Assange to go!

plasmahal said:
Manning was released then sent back into custody for another reason.

On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to nearly seven years of confinement dating from her arrest on May 27, 2010. Before her recent jailing on March 8, 2019 for her continued refusal to testify before a grand jury against Julian Assange, Manning was earning a living through speaking engagements.
Click to expand...
if they want you in custody they'll find a way :o
 
Just in case anyone missed it, here's the final nail in the 'Seth Rich was Assange's source for the DNC hack' conspiracy theory:

Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn’t his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia’s GRU months after Seth Rich’s death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer “to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing,” Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election.
Click to expand...

“After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking,” the report reads. “According to media reports, Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”
Click to expand...

As laid out by Mueller, Assange’s involvement in Russia’s election interference began with a June 14, 2016 direct message to WikiLeaks’ Twitter account from “DC Leaks,” one of the false fronts created by the Russians to launder their hacked material.

“You announced your organization was preparing to publish more Hillary's emails,” the message read, according to Mueller’s report. “We are ready to support you. We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents. Let's do it together. What do you think about publishing our info at the same moment? Thank you.”
Click to expand...

A week later, WikiLeaks reached out to a second GRU persona, Guccifer 2.0, and pitched WikiLeaks as the best outlet for the hacked material. On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email address to send WikiLeaks an encrypted one-gigabyte file named “wk dnc link I .txt.gpg.” Assange confirmed receipt, and on July 22 he published 20,000 DNC emails stolen during the GRU’s breach.
Click to expand...

By then, it was no secret where the documents came from. The computer security firm CrowdStrike had already published its technical report on the DNC breach, which laid out a trail leading directly to Moscow and the GRU. Analysts at ThreatConnect independently presented evidence that Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks were fictional creations of that agency.

But rather than refuse to comment on his sources, as he’s done in other cases, Assange used his platform to deny that he got the material from Russians, and make statements at an alternative theory. On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks’ Twitter feed announced a $20,000 reward for “information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”
Click to expand...

(Source).

The leak was no 'inside job', and Seth Rich was not the source. Assange knew this from the start, but continued to lie about it.
 
That is mostly rubbish, I would believe Julian Assange, the guy who received the files, over anyone else. There was an analysis done on the files and it concluded that they were initially copied from the server via USB2, most likely to a flash drive, and to do that there had to be a person physically there. All of this Guccifer 2.0 is just another layer of smear, just like the whole of Russia gate, which the Dems are still trying to carry on with - it's obvious to anyone that is open minded.

I don't know the whole story, and I'm wise enough to know that, and you don't either, and you won't get anything close to an unbiased story from the daily beast. As with most media in the US, and most places to think of it, are left leaning and suffer from trump derangement syndrome - objective journalism is almost dead!
 
Monkeynut said:
How would you be able to analyse the files to work out how they were copied? Presumably they would be identical files regardless?
Click to expand...
By herping the derp I suspect.

AFAIK there is no way to do it with most files as it would require additional information that isn't present and for it to be cross platform/os/storage medium and even if there was any one with half a clue would strip the information to protect themselves (as would any half decent journalist to protect their sources*).

My guess is that someone has looked at the information contained in the exif/metadata on some files (things like the camera that took it, the settings, and location if available or who made changes to word documents) and decided that's there for every file along with a list of every time the file has been copied, transferred etc and how, or that because some systems keep a log for security purposes it's applicable to everything and is carried with the files because some systems do something similar for certain files for auditing purposes (however that audit trail only goes as far as the first time the files leave that system as the logging tends to be done in the system rather than in the files).

I wonder if the investigation was done by the same people that brought us the Pizza code and deduced that there was a secret paedophile ring who used a pizza parlour for their activities and discussed it by using the name of pizza toppings to describe what they wanted to do.

*Mind you Wikileaks has showed little interest in that, or protecting the innocent in their releases with things like lists of patients at HIV clinics, addresses of christians/jews living in areas that had been taken over by ISIS, so I suspect journalistic integrity and ethics only apply when it suits their spokesidiot.
 
Werewolf said:
By herping the derp I suspect.

AFAIK there is no way to do it with most files as it would require additional information that isn't present and for it to be cross platform/os/storage medium and even if there was any one with half a clue would strip the information to protect themselves (as would any half decent journalist to protect their sources*).

My guess is that someone has looked at the information contained in the exif/metadata on some files (things like the camera that took it, the settings, and location if available or who made changes to word documents) and decided that's there for every file along with a list of every time the file has been copied, transferred etc and how, or that because some systems keep a log for security purposes it's applicable to everything and is carried with the files because some systems do something similar for certain files for auditing purposes (however that audit trail only goes as far as the first time the files leave that system as the logging tends to be done in the system rather than in the files).

I wonder if the investigation was done by the same people that brought us the Pizza code and deduced that there was a secret paedophile ring who used a pizza parlour for their activities and discussed it by using the name of pizza toppings to describe what they wanted to do.

*Mind you Wikileaks has showed little interest in that, or protecting the innocent in their releases with things like lists of patients at HIV clinics, addresses of christians/jews living in areas that had been taken over by ISIS, so I suspect journalistic integrity and ethics only apply when it suits their spokesidiot.
Click to expand...

Yeah unless there is an audit trail on the original system there is no way in most cases to determine if a file was copied via USB2, etc. there might be some caveats to that in that some file attributes, etc. might be malformed in a known incorrect way by some controllers, etc. but you'd have no idea at what point in the chain that happened.
 
Werewolf said:
By herping the derp I suspect.

AFAIK there is no way to do it with most files as it would require additional information that isn't present and for it to be cross platform/os/storage medium and even if there was any one with half a clue would strip the information to protect themselves (as would any half decent journalist to protect their sources*).

My guess is that someone has looked at the information contained in the exif/metadata on some files (things like the camera that took it, the settings, and location if available or who made changes to word documents) and decided that's there for every file along with a list of every time the file has been copied, transferred etc and how, or that because some systems keep a log for security purposes it's applicable to everything and is carried with the files because some systems do something similar for certain files for auditing purposes (however that audit trail only goes as far as the first time the files leave that system as the logging tends to be done in the system rather than in the files).

I wonder if the investigation was done by the same people that brought us the Pizza code and deduced that there was a secret paedophile ring who used a pizza parlour for their activities and discussed it by using the name of pizza toppings to describe what they wanted to do.

*Mind you Wikileaks has showed little interest in that, or protecting the innocent in their releases with things like lists of patients at HIV clinics, addresses of christians/jews living in areas that had been taken over by ISIS, so I suspect journalistic integrity and ethics only apply when it suits their spokesidiot.
Click to expand...

The argument comes from VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) who are made up of ex-NSA, CIA etc officials.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
 
Monkeynut said:
How would you be able to analyse the files to work out how they were copied? Presumably they would be identical files regardless?
Click to expand...

They could see how long the transfer took, iirc. The transfer rate could coincidentally be the same as that of the USB2.0 protocol or whatever but not likely. In any case, it was reputedly far faster than could be achieved over the Internet. And if you're curious as to how they could know the transfer rate, file and filesystem metadata can contain that from the copy process.
 
Look up bill binney. There is some kind of timestamp on the files, it may just be properties/date created sort of thing. Now unless they were altered which they accept could have happened, they worked out it would have been impossible to transfer that size of file from the US to Europe within the timespan. It's a pretty easy thing to prove. However all the information points to the files being downloaded locally to say a usb stick.

Hence the Seth Rich conspiracies.

Found the video. Plenty more also.

 
It seems odd that it would be impossible when I imagine both points concerned would have been very fast connections. It's not like the Democrats would be running their servers on home ADSL.
 
Monkeynut said:
It seems odd that it would be impossible when I imagine both points concerned would have been very fast connections. It's not like the Democrats would be running their servers on home ADSL.
Click to expand...

This is the point where you have to trust the ex tech director of the NSA. They build the networks, they write the software that runs the networks. They know what they're talking about.
 
jsmoke said:
This is the point where you have to trust the ex tech director of the NSA. They build the networks, they write the software that runs the networks. They know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
The NSA does not build the networks or write the software that runs them...You seem to have a very strange idea about what the NSA does.

Also as for faster, consider this.
USB2 tops out about 60MB/s theorectically, I can't ever remember seeing better than 40MB/s to external hard drives (even now if I accidentally connect my USB3 drive to the USB2 ports it struggles at about 40MB/s rather than the more normal 90-120MB/s), most USB memory sticks seem to max out at about 40MB/s write speeds unless you are talking about some top end ones (mainly USB3), and most seemed to struggle to maintain 20MB/s, even now with USB3 40MB/s is a good sustained write for most memory sticks.

Your average half decent hosting service will use gigabit connections, that tops out at about 110MB/s and be able to sustain that all day although it may be shared with other users logging into that server, a professional one will likely have multiple ones.
 
hominid said:
That is mostly rubbish, I would believe Julian Assange, the guy who received the files, over anyone else. There was an analysis done on the files and it concluded that they were initially copied from the server via USB2, most likely to a flash drive, and to do that there had to be a person physically there. All of this Guccifer 2.0 is just another layer of smear, just like the whole of Russia gate, which the Dems are still trying to carry on with - it's obvious to anyone that is open minded.
Click to expand...

We literally have a confirmed communication trail showing that Guccifer 2.0 contacted Assange offering this material, Assange accepted, and subsequently received it. There's no room for discussion; there are no viable alternative explanations.

All this nonsense about a USB stick is just conspiracy gibberish.
 
Evangelion said:
We literally have a confirmed communication trail showing that Guccifer 2.0 contacted Assange offering this material, Assange accepted, and subsequently received it. There's no room for discussion; there are no viable alternative explanations.

All this nonsense about a USB stick is just conspiracy gibberish.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mS-3-W0ig&feature=youtu.be&t=187

From former MSA technical director William Binney.

What he is saying is that they took the data from the original breach and offset the time by X amount for all files to create the Guccifer 2.0 rubbish. The original breach had to be by someone onsite to the actual server, ie Seth Rich, on the 5th July, Seth Rich died on 10th July so 5 days to find out who did it. Guccifer2.0 data didn't come out for months and has obviously been tampered with, so I stand by my original statement that Guccifer2.0 was a fabrication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom