Forum

A place for reasoned, civil talk about stuff we aren’t supposed to question

You need to log in or register to create posts and topics.

An Ubiquitous error that clouds the hacks vs. leaks discussion

What Craig Murray has said in public about the 2016 leaks to WikiLeaks from his personal knowledge is very important though generally poorly comprehended - a general subject I plan to take up in future posts.  His recent blog post, "The Real Muellergate Scandal", May 9 (subsequently reprinted at Consortium News and Zero Hedge) certainly adds to this, but unfortunately clouds the picture with a few errors.

The basic problem is that Murray is understandably resisting expanding too much on that which comes from his personal knowledge, so relies instead on arguments which originate with others, which makes him prone to error.

The main error in his post is actually an ubiquitous one: concluding from the study of the July 5, 2016  Guccifer 2.0-related metadata on transfer speeds - arguably too fast to have occurred over the internet - that "it" was a leak and not a hack.  And THEN speaking as if this conclusion, even if valid, applies to the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks - which are known to have been obtained, by whoever first obtained them, on May 23 and 25, 2016.

In fact Murray himself has previously explicitly denied that the DNC source (or the Podesta source) had anything to do with Guccifer 2.0 (more to come).

This article by Michael Thau is a good corrective: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/some_bad_reasons_for_skepticism_about_muellers_report.html

 

Let's see if I can make that a live link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/some_bad_reasons_for_skepticism_about_muellers_report.html

I would not rule out either leak or hack until we have more information but I'm leaning toward leak.

My imagination goes to things like "If they hired the Awan brothers for years who know's what could have gotten in to their systems, thumb drives, and staffing". Especially after finding out many of them didn't even have locked phones and lost them in bars and taxis and they did not use 2-factor logins in many cases. It's easy to let the mind wander and pick your favorite.

The big red flag for me is that they have no proof the hack was "Russian" yet still assign it to Russia. This immediately after the deep state got together and said 'hey lets frame Russia in many campaigns' in so many words and actions.

Keep your minds open and keep a sharp eye out for new evidence.

If I saw the criminal activity they were doing I and I worked for them I'd whistle blow or leak.

There's also the argument that if another country leaves the door open you would be negligent to your country if you did not look inside and see what's up. If every large nation did not hack the DNC when it was so easy they would not be doing a good job serving their countries. Even allies hack allies because they need to know what the enemy may have hacked from them as well.

I will rule out hack (via internet) because of what Binney found with the transmission speed. That's definitive for me.

@Blue Pilgrim Would you rule out that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks were originally obtained via hacking, on grounds of Binney's (and The Forensicator's) findings on transmission speed?   Please look at again at the details indicated in my post.  I'm asking this because it seems there may have been difficulty understanding the point I was making.

@TimWoods I haven't followed the Awan brothers case in any detail at all, so I have no idea whether potential security breeches attributable to them may be related to how "leakable" or "hackable" the DNC was.

You're right, the sheer ease and rapidity with which new charges against Russia are levied, and the unanimity and force with such beliefs are adopted by the foreign policy establishment should raise some suspicions that many such charges are false.  The first part of Guy Mettan's great book, Creating Russophobia makes this point very well, reviewing a number of incidents from recent years.

And yes, intelligence services hack.  My feeling is that if the Russians were indeed involved in hacking the DNC, it would have been something like a scene from a farce, usually near the end, where all the various schemers find themselves assembled in the same room saying  "You're here, too?!"

But my point was not to address the general matter of whether the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks, the Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks, and the materials that the Guccifer 2.0 persona put out separately, were hacked or leaked, or whether they were the work of a single actor or of several actors or several sets of actors, but to point out the error of using one particular argument (regardless of its merits when applied narrowly) as if it is applicable to all of these questions.

Quote from NorumbegaSAA on May 25, 2019, 12:48 pm

@Blue Pilgrim Would you rule out that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks were originally obtained via hacking, on grounds of Binney's (and The Forensicator's) findings on transmission speed?   Please look at again at the details indicated in my post.  I'm asking this because it seems there may have been difficulty understanding the point I was making.

I'm having difficulty understanding anything today, even the different narratives between the DNC data and the Clinton Foundation data of Clinton's emails, which I think is what 'the Guccifer 2.0' referred to. https://guccifer2.wordpress.com My understanding is that Binney was referring to the DNC data, and that was leaked and copied to local storage, not hacked over the internet -- and that is clear.

Looking at https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ there may be some clarification of whats looks to now as deliberate obfuscation by the Guccifer, the media, and others. The timeline there is helpful.

Also see https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/03/bill-binney-and-larry-johnson-how-we-know-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians/  and https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/02/why-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians.html

There is a large amount of material to go through, and what I did go through some ago I have largely forgotten and is now fuzzy. I don't want to go through it all again because it is confusing and I have way to many other things I have to to deal with. I'm not sure what the point of it would be, especially trying to sort out the Guccifer stories again.  My main take-away at this point is that calling the thing a hack instead of a leak is obfuscation and mystification, and that it is time we moved on from all that, and that it is old news. If I never heard the name 'Clinton' or DNC again I would not be disappointed.

 

 

The answer to my question is that the Binney finding on transmission speeds pertains to (1) Guccifer 2.0 material (a particular release in September 2016, related to a transfer event in July 2016), not (2) the DNC emails obtained on May 23 and 25, 2016 and published by WikiLeaks in July and November 2016, or (3) the Podesta emails obtained in early 2016 and published by WikiLeaks in October 2016 or (4) Clinton's deleted emails.

Again, Craig Murray assures us that the DNC and Podesta leaks - and he is emphatic that they both were leaks - had nothing to do with Guccifer 2.0.  If so, the finding on transfer speeds, related to Guccifer 2.0, says nothing at all about the materials that WikiLeaks published.  At best, it suggests that the Guccifer 2.0 materials were also not obtained by remote hacking, i.e. that they also were leaks and not hacks - though of a peculiar sort, as Guccifer 2.0 very well may have been a false flag operation, rather than the work of a true whistleblower.

You have actually understood correctly that Binney's more recent work pertains to the DNC and Podesta materials published by WikiLeaks (notably the article he published in February on Sic Semper Tyrannis with Larry Johnson, which you cite: https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/02/why-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians.html

They found that the DNC emails' metadata all showed a key characteristic of FAT formatting - indicating that they were downloaded to a storage device before WikiLeaks got them - whereas the Podesta emails did not.

Incidentally, this latter work of Binney's, or the recent more detailed work of The Forensicator on the same subject, has not yet been noticed by Lee, to my awareness.  Nor, to my knowledge, has he been aware that Craig Murray has denied any relation between the leaks to WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0.  But he has been admirably clear that the previous download speed study by Binney pertains to one particular transfer event, not necessarily to anything else, or to the files published by WikiLeaks, which the files in that transfer event were not.

You may feel the way Bernie Sanders did when he exclaimed, "Can we please stop talking about the emails?"  That's fine.

But I continue to be frustrated by the common conflation that lumps three things together as one, as in "it was a leak not a hack".  (Though it must be granted that in Robert Mueller's theory, all three were the work of the Russian GRU.)  And although my own grasp of the technical discussions is limited, I will have more to say about what people with plausible claims to knowledge about the WikiLeaks sources have actually said on the record.

'You may feel the way Bernie Sanders did when he exclaimed, "Can we please stop talking about the emails?" '

I don't mind if others talk about it, as long as dysinformation and propaganda is not being generated, and the whole Russiagate and Putin interference nonsense can finally fade. It's the lies and mystification which are so destructive. And the information overload and distractions.

Somehow, while I wasn't watching, I got old, and with my failing memory, fibrofog, sleep deprivation, physical problems, and poverty pressures, and such, I just can't keep up with everything -- and even when young I couldn't keep track of all the characters in the TV soap operas.

I assume that other people also have trouble with the overload, and that the government and elite hire hundreds of people knowing that it incapacitates the people in trying to get control of their lives and the system.  Some I think is deliberate, and some incidental, like trying to sort out new versions of software and hardware and keep the computer running. But over-complexity is everywhere and growing, and a great many things just don't work right any more.  I don't have time to read the latest startling revelation on congress if I read the instructions for reprogramming the car's computer on automatically locking the doors, or figure out how to fill out the new application form for medical coverage. I don't have a staff of assistants like a politician or professional media propagandist or lobbyist or corporate manager has. I have to remember if this is the week to take down the recyclables, the yard waste, or the bulk items with the trash can, and if this old light bulb is trash or hazardous waste.  Not to mention remembering which acronyms are which and what CDO means. Human brains did not evolve to handle all this.

Or maybe I just got too old and decrepit?

 

 

 

 

 

I can relate to all this, definitely.  I feel much the same way about much of this.  I don't attempt to keep up with everything, but still try to understand what portions that I can in the too-little time in a day, and develop a few pet peeves along the way about certain factual matters and then bring them to the attention of others whose radar (naturally) isn't pointed in quite the same direction as mine, to no fault of their own.  Part of me keeps wanting to pull away from it all, but I keep finding myself sucked back in.  (And I'm way behind schedule on my barn project, which presses now that we're in the warm season again.)  The propaganda and disinformation coming from our own establishment really bothers me, and that drives me, like it appears to do you.