The Presidential Debates
- kurtster - Jun 30, 2024 - 9:30pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Bill_J - Jun 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Today in History
- R_P - Jun 30, 2024 - 3:10pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 30, 2024 - 1:20pm
2024 Elections!
- rgio - Jun 30, 2024 - 1:14pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 30, 2024 - 12:42pm
NY Times Strands
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 30, 2024 - 12:30pm
Europe
- R_P - Jun 30, 2024 - 11:35am
Wordle - daily game
- rgio - Jun 30, 2024 - 11:11am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 30, 2024 - 10:50am
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Jun 30, 2024 - 9:52am
You are all WRONG!
- oldviolin - Jun 30, 2024 - 9:01am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - Jun 30, 2024 - 8:48am
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - Jun 30, 2024 - 8:48am
Acoustic Guitar
- miamizsun - Jun 30, 2024 - 8:46am
Israel
- R_P - Jun 30, 2024 - 8:30am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- MikeInNJ - Jun 30, 2024 - 8:02am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Jun 30, 2024 - 7:17am
Song ID
- Proclivities - Jun 30, 2024 - 6:37am
Sonos
- Marco99 - Jun 30, 2024 - 6:14am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 30, 2024 - 5:12am
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 30, 2024 - 4:45am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - Jun 30, 2024 - 3:58am
The Obituary Page
- kurtster - Jun 30, 2024 - 2:38am
Things You Thought Today
- GeneP59 - Jun 29, 2024 - 1:25pm
Immigration
- R_P - Jun 29, 2024 - 11:57am
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK!
- Steely_D - Jun 29, 2024 - 11:03am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 29, 2024 - 9:51am
Internet Hoaxes
- Proclivities - Jun 29, 2024 - 7:45am
Joe Biden
- rgio - Jun 29, 2024 - 6:43am
Canada
- R_P - Jun 29, 2024 - 6:38am
Baseball, anyone?
- Proclivities - Jun 29, 2024 - 6:31am
favorite love songs
- oldviolin - Jun 28, 2024 - 10:43pm
Trump
- R_P - Jun 28, 2024 - 6:52pm
What makes you smile?
- R_P - Jun 28, 2024 - 5:45pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 28, 2024 - 2:26pm
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Jun 28, 2024 - 5:06am
Ambient Music
- miamizsun - Jun 28, 2024 - 5:02am
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2024 - 6:40pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 27, 2024 - 4:36pm
NASA & other news from space
- miamizsun - Jun 27, 2024 - 3:12pm
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2024 - 12:47pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jun 27, 2024 - 11:00am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 27, 2024 - 9:50am
LeftWingNutZ
- Proclivities - Jun 27, 2024 - 9:31am
iOS app download manager problem
- RPnate1 - Jun 26, 2024 - 12:25pm
What is your favorite music video?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 26, 2024 - 11:39am
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 10:10am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:30am
SCOTUS
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:10am
WikiLeaks
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:50am
Anti-War
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:11am
Ukraine
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:11am
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey
- GeneP59 - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:59pm
::odd but intriguing::
- Beaker - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:09pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:26am
*** PUNS *** FRUIT
- Proclivities - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:23am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:10am
Music Videos
- miamizsun - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:11am
China
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:44am
MTV's The Real World
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 11:11pm
Breaking News
- Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:35pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Jun 24, 2024 - 10:45am
How do you create optimism?
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:27am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:04pm
Prog Rockers Anonymous
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
The Dragons' Roost
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:01pm
Dumb Laws
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:51pm
BEATLES Make History AGAIN!!
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:12am
TV shows you watch
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:57am
Congress
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 5:53pm
What do you snack on?
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:20pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:44pm
What did you have for dinner?
- triskele - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:31pm
Jam! (why should a song stop)
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:53pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
WikiLeaks
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 55, 56, 57 Next |
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 24, 2018 - 4:19am |
|
Proclivities wrote:Limited immunity, if you believe Tucker Carlson and/or his "anonymous sources". I guess we'll find out. Manafort is facing charges in more than one court. From what I understand Podesta would testify in a separate case in a DC federal court, not this one in Virginia. Manafort is currently in "protective" solitary confinement while awaiting trial(s).
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 23, 2018 - 7:00am |
|
kurtster wrote:This is not good. His asylum could not last forever. On the bright side, we might finally find out who his source for the Clinton / DNC emails really is. Assange has said all along that it was not the Russians. He has a 100% accuracy rate standing on his behalf. Also oddly timed is what appears to be Mueller granting Manafort's partner Tony Podesta, brother of DNC official and Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, immunity from prosecution if he rolls over on Manafort. Podesta also failed to register as a foreign agent just as did Manafort. But Podesta is a democrat and a well connected one at that ... Limited immunity, if you believe Tucker Carlson and/or his "anonymous sources". I guess we'll find out.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 21, 2018 - 7:49pm |
|
R_P wrote: This is not good. His asylum could not last forever. On the bright side, we might finally find out who his source for the Clinton / DNC emails really is. Assange has said all along that it was not the Russians. He has a 100% accuracy rate standing on his behalf. Also oddly timed is what appears to be Mueller granting Manafort's partner Tony Podesta, brother of DNC official and Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, immunity from prosecution if he rolls over on Manafort. Podesta also failed to register as a foreign agent just as did Manafort. But Podesta is a democrat and a well connected one at that ...
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 21, 2018 - 3:36pm |
|
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2017 - 11:55am |
|
R_P wrote: Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms (Greenwald) In February, after Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. media were the “enemy of the people,” the targets of his insult exploded with indignation, devoting wall-to-wall media coverage to what they depicted as a grave assault on press freedoms more befitting of a tyranny. By stark and disturbing contrast, the media reaction yesterday was far more muted, even welcoming, when Trump’s CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, actually and explicitly vowed to target freedoms of speech and press in a blistering, threatening speech he delivered to the D.C. think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies. What made Pompeo’s overt threats of repression so palatable to many was that they were not directed at CNN, the New York Times or other beloved-in-D.C. outlets, but rather at WikiLeaks, more marginalized publishers of information, and various leakers and whistleblowers, including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Trump’s CIA Director stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single U.S. mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike – much the way that many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular. Decreeing (with no evidence) that WikiLeaks is “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia” a belief that has become gospel in establishment Democratic Party circles – Pompeo proclaimed that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” He also argued that while WikiLeaks “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice,” but: “they may have believed that, but they are wrong.” He then issued this remarkable threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.” At no point did Pompeo specify what steps the CIA intended to take to ensure that the “space” to publish secrets “ends now.” (...)
lol I love WikiLeaks. Funny how politicians on both "sides" whatever that is either praise or condemn WikiLeaks depending on whether the information helps or hurts them. Keep on keeping on WikiLeaks!
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2017 - 11:30am |
|
Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms (Greenwald) In February, after Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. media were the “enemy of the people,” the targets of his insult exploded with indignation, devoting wall-to-wall media coverage to what they depicted as a grave assault on press freedoms more befitting of a tyranny. By stark and disturbing contrast, the media reaction yesterday was far more muted, even welcoming, when Trump’s CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, actually and explicitly vowed to target freedoms of speech and press in a blistering, threatening speech he delivered to the D.C. think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies. What made Pompeo’s overt threats of repression so palatable to many was that they were not directed at CNN, the New York Times or other beloved-in-D.C. outlets, but rather at WikiLeaks, more marginalized publishers of information, and various leakers and whistleblowers, including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Trump’s CIA Director stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single U.S. mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike – much the way that many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular. Decreeing (with no evidence) that WikiLeaks is “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia” a belief that has become gospel in establishment Democratic Party circles – Pompeo proclaimed that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” He also argued that while WikiLeaks “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice,” but: “they may have believed that, but they are wrong.” He then issued this remarkable threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.” At no point did Pompeo specify what steps the CIA intended to take to ensure that the “space” to publish secrets “ends now.” (...)
|
|
LowPhreak
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 13, 2017 - 3:39pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: LowPhreak wrote:For example, since Vietnam was largely over by the time he was installed in the White House, did Gerry Ford ever cut the defense budget as he should have advocated for? Not that I'm aware of. "..the President has submitted a defense budget for 1977 which provides a real increase of $7.4 billion in total obligational authority in defense spending..." Let's remember too that he had uber-hawks (and career ne'er-do-wells) like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney shoved so far up his ass he couldn't see straight. So, Ford should be the last one to rattle on about "big government taking everything you have." Vietnam war spending peaked in 1967 and declined for the following 10 years. US involvement in the war (other than evacuating embassies and such) ended in 1973. The 1977 budget represented a rearmament that began in the final year of Ford's term, continued under Carter, and peaked on Reagan's watch. Any defense budget reductions during the Ford years were because of a Democratic Congress. Ford, because of the high inflation rates and unemployment at the time, had proposed non-defense cuts. Then by his 1977 budget much of that previously lower defense spending was being clawed back. "The initial goodwill toward Ford steadily eroded as the numbers turned sour. Unemployment went from 4.8% in 1972 to 8.0% when he took office; consumer price inflation jumped from 3.4% to 11.0%. Unexpectedly high inflation, fueled by soaring oil prices, made it difficult to plan for the future; cheap imports from Germany and Japan for the first time became a threat to autos and electronics; high unemployment troubled industrial areas. By early 1975 the jobless rate was the worst since the Great Depression. Ford insisted that inflation was the greater problem. He sought to slow it, as Nixon had, by severe restraints on government spending for social programs. He also tried to curb private spending by asking Congress to raise the taxes on personal incomes. But the Democratic majority refused, and in congressional elections in November 1974 Democrats increased their majorities to three-fifths in the Senate and two-thirds in the House. In January 1975 Ford finally yielded to liberals' demands for a program to stop the economic slump and promote hiring. He proposed personal income tax rebates, especially to higher-income people, who might spend extra money on durable goods such as automobiles. Liberals criticized Ford's proposal for offering little relief for the poor, so they pushed through Congress a modified, though modest, tax rebate bill favoring lower-income people. Ford signed it reluctantly. He continued to resist liberal demands for massive public works spending to employ the jobless, and vetoed many bills. Ford also wanted to make the domestic energy industry more profitable, even at the cost of inflation, in order to encourage more private investment in it and thereby reduce the dependence on oil from abroad. He proposed huge public subsidies for developing new energy sources. Deregulation - that is, the removal of the old New Deal controls on transportation, communications, finance and other businesses - began under Ford (Nixon was more of a New Dealer who liked federal regulations), ..." http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford So we had the typical Republican playbook - Ford's "subsidies" (corporate welfare) to energy companies, corporate deregulation, along with austerity for the working class or lower incomes, advocating raising taxes on personal incomes but income tax rebates for higher incomes, and at the end of his term an increased defense budget.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 13, 2017 - 3:01pm |
|
LowPhreak wrote:For example, since Vietnam was largely over by the time he was installed in the White House, did Gerry Ford ever cut the defense budget as he should have advocated for? Not that I'm aware of. "..the President has submitted a defense budget for 1977 which provides a real increase of $7.4 billion in total obligational authority in defense spending..." Let's remember too that he had uber-hawks (and career ne'er-do-wells) like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney shoved so far up his ass he couldn't see straight. So, Ford should be the last one to rattle on about "big government taking everything you have." Vietnam war spending peaked in 1967 and declined for the following 10 years. US involvement in the war (other than evacuating embassies and such) ended in 1973. The 1977 budget represented a rearmament that began in the final year of Ford's term, continued under Carter, and peaked on Reagan's watch.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Mar 13, 2017 - 2:19pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: Context is everything, eh?
Indeed. Often references are made to guard against the military-industrial complex, but many of those who cite to that admonition from Ike are conspicuously silent when the Trump administration proposes big increases in defense spending while proposing massive cuts for other programs.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 13, 2017 - 2:11pm |
|
LowPhreak wrote:The term "big government" is so nebulous as to be meaningless. It's mostly used by those on the right to justify cutting of social and public works, while they rarely include excessive military & security spending or corporate welfare schemes and tax giveaways in their "big government" complaints. For example, since Vietnam was largely over by the time he was installed in the White House, did Gerry Ford ever cut the defense budget as he should have advocated for? Not that I'm aware of. "..the President has submitted a defense budget for 1977 which provides a real increase of $7.4 billion in total obligational authority in defense spending..." Let's remember too that he had uber-hawks (and career ne'er-do-wells) like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney shoved so far up his ass he couldn't see straight. So, Ford should be the last one to rattle on about "big government taking everything you have." Context is everything, eh?
|
|
LowPhreak
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 13, 2017 - 2:07pm |
|
kurtster wrote: Yep. Its foolish to think that you can trust the government; its your friend and does not have the capabilities that you can imagine. You can't, it isn't and does have the toys. If you can imagine some kind of snooping technology, some one has more than likely already made it reality. Problem is, that most of the things this stuff is designed to corrupt and infiltrate is not being used by the bad guys. They mostly use old style burner dumb phones (yeah, San Bernardino, but ...) and are unlikely to have a smart TV or appliance hooked up to the net to watch their latest shows or to tell Alexa what to do. But the good guys, us, do. This stuff is designed to watch us under the pretense that they are watching "them", those bad guys.
The CIA was already caught once doing domestic spying in my lifetime. This is the second time. Once was one time too many.
Once again its time to trot this old one out ...
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Gerald Ford, 38th POTUS.
The term "big government" is so nebulous as to be meaningless. It's mostly used by those on the right to justify cutting of social and public works, while they rarely include excessive military & security spending or corporate welfare schemes and tax giveaways in their "big government" complaints. For example, since Vietnam was largely over by the time he was installed in the White House, did Gerry Ford ever cut the defense budget as he should have advocated for? Not that I'm aware of. "..the President has submitted a defense budget for 1977 which provides a real increase of $7.4 billion in total obligational authority in defense spending..." Let's remember too that he had uber-hawks (and career ne'er-do-wells) like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney shoved so far up his ass he couldn't see straight. So, Ford should be the last one to rattle on about "big government taking everything you have."
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2017 - 8:09pm |
|
LowPhreak wrote: black321 wrote: Though generally appalled at what is revealed in these "leaks," at the same time I am increasingly concerned about the level of information that is being so easily funneled to our true enemies. It would seem there should be a less threatening means of "leaking" this type of information, rather than through wholesale disclosure. Not to worry, our true enemies (whomever they may be...real or imagined) already know that this is how the CIA and other Western intel agencies operate. Don't kid yourself with the establishment bullshit story; this Wikileak reveal is informative for the general public mainly and that's what the gov't hates the most here, not that they're somehow giving away state secrets to so-called enemies. Yep. Its foolish to think that you can trust the government; its your friend and does not have the capabilities that you can imagine. You can't, it isn't and does have the toys. If you can imagine some kind of snooping technology, some one has more than likely already made it reality. Problem is, that most of the things this stuff is designed to corrupt and infiltrate is not being used by the bad guys. They mostly use old style burner dumb phones (yeah, San Bernardino, but ...) and are unlikely to have a smart TV or appliance hooked up to the net to watch their latest shows or to tell Alexa what to do. But the good guys, us, do. This stuff is designed to watch us under the pretense that they are watching "them", those bad guys. The CIA was already caught once doing domestic spying in my lifetime. This is the second time. Once was one time too many. Once again its time to trot this old one out ... A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Gerald Ford, 38th POTUS.
|
|
LowPhreak
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2017 - 4:36pm |
|
black321 wrote: Though generally appalled at what is revealed in these "leaks," at the same time I am increasingly concerned about the level of information that is being so easily funneled to our true enemies. It would seem there should be a less threatening means of "leaking" this type of information, rather than through wholesale disclosure. Not to worry, our true enemies (whomever they may be...real or imagined) already know that this is how the CIA and other Western intel agencies operate. Don't kid yourself with the establishment bullshit story; this Wikileak reveal is informative for the general public mainly and that's what the gov't hates the most here, not that they're somehow giving away state secrets to so-called enemies.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2017 - 9:55am |
|
The creation of the deep state, and its staggering breadth and scope, is hardly news. Given the massive potential for abuse, it is good that we have reporters doing what they can to keep tabs on it. Sunshine can be a powerful check on abuse. However, given Assange's obvious political bias and apparent sycophantic relationship with Russia, I would take things coming from Wiki Leeks with a grain or two of salt.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2017 - 12:45pm |
|
miamizsun wrote:oh my, from the bowels of the innernets...the mother lode of confirmation bias/evidence wiki via zero hedge Here's what happens when you bring this level of opinion/analysis...into a political discussion. It's like if you were to interject between two baseball fans, a yankee fan and red sox, fan arguing over which is the better team, and exclaim, neither team is "better" because they both cheat. Both teams players juice up, the managers take bribes from vegas odds makers, and the refs are paid off too. What's left to argue over?
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2017 - 10:52am |
|
miamizsun wrote:oh my, from the bowels of the innernets...the mother lode of confirmation bias/evidence wiki via zero hedge WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA. It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of ‘Vault 7’, a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley, and which can be seen on the org chart below, which Wikileaks also released: Though generally appalled at what is revealed in these "leaks," at the same time I am increasingly concerned about the level of information that is being so easily funneled to our true enemies. It would seem there should be a less threatening means of "leaking" this type of information, rather than through wholesale disclosure.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2017 - 10:04am |
|
miamizsun wrote:oh my, from the bowels of the innernets...the mother lode of confirmation bias/evidence wiki via zero hedge I went to the link you put up in the Trump thread. I am now so fucking depressed. Its no surprise regarding the CIA's 'new found' capabilities. Its silly to assume that they don't have the capabilities. Its just that its officially out there now. Changes nothing in my mind. The question is will it change anyone else's and what will they do about it ?
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2017 - 9:00am |
|
oh my, from the bowels of the innernets...the mother lode of confirmation bias/evidence wiki via zero hedge WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA. It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of ‘Vault 7’, a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley, and which can be seen on the org chart below, which Wikileaks also released:
A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of ‘Year Zero’, the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed ‘Vault 7.’ WikiLeaks said that ‘Year Zero’ revealed details of the CIA’s “global covert hacking program,” including “weaponized exploits” used against company products including “Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.” WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia. Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, "would rock the technology world", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect “audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.” Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant. Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. "With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques."
As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, "CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state. It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE"
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 12, 2017 - 7:24am |
|
The co-founder of The Intercept doesn't like Donald Trump but thinks the new president may just wake liberals up to reining in the government.Listen or download here about 43 minutes and worth your time i especially paid attention @ the 30 min mark regards
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 18, 2016 - 9:54pm |
|
|
|
|