agencies, and when offered information from non-government entities, they'd rather glance at it and pronounce it inadequate. So it goes.

[Jason]

It's your claim that they contain the evidence. The burden lies with you to prove it. You don't know how argumentation actually works do you?

For the record, I glanced at them, found nothing, and called on you to show me where this evidence is.

Your bleating about having "glanced at" the available information then accusing me of not knowing how argumentation works is amusing. I provided the sources of information, but it's not up to me to feed you pre-digested portions. If after actually reading what's there you can make valid criticisms, that would be an example of "how argumentation works."

No it isn't you execrable little turd of a sniper. Where do you normally frequent? Ratskep? It is not sufficient to provide a link to material which you claim substantiates your point. Try that for a research project and see how far it gets you. I did you the favour of looking at it, which is more than is reasonably required of me to do for my opponent, found nothing and asked you to point to where this evidence you claim exists is. Perhaps we have different standards of evidence. By my standards I found none. You've done nothing but snipe, waffle, and try to shift the burden of proof for your claim on to me.

[Jason]

"Findings from Analysis of DNC Intrusion Malware"

Similarities in the code in the malware to code used in other malware in other attacks by the groups alleged to be responsible for the DNC hack isn't evidence of the truth of that allegation. Malware code is often shared between groups, especially old code that has already been deployed. The malware could have originated from almost anywhere - you can buy malware code on the Darknet like almost anything else.

That's like accusing Toyota of sponsoring terrorism because all the terrorists use Toyota Hilux's - they're just good, effective, and readily available.

ETA: Actually it's like accusing Japan of sponsoring terrorism because Toyota has affiliations with Japan.