PDA

View Full Version : If Hacking is Revealing 100% True Information- Why Do We Not Embrace It?



neobuyer
05-29-2017, 10:45 PM
Oh my! 'Hackers' from other countries are 'attacking' us!!!

When hackers start planting false information and rewriting proper records to do damage to the USA- then I would understand the media blitz about hacking.

But Hillary Clinton's loss of face near the election wasn't anything like those scenarios. Hacking revealed real things which would otherwise have never seen the light. Hackers didn't 'plant' false information here like proper spies- they just hacked into secure systems and published what they found there.

Am I the only one that LOVES it when the truth comes out- and loves the truth more than anything else on earth?

Hackers of every single stripe should be lauded and complimented so long as the stolen files they reveal are uncorrupted and true.

And the corruption that rests neatly within every governmental regime, every group of powerful-feeling assholes, every wealthy family making a shrine to nepotism is the enemy of you and I.

Oh but are they official members of the one percent?

Guess what sheep- the very conceptual NOTION of the 'One Percent' is a popular lie engendered to take the heat off of the people around you who have good money- but are not billionaires. You get that herd? You get that hooved ruminant grazers?

Can you imagine a better lie than telling the poor that their enemy is the 'The One Percent' whom they will never in any way be able to interact with, act against, punish or negotiate with in ANY WAY.

And how can either the poor or indeed ANYONE wrest power from this tiny group of wealthy 'Darth Vader' types? There IS NO WAY except for them to listen to the liars schilling the One Percent myth and bow to them. To join in a proletariat of stupid. A proletariat cobbled together by idiots who think Marxist theory is somehow still sound in the 21st Century.

Evil Wasabi
05-29-2017, 11:27 PM
The hacking is rarely done to elucidate the people. Rather, it's for extortion purposes. A company that hijacks the data from a hospital could lose millions if the hackers release the data. If the ashleymadison hackers wanted, they could have demanded ransoms to keep names off their list (and probably did).

I would prefer that Americans do not become primed to the idea of life without privacy - no matter how shitty the person. But it's getting there. The reason why Americans are now subject to having their phones searched without warrants upon reentry to the USA, is because a really bad court decision had to be made in order to justify bad police work in capturing a pedophile. This wasn't a hack, but the idea is the same. Should people have privacy, or should the truth be available to all? Or should the "truth" be available, in the event, as you described, that fake "truth" posted in hacking reveals?

In some countries we are getting there. Assange would like to see us get there. But he's just a guy who thinks it would be funny to damage America, and if it wasn't beneath him, he would have totally tried to help turn the Microsoft AI into a pro-Nazi trailer park member (I say this because much of the net will do trollish things simply for the lulz).

neobuyer
05-30-2017, 12:22 AM
But the hacking you are describing isn't the hacking I was referring to.

But I really should have been more plain and specific.

I am not talking about hacking individual consumer's accounts (be they site memberships, bank accounts, PSN accounts, etc.)- I am specifically trying here to address big government hacking and things like offshore account hacking.

I am referring to people hacking places where dark world-altering secrets reside.

Do I speak with too much hyperbole here?

I know you are a lawyer, and in a sense- the near antithesis of a moron like Bobak, but still, I wonder if you get where I am coming from.

Hacking hospital records is grand mal bullshit of the highest order.

But hacking into an offshore account company's records? The only crime there was that it was done in collusion with our govt. at the time and therefore didn't expose American money criminals.

My salient point is largely this: If hacking reveals genuinely true information which reveals illegal behavior on the part of a group of people who hold the public in their grasp- I welcome it. It is valuable.

Is Edward Snowden a fuck? Or is he not? What did that dorky motherfucker gain besides becoming a husehold name? You ever read about his life in Russia- he can't even get laid!







The hacking is rarely done to elucidate the people. Rather, it's for extortion purposes. A company that hijacks the data from a hospital could lose millions if the hackers release the data. If the ashleymadison hackers wanted, they could have demanded ransoms to keep names off their list (and probably did).

I would prefer that Americans do not become primed to the idea of life without privacy - no matter how shitty the person. But it's getting there. The reason why Americans are now subject to having their phones searched without warrants upon reentry to the USA, is because a really bad court decision had to be made in order to justify bad police work in capturing a pedophile. This wasn't a hack, but the idea is the same. Should people have privacy, or should the truth be available to all? Or should the "truth" be available, in the event, as you described, that fake "truth" posted in hacking reveals?

In some countries we are getting there. Assange would like to see us get there. But he's just a guy who thinks it would be funny to damage America, and if it wasn't beneath him, he would have totally tried to help turn the Microsoft AI into a pro-Nazi trailer park member (I say this because much of the net will do trollish things simply for the lulz).

SpamYouToDeath
05-30-2017, 12:35 AM
Hackers of every single stripe should be lauded and complimented so long as the stolen files they reveal are uncorrupted and true.
This is the heart of the matter. How would you ever know that the files are "true"? Without proper investigation, a document dump is not helpful - there's precisely zero reason to trust an anonymous dump of leaked material on the Internet. This is why responsible sources hand the material to an investigative journalist - they have the resources to verify and publish what is correct.


Can you imagine a better lie than telling the poor that their enemy is the 'The One Percent' whom they will never in any way be able to interact with, act against, punish or negotiate with in ANY WAY.
I'd tell them their enemy is 'The Elites', 'The Terrorists', 'The Illegals', or one of a dozen other boogeymen. The reality is, there is no "enemy" to blame. There is simply a broken system which no one has the political will to fix.

Poppy
05-30-2017, 01:56 AM
lol neobuyer

Your contributions have been noticeably absent in the Trumpster fire. Thanks for joining.

The problem with your position is that you are embracing chaotic neutral to the fullest. As chuck said, this sort of shit is what gives way to not just a lack of privacy, but extremes like warrantless search and seizures - on the most baffling and retarded of grounds.

In some ways you are correct, every oligarchical powerhouse of nepotism is an enemy of you and i, but they are not all out for the same goals.

The BEST possible outcome of your rationale is that donald trump simply dies from the pressure (more likely than empeachmeant) and the country has nothing else to blame but evangelical Christian rayndians for their plight. Which is a fucked up dystopian nightmare compared to the grim reality of the true present day, but would end well overall after the blood, of course.

neobuyer
05-30-2017, 04:01 AM
Lack of privacy? Does anyone really think that hacking is the source or impetus of the erosion of our individual privacy?

Who are we kidding?

The reason our privacy is treated like a fey guy in a pink shirt in a biker bar in modern life is because of the way our governments and corporate entities look at population groups (us) as numbers more than people. We are reduced as people to mathematical quandries needing to be 'solved'.

Ack, I'm having a bad time tonight finger-typing shit that I accidentally lose. So I'ma make multiple subthreads here- please forgive :)

lithy
05-30-2017, 05:45 AM
I never saw an example where any of the DNC or Clinton released content was ever challenged as being a work of fiction by a malicious actor. This was real content, but people weren't 'supposed' to see it. These are public officials, doing public business, because the people elected them. Whether they wanted it out there or not, it belongs to the people. Only these days most communications are probably considered secret because any knowledge of where our elected officials are at any specific time would be a security risk.

The privacy argument is laughable. The erosion of privacy is coming from our own government, the NSA and FBI, complicit telecomms and social media sites.

Most people are complicit, if not actively supportive of a ever growing federal government, with an ever growing bankroll, with an every growing pile of secrets.

As long as it is their side spending the money and hiding the sausage, they don't care. Actually, them not caring is the best possible outcome, they usually actively cheer it on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria-strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/

While that poll certainly condemns mostly the Republicans, the Democrats are just as guilty of similar behavior. Electing Obama as the candidate who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as make the federal government more open and transparent, only to lead two terms of endless war and a skyrocketing number of state secrets, extrajudicial executions of Americans and reclassifying any civilians caught up in drone strikes as enemy combatants due to their physical location near some other people we think are enemy targets. Most people would have voted that man a third term, no questions asked.

I saw a poll but am unable to find it at the moment, where Trump quotes were attributed to Obama and vice-versa and then people were asked whether or not they supported it. Guess which quotes Ds and Rs liked best? Their guy. Content didn't matter, my side has to win.

A country with this many secrets, led by too many people concerned more for their own future political career, is a country that likely needs a radical change to ever hope to regain the title of "the land of the free". The people are just an obstacle, a game to be played, and they are getting played.

"Happy" Memorial Day.

oliverclaude
05-30-2017, 06:41 AM
Am I the only one that LOVES it when the truth comes out- and loves the truth more than anything else on earth?

I love it, too, but this outcome was just a part of the game not part of the truth. On the other (metaphorical) hand, the production of oxygen is just a byproduct of photosynthesis, which otherwise only exists to make chlorophyll galore -- but we accept and take it without sore anyway. Still, mixed feelings about this, like 'making America great again'... induced by Donald Trump.

norton9478
05-30-2017, 07:42 AM
It isn't like the DNC emails revealed anything of substance.

Evil Wasabi
05-30-2017, 07:47 AM
I love it, too, but this outcome was just a part of the game not part of the truth. On the other (metaphorical) hand, the production of oxygen is just a byproduct of photosynthesis, which otherwise only exists to make chlorophyll galore -- but we accept and take it without sore anyway. Still, mixed feelings about this, like 'making America great again'... induced by Donald Trump.

I admit to being a useful idiot with the emails.

Takumaji
05-30-2017, 01:09 PM
I do not embrace it because I know how the scene works, I've been a part of it for a long time, after all. If you think there are white hats who fight for ppls' rights, forget it, at the very least it's vanity, at the worst it's taking money from people of the other side with a hidden agenda.

Never trust people who call themselves hackers.

norton9478
05-30-2017, 03:56 PM
Is the problem the hacking, or the release of information?

Takumaji
05-30-2017, 04:17 PM
Is the problem the hacking, or the release of information?

The problem is that you never know who you are up against with those guys and the motivation behind their actions which may or may not play into the hands of interested third parties. The old days are long gone, the scene has changed a lot and I'm not in agreement with most of what goes on at the moment.

mr_b
05-30-2017, 04:18 PM
It's a double edged sword. I think it's good when it exposes the wicked but for every one of those situations it just continues to strip away at your rights and privacy. I don't, for a minute, think these groups are Robin Hood looking out for the good of the people. They are in it for their own monetary gain. It's pure happen stance we ever benefit from their actions.

All of this should just further push home the point that there is a world beyond our world that exists and the common man hasn't been in control for quite some time.

norton9478
05-30-2017, 04:36 PM
The problem is that you never know who you are up against with those guys and the motivation behind their actions which may or may not play into the hands of interested third parties. The old days are long gone, the scene has changed a lot and I'm not in agreement with most of what goes on at the moment.

I know right. People talk about Assange like he is some type of ethical disseminator of free information.


He isn't someone who say, sat on stuff and timed the release for a window that was most damaging to the party that he has a grudge with.

SteveNK
05-30-2017, 05:43 PM
One sided truths can be just as unrepresentative of a situation as lies. Whenever there is an agenda 'truth' is a relative term.

wyo
05-30-2017, 05:51 PM
OP's argument is ridiculous. The hacking during the election was one-sided and targeted to discredit one side to the benefit of the other.

norton9478
05-30-2017, 06:00 PM
OP's argument is ridiculous. The hacking during the election was one-sided and targeted to discredit one side to the benefit of the other.

Well, the hacking wasn't likely one sided.

The dissemination was.

lithy
05-30-2017, 07:28 PM
OP's argument is ridiculous. The hacking during the election was one-sided and targeted to discredit one side to the benefit of the other.

His question is, was any of it false, manufactured, outright lies, or fiction?

If not, then even if it is done with an agenda, why is this bad for the public?

More information, mo' betta.

Mr Bakaboy
05-30-2017, 09:14 PM
A big reason why Trump is president was because of the Hillary hacks. Is it good to know something like this? Yes and no. Knowing Hillary is underhanded by the emails is like knowing Wile E Coyote is obsessive compulsive about catching the Road Runner by looking at his ACME receipts. Unless you're living under a rock everyone should know she's crooked.

What it did do is help the fucking idiot voters out there to decide Trump is less crooked. Which is total ridiculous bullshit. Especially since he had his own controversy (Trump U) going on at the same time. Voting based on who is less crooked here just kills me.

SpamYouToDeath
05-30-2017, 10:58 PM
His question is, was any of it false, manufactured, outright lies, or fiction?

If not, then even if it is done with an agenda, why is this bad for the public?

More information, mo' betta.

Candidate A e-mails his advisor: "I'm working for the Trade Unions - we're going to crush big business!"
Candidate B e-mails his advisor: "I'm working for the North Koreans - we're going to crush the United States!"

Candidate B does not suffer any security breaches. Candidate A suffers an intrusion and his e-mail is made public, costing him the election.

Information is the reduction of uncertainty. In this case, the relevant uncertainty is which candidate will better represent you - seeing one side of the comparison does not help.

Granted, this assumes a two-party system, where the only option is to vote against the candidate you dislike the most. In a multi-party system, this effect would be less pronounced - more information about only one candidate would, statistically, still help you.


Voting based on who is less crooked here just kills me.

Then you ought to push for structural reforms that increase the number of viable candidates.

Mr Bakaboy
05-31-2017, 05:51 AM
Then you ought to push for structural reforms that increase the number of viable candidates.

That's as viable as everybody buying electric cars right now. 1st there are more viable candidates. Independents can run to which the people will hardly look at them. 2nd IMO if the other Dems and Reps can't win against their own party chances are they aren't going to win just because they are allowed to be in the final one. The best outcome would be lowering the amount of votes for the other party candidate so an independent might be more viable, but even then it's quite the long shot.

My post was because people vote based on what politician is more crooked. Guess what politicians are crooked. You might want to pay attention to the policies they are touting and pick according to that.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 09:41 AM
Knowing Hillary is underhanded by the emails .

Actually they "exposed" that the DNC might be underhanded.



What it did do is help the fucking idiot voters out there to decide Trump is less crooked. Which is total ridiculous bullshit. Especially since he had his own controversy (Trump U) going on at the same time. Voting based on who is less crooked here just kills me.

I knorite? For all the hoopla about the clinton foundation, everybody just shrugged thier shoulders regarding the fact that the Trumps ran an actual scam charity.

And the\

Tripredacus
05-31-2017, 11:08 AM
I never saw an example where any of the DNC or Clinton released content was ever challenged as being a work of fiction by a malicious actor.

To my knowledge, only Donna Brazile had made such statements. She said it when asked about the question leaking thing, her "incoherent rambling" she didn't say the emails were fake but that Russia had changed them to make them seem worse. She made a fool of herself with that response (the entire interview is full of double speak and conflicting statements) and after she left the news, that angle seemed to disappear also. I do not know if this was the first attempt to tie Russia to the DNC emails or not. But in that specific case, I also do not know when the initial hacking (by Russia or otherwise) claim first came about. It wasn't a case of a hack that had happened, it was that just suddenly a bunch of emails became available.

Anyone with a brain would know it could not have been Russia who would have done this action anyways. Intelligence agencies do not share information. It would have been more valuable for Russia to keep this, so that others would not know they had it.

But on other stories, certainly people should have believed the NSA hack tools leak right? Specifically that the tools are designed to mimic being used by other countries. That's where the WannaCry thing came from. Microsoft patched the SMB 1.0 vulnerability in an optional update within a week or so of that leak. The NSA had been sitting on that vulernability for years and it was just one of the things that was revealed. And then someone took that and made the WannaCry virus with it and set it out into the world. How come the NSA has gotten nearly no heat from that release? It is because the news doesn't cover it.

mr_b
05-31-2017, 11:45 AM
I'm not trying to argue with you, but what exactly do you want the NSA to take heat over?

norton9478
05-31-2017, 01:05 PM
Anyone with a brain would know it could not have been Russia who would have done this action anyways. Intelligence agencies do not share information. It would have been more valuable for Russia to keep this, so that others would not know they had it.


You do understand the circumstances under which the emails were released right?

When the accusations came out, Russian Intel hastily released documents through an account known as Guccifer 2.0 to try and provide cover and "prove" that it was a loan individual and not Russia Intel that hacked the servers. But the documents they released further implicated Russia.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 01:09 PM
I admit to being a useful idiot with the emails.

At least you didn't try to peddle the theory that the Podesta Emails uncovered the International Child Sex Ring that kidnapped Madeline McCann.

Tripredacus
05-31-2017, 01:43 PM
You do understand the circumstances under which the emails were released right?

When the accusations came out, Russian Intel hastily released documents through an account known as Guccifer 2.0 to try and provide cover and "prove" that it was a loan individual and not Russia Intel that hacked the servers. But the documents they released further implicated Russia.

But Guccifer 2.0 did not get emails. He only put out documents. The Wikileaks dump of DNC emails was separate (October 2016) and that is the one where Assange wouldn't say who it was and who people think it was Seth Rich. The Guccifer 2.0 stuff was from early June or May 2016 and Wikileaks had no problems saying it was from that guy.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 03:07 PM
But Guccifer 2.0 did not get emails. He only put out documents. The Wikileaks dump of DNC emails was separate (October 2016) and that is the one where Assange wouldn't say who it was and who people think it was Seth Rich..


It is true that the so called Guccifer 2.0 did not leak emails. "He" leaked other documents to prove the hack.

But you are wrong on your timing.

But really, there wasn't anything released that was worth holding onto. If the Russian interference was merely an intelligence gathering operation, then you would assume that they would hold on. But in reality, it was as much a muck racking operation as it was a intelligence gathering operation.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 03:21 PM
But for the record, you do agree that:

1. The Russians Hacked the DNC.
2. Guccifer 2.0 the work of Russian Ops.

Correct?


So a little bit of Occam's razor will go a long way.

1. The Russians Hacked the DNC, Proved they did so and probably released those emails to boot.

or

2. Vince Foster 2.0

Tripredacus
05-31-2017, 03:33 PM
I cannot agree with anything because I do not know. There is no "belief" in the news, if it is then it is not fact but a new type of religion. If you do not know, you can speculate or you can present information, but there is no "it is this 100%" because I do not know this.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 04:21 PM
Sometimes, it isn't worth talking about the .001%.


I will go out on a limb and say that If I were to buy 10 lottery tickets a week for life, I will never win the jackpot.

norton9478
05-31-2017, 07:50 PM
Maybe the whole russia thing is all a big misunderstanding.
Like a Three's Company episode.