Final debate

[fuji]

Ok. I was hoping for a link or something solid. I searched and can only find stuff like this - FBI Suspects Russia in Hack of John Podesta Emails .

I know you're good at judging sources, and hopefully the Wall Street Journal is a creditable source. I can't find any article that's says Russia is 100% behind the hacks and how its proven. Only suspected of it.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsr...23-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511

October 07, 2016

Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
and Office of the Director of National Intelligence
on Election Security

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."



USIC is comprised of 17 intelligence agencies.

 

[bver_hunter]

You've answered your own question, no need for my imput.

Merci beaucoup.

 

[Jubee]

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsr...23-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

USIC is comprised of 17 intelligence agencies.

Well, "is confident" doesn't exactly mean "with 100% certainty we know it's them".

 

[bver_hunter]

It's not helpful to the debate to manipulate information like that. The opinion that you refer to is not that the Intelligence Agencies found Russia to be responsible, their opinion was that they believe they have a high degree of confidence that it was the Russians. Statements like that tell you that their opinion is less than certain. Spokespeople from the administration have been very careful to stop short of definitively accusing Russia of any of the published hacks when answering questions from the press. I suspect the reason is that the hacks are sufficiently sophisticated that the trail left behind does not definitively lead to an identifiable perpetrator. Perhaps, the trail indicates that the hack trail leads through Russian servers. Of course, that's exactly what hackers would do if they wanted to cast suspicion on the Russians and conceal their own identity. US intelligence officials are savvy enough to know this. People like Clinton, and you, cite the opinion as if the hackers have been identified. You will find absolutely no confirmation from the WH for this.

The debate would be a lot more civil if people stopped trying to overstate the facts.

If they were not certain that the Russians instigated this whole wikileaks issue during the elections, then they would have not made it public.
Why did Trump not dispute it?

 

[fuji]

Well, "is confident" doesn't exactly mean "with 100% certainty we know it's them".

It means they are confident it was Russia. Who do you believe, 17 US intelligence agencies? Or puppet?

 

[Jubee]

It means they are confident it was Russia. Who do you believe, 17 US intelligence agencies? Or puppet?

I'll put this another way, "I'm confident I'm good in bed............................."

 

[Smallcock]

It means they are confident it was Russia. Who do you believe, 17 US intelligence agencies? Or puppet?

Thiese are the same intelligence agencies that said Iraq had WMDs???

Short answer is nobody knows who was behind the hacks. Enough already.

 

[Jubee]

Thiese are the same intelligence agencies that said Iraq had WMDs???

Exactly.

 

[anon1]

I'll put this another way, "I'm confident I'm good in bed............................."

17 intelligence agencies say you are lying Donald.

 

[FAST]

YEP,...and one of the 17 "intelligence agencies" is going to disagree with the other 16,...AND the CIA,...

On a side note,...I have some slightly damp land in Florida for sale,...cheep,...anybody interested,...???

FAST

 

[Promo]

Well, "is confident" doesn't exactly mean "with 100% certainty we know it's them".

Words highlighted like "confident" and "we believe" are not proof, and certainly warrant further investigation.

"Confident" is a normal term used in the security and intelligence world. They are careful never to talk in absolutes, it gives the organization/government options when performing mitigation/resolution or during negotiations. For example in this case, if the gov't spoke in absolutes, they could be required by the public to take visible action (retaliate in kind, sanctions, etc.), however since it's worded as a strong allegation, negotiations (both public and back-door) could result in an American gain in other areas (Russians agree to stop and fully disclose their tools and techniques used for the hack).

I'm a big fan of historical espionage and spy novels, so I follow FBI and Homeland Security espionage and spy related releases and I work in the IT security industry. Both industries use these terms routinely. Check-out bulletins from the FBI or HS and you will see for yourself.

 

[fuji]

I truly appreciate providing a link. But this is not worthy of a Presidential candidate coming right out and accusing a nation or its leader during a national debate. IMO, Hillary jumped the gun, and spoke in haste.

She should have said "Our US Intelligence suspects Russia of hacking the emails", as that is truth. No article, or document like the one posted clearly shows Russia behind the email hacks.

Words highlighted like "confident" and "we believe" are not proof, and certainly warrant further investigation.

I still say, as a potential president, you don't want a candidate pointing fingers, or making accusations unless certain beyond all doubt. Plus lets be clear, this isn't accusing Donald Trump which if wrong, is no biggie. This is Putin and an entire Nation of Russia she is finger pointing to.

I've mentioned, with the click of a mouse, I can change my VPN to show my ISP from Israel. So why can someone do the same and point to Russia? I can do that too.

Without a full investigation, and iron clad proof to the hacks, do you not feel Hillary was at least premature in calling out Russia on this?

Sorry but "that's not mathematical proof" is a weak answer. The Director of National Intelligence has clearly stated that 17 US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the attacks.

Of course they aren't going to provide you with their classified sources. What they have provided you with is their official conclusion: Russia did it.

Who is more credible here, the DNI? Or Puppet?

 

[shack]

IMO it's a lot more important what is in the emails than who hacked them,

In that case, the equivalency would be this:

It's a lot more important what Trump's sexual accusers say that happened, than questioning their timing and motivation.

If your premise makes her guilty of the e-mails, then Trump is guilty of sexual assault.

 

[shack]

I still say, as a potential president, you don't want a candidate pointing fingers, or making accusations unless certain beyond all doubt. Plus lets be clear, this isn't accusing Donald Trump which if wrong, is no biggie. This is Putin and an entire Nation of Russia she is finger pointing to.

So if finger pointing is your standard to disqualify a candidate, how about sexist comments/behaviour, racist comments, mocking people with disabilities, bragging about sexual assault, accusations of sexual assault, denying blacks apartment rentals, business fraud, tax avoidance and on and on.

If Hillary's indiscretion outweighs all of Trump's then something is very wrong with how you view this. Totally irrational or just biased. He is a horrendous candidate, an odious human being and a threat to world peace and monetary markets.

 

[Jubee]

17 intelligence agencies say you are lying Donald.

As Smallcock mentioned, government agencies also claimed Saddam had WMDs.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html
"Let’s start with missile and other delivery systems for WMD. Our community said with high confidence that Saddam was continuing and expanding his missile programs contrary to UN resolutions"

Not just confidence, but HIGH confidence. lol



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/iraq-wmd-legacy-us-intelligence-iran_n_2883027.html
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, the CIA and other intelligence services confidently asserted that Saddam Hussein’s regime had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction

 

[Jubee]

"Confident" is a normal term used in the security and intelligence world. They are careful never to talk in absolutes, it gives the organization/government options when performing mitigation/resolution or during negotiations. For example in this case, if the gov't spoke in absolutes, they could be required by the public to take visible action (retaliate in kind, sanctions, etc.), however since it's worded as a strong allegation, negotiations (both public and back-door) could result in an American gain in other areas (Russians agree to stop and fully disclose their tools and techniques used for the hack).

I'm a big fan of historical espionage and spy novels, so I follow FBI and Homeland Security espionage and spy related releases. I work in the IT security industry. Both industries use these terms routinely. Check-out bulletins from the FBI or HS and you will see for yourself.

That's nice.

They failed miserably with "9/11" and they failed (key letters "L I E D") about the WMDs.
Thanks Smallcock for mentioning this earlier.

 

[Promo]

I've mentioned, with the click of a mouse, I can change my VPN to show my ISP from Israel. So why can someone do the same and point to Russia? I can do that too.

Bit simplified. You are correct in that the organization that owns the server that you are downloading from can only see the IP address of VPN terminating device of the service you are using and have no ability to determine who you really are (unless they've hidden something in your download). However legally every service provider (ISPs, VPN services, public email providers, proxy providers, Hosting centers, cloud providers, Akamai, etc.) are required to keep syslogs of all connections to aid law enforcement in tracing connections for criminal investigations. There are international regulations and procedures in place to facilitate very fast global traces.

However the intelligence community (NSA, military cyber warfare) gets these logs real-time from key ISPs and peering routers, and not just within the US (via the Patriot act), but from fellow NATO and friendly countries who share intelligence (Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, etc). Keep in mind that although the Internet backbone is very route diverse, the net is actually built physically heretical in nature and there are choke points and a limited number of core peering points. As a result this allows the NSA/military to monitor most internet traffic worldwide including through submarine cables, satellite, etc. Further some countries (Israel, Germany) requires every Internet connection in and out of the country to have a transparent tap that can be used to mirror all traffic traveling through the connection.

That said, the cyberwarfare / blackhats can still get around this. Two years ago, the American military were being hacked from someone in Canada. They traced it back to a rented office and initially it was assumed it was a Cdn hacker. The FBI and CSIS using video recording from the building across the street eventually determined that Chinese nationals had rented the office space, set up some servers and tools and were attempting to hack the US military. Point is, you are correct, it's still possible it wasn't the Russians, thus words like "confident" and not "absolute".

 

[Promo]

That's nice.

They failed miserably with "9/11" and they failed (key letters "L I E D") about the WMDs.
Thanks Smallcock for mentioning this earlier.

Geesh, you that naive, or is this just another one of your flippant comments?

Intelligence is the ability to gather, normalize, correlate and interpret data from multiple sources and information types from across the world in a timely manner. It's part science, part art, part luck.

Regarding this particular situation, tracing the email hackers is limited to just "gathering", it was 98% science and the dataset to be analyzed was very small.

The intelligence task associated with predicting 9/11-type incidents is many magnitudes more complex and the dataset astronomically huge, especially with the laws and tools available 15 years ago.

 

[glamphotographer]

Trump's political inexperience starting to show?

 

[MattRoxx]

The night after the 3rd debate was the traditional Alfred E Smith dinner, where both candidates were supposed to lighten up and have a fun speech / mini-'roast' of each other.

Trump got booed after saying 'Tonight, Hillary is pretending to not hate Catholics" and again after trying to make some mean-spirited joke about her aid work in Haiti that totally backfired. It was brutal. He lost the crowd and never recovered. After the dinner (around 2:05 on the video), Hillary stayed and talked to everyone who wanted to come up and greet her. Trump and his trophy wife left as soon as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0ryocAv8Zw