Agnostic.com

5 15

Trump claims his campaign was hacked, but the hacker only sent the hacked emails to one outlet that refuse to publicize it. Not exactly the move of a foreign adversary that wants to take your campaign down. Why didn't they send it to multiple outlets with more horsepower than Politico? The NYT, WAPO, or USA Today? I think it is more of his ear booboo BS.

glennlab 10 Aug 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

A leak in the sea.

0

The persecution of Jullian Assange did it's job. Media should publish without fear or favour. The comments here compared to the attitude with the DNC hack, passed on to wikileaks, says a hell of a lot to me about peoples rock solid moral positions ie depends what side we are talking about where I stand.

puff Level 8 Aug 12, 2024

Journalist first have to determine if the information they have gotten is true, then they have to decide for themselves the morality of how it was obtained and weigh that against the public's right to know.

Assange was persecuted by the trump administration, there is no doubt about that, but he was no journalist. Glad he is back home.

@glennlab I do believe the real hatred started at the DNC hack. RIP Seth Rich. Clinton hated Assange because she seems to encourage whistleblowers for some reason. Benghazi and Syria. Then not a hack, just some space cadet forfeiting their laptop due to failure to pick it up.
But how different your reaction to these hacky like things? Is all the info contained in the public interest? That is a journalists only concern, not the morality of how it was obtained. That is law enforcements concern. Today, journalists are cowered by law enforcement, unable to report in the public interest freely.
I learnt in the spook game, if you deem certain information is sensitive then it is up to you to secure your own information. If it gets out, then it is a direct failure of your own security. Blaming others is covering up your own flaws and not fixing the problem ie your own security..

@glennlab Wikileaks also released a recording of Victoria Nuland discussing with the US embassy in Ukraine on whom they should put in power after the coup in 2014, prior to any public talk of coup in Ukraine.

He was the best of journalists, creating a space for whistleblowers using new technology as media had become compliant to government power.

@glennlab The U.S. Government's crackdown on Julian Assange began in earnest around 2010 during the Obama Administration, following the publication of classified documents by WikiLeaks, which he founded. The situation escalated significantly in 2019 when the U.S. charged him with multiple offenses, including conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. Assange was arrested in April 2019 after being evicted from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had sought asylum since 2012. Since that time, he has faced ongoing legal battles regarding extradition to the United States.

So you are correct in saying Assange was persecuted under the Trump Admin, no doubt indeed, but the persecution started way before 2019 though, it's just that it reached its height by 2019. It appears everyone under the sun wanted a crack at Assange.

@glennlab [reuters.com]

@puff The story you referred to above involved a leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland, who was then the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. This call, which indeed took place in early February 2014, was leaked and became widely known. In the conversation, Nuland discussed the political situation in Ukraine and mentioned preferences for certain opposition leaders.

The context of the call was during the Euromaidan protests, which ultimately led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. The leaked conversation sparked significant controversy and debate regarding U.S. involvement in Ukraine's political affairs. Critics argued that it demonstrated U.S. interference in Ukraine's internal politics, while supporters contended that the U.S. was merely expressing its views on the situation. I suspect it was the latter of the two there.

While the call did take place and was leaked, interpretations of its implications vary, and it is important to consider the broader context of the events in Ukraine during that time.

@puff It started way earlier than the DNC hack, it started during Vietnam with the Pentagon Papers and the NYT, republicans have been trying to criminalize journalism ever since. You conflate too many unrelated incidents each with their own set of facts. Journalist (as someone that had to oversee them for 10 years) must concern themselves with the weight of the morality of how information was obtained versus the public's right to know. Editorial boards make that decision on a daily basis and they are not always in agreement with each other.

I still tell people that the most secure system has an air gap, then I have to explain that.

@SpikeTalon It is, but the fact it got out really pissed off the CIA. But rather than blame Nuland for a lack of security awareness in using an unsecure line, or determine how their supposed secure line was compromised, they chose to shoot the messenger. And shoot that messenger so badly that other messengers thought twice before doing their job aka delivering messages. The general media.
If Assange is guilty of anything, it is advising on how to download information quicker or something like that. How to get it to him online. The whistleblowers would have whistleblown anyway.
Foreign interference in politics. Glass houses.

@glennlab I was talking wikileaks specifically, formed 2006. The computer age has changed the handling and distribution of classified material massively eg I spent hours at an incinerator burning documents prior to personal computers.

@puff Talked to some guys still on active duty, they still have to burn, but now they also have to de-mil the hard drives and make sure that no one takes thumb drives out. I hated burn day, except you got to go home early to shower.

@glennlab we had to crush the ashes then hose it all too. I remember thinking Trump with twitter, what a f'n security nightmare. Not only that he may let something slip, but that unknowns had access to him and thus may influence his decision making. I'm amazed they let him have it so long. Was entertaining though 😉

@puff Kissinger was almost as bad, the difference was he had so much classified information memorized that he would forget what was and what wasn't classified. They had to cover for him numerous times. The problem with trump is that he didn't care and treated classified as casual information. Comsec meant nothing to him.

@glennlab They over classify too. I think psycho types, narcs, those that lack empathy basically love the online world because it is 2 dimensional. No direct human interaction ie can lie, not hide body language etc etc and it feeds vanity.
Even when I was in the military late '80's, it was known don't tell politicians anything sensitive as they like to big note themselves. Security can be paranoid eg I worked with radar and we were told to not talk ie assume the "enemy" didn't even know the Aust army had this kit. Don't even talk about it with family and friends we were told. Then lo and behold a few weeks later; "Get ready lads, we are having demonstrations on the base open day next week". There was pictures of us and our kit on the news that night.

1

Your observation does raise a valid point(s) about the motivations and strategies behind that supposed hacking incident, especially in the context of it being a political campaign that was the target there. It's too early yet to tell for sure, and more evidence will probably come out in the weeks ahead, and there are a few points to take into consideration.

Targeted messaging- If the hacker sent the emails to only one outlet, it could suggest a specific agenda or a desire to control the narrative. They might have believed that this outlet would handle the information in a way that aligns with their goals, whether that be to expose certain information or to create a specific impact. A strategic move in other words, and if that be a genuine hack job I'm sure the hacker(s) would want to minimize the risks in that being traced back to them.

Credibility and or perceived trustworthiness- The choice of Politico could also be based on the perceived credibility of that outlet. If the hacker believed that the outlet would be more trustworthy or less likely to sensationalize the information, they might have opted for that route. Given how Politico could be considered a conflicted source when it comes to presenting fully unbiased information, I doubt this be the case. That however is my personal perception, and there's plenty of people out there who would disagree on that, so then again...

Risk of exposure- Sending hacked information to multiple outlets increases the risk of being traced back to the hacker. A more cautious approach might involve limiting the distribution to reduce the chances of detection. In looking at that from a cybersecurity analyst's point of view, that makes sense as a possible scenario, and down the road more intel might get leaked to additional sources. In that context, it might not be that unusual of a scenario afterall.

Political strategy- Such a scenario could also be part of a larger political strategy. If the goal was to create a narrative of victimization or to draw attention to the issue of hacking itself or even internal struggles within the campaign, then sending the information to a single outlet might serve that purpose better, for the time being anyways. Right now the leak is with one source, but tomorrow there could be more leaks.

Outlet's response- The refusal of the outlet to publicize the information could indicate that they found the material to be unsubstantiated, ethically questionable, or not even newsworthy to begin with. It's my understanding that to date Politico has yet to independently verify the identity of the hacker(s) or their motivation(s). This could further complicate the narrative around the hacking incident.

In conclusion, while it may seem unusual for a hacker to limit the distribution of hacked materials, again there could be various strategic reasons behind such a move. Proper context is crucial, and understanding the motivations of both the hacker and the outlet could provide us with a clearer picture of that situation. That's my take on that from a cybersecurity analyst's perspective, and I've been studying all things cybersecurity since about 2016 and in particular various hacking methods. At this point, we simply don't know for certain what to believe, but I'm sure more evidence will come out that will either indicate a legitimate hack job on a political campaign, or if camp Trump is freaking out over what would have amounted to a crude prank.

I have to agree, we need to wait and see, and you do have some very valid points. It is still highly suspicious.

@glennlab I'd concur to an extent with all of that being suspicious due to the fact that over the years Trump has either lied too many times or fabricated stories, so when something like this comes up people are hesitant to initially take his claims at face value due to what his past has been like. I'm reminded of that story the boy who cried wolf...

That aside, if that hack job turns out to be true, the Democrats would be wise to take it seriously, as any sort of foreign hack jobs could conceivably negatively impact them too, as no individual or entity is immune to hacking, and if malicious crackers targeted the Republicans they could easily do the same to Democrats.

@SpikeTalon NSA staff are saying both campaigns have been targeted, but after the DNC and Hilary hacks, the DNC and Kamala are being much more cautious than the trump org. The discussion is going on as we are typing, so the updates are fresh.

5

Ho Hum. Remember this guy use to call in to radio shows pretending he was someone else.
I do not believe a word he says.

7

Anything that he says will be seen as absolute truth to his cult members.
That is how he stirs his base.
Like telling them to march down to the Capital and fight like hell.

Unity Level 8 Aug 12, 2024
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:763853
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.