Thread: Russian Internet Bots and Their Use

Another one for you Humbert. Real, or not real?

Breitbart and InfoWars are drawn into FBI?s Russian bot probe | New York Post

^ Then you quote a Rupert Murdock media outlet.

Of course Breitfart and infowars are compromised sources and they are the perfect example of the type of site that the Russians would want to push with bots. This is not hard to follow for people who have a few extra brain cells.

^
Tell that to Humbert.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Then you quote a Rupert Murdock media outlet.

Of course Breitfart and infowars are compromised sources and they are the perfect example of the type of site that the Russians would want to push with bots. This is not hard to follow for people who have a few extra brain cells.

They don't really need to attack either of those two with bots to get them to post bullshit though, so probably not on the list.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Humbert

So, you are denying that the Russians meddled in the election

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

You seem to be stuck on making a case of something that has already been proven

Possibly in the court of fake news purveyors, nowhere else.

Allegations, innuendo but no proven facts. Opinions of politicians, acceptance of possibles as facts.

"When the DNC went public with the Crowdstrike claims the FBI never requested access to the servers to determine if a crime had been committed and to detect the culprit. Access to the servers had been informally denied by the DNC. The FBI simply followed (pdf), without any own forensic investigation of its own, the conclusions Crowdstrike had made."

"
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director,"

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/defaul...-2016-1229.pdf

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins...wLA#.afmKzVg6z

"Yesterday, Professor Thomas Rid (Kings College London) published his narrative of the DNC breach and strongly condemned the lack of action by the U.S. government against Russia
.Susan Hennessey, a Harvard-educated lawyer who used to work at the Office of the General Counsel at NSA called the evidence “about as close to a smoking gun as can be expected where a sophisticated nation state is involved.”
Then late Monday evening, the New York Times reported that “American intelligence agencies have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the DNC breach.

It’s hard to beat a good narrative “when explanations take such a dreadful time” as Lewis Carroll pointed out. And the odds are that nothing that I write will change the momentum that’s rapidly building against the Russian government.
Still, my goal for this article is to address some of the factual errors in Thomas Rid’s Vice piece, provide some new information about the capabilities of independent Russian hackers, and explain why the chaos at GRU makes it such an unlikely home for an APT group.
Fact-Checking The Evidence

Thomas Rid wrote:

One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address — 176.31.112[.]10 — that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC’s servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.

This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart."

The evidence is analysed here: https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/can-...a55#.e31nkss0j

Crowdstrike would have given a very detailed and comprehensive report of the breach in question, and the FBI very probably have them as a trusted resource; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Crowdstrike have a number of ex-Intelligence staff on their books; even the CEO is ex-DoD.

I doubt very much there would be anything the FBI could have learned from the server that Crowdstrike didn't tell them (with the possible exception of levels of deleted files, which wasn't even the issue here).

So this non-story is all GOP wind and piss.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Another one for you Humbert. Real, or not real?

Your comment was that every source of information was compromised. I didn't argue that they didn't exist. You argued that all information was contaminated and only first hand witnessing of events were to be believed. Or did you forget already?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Another one for you Humbert. Real, or not real?

Your comment was that every source of information was compromised. I didn't argue that they didn't exist. You argued that all information was contaminated and only first hand witnessing of events were to be believed. Or did you forget already?

Hmmmm, you keep putting words in my mouth Humbert. Please show me the comment you are referring to that says what you have stated in your first sentence. I did not say what you have misquoted in the third sentence. I believe I said all information should be suspect, not the same as all information was contaminated.

Maybe I took you literally and not figuratively as you may have intended.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Please show me the comment you are referring to that says what you have stated in your first sentence

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

it is now virtually impossible to pick out fact from misinformation. Go back and reread my posts and maybe this time you will understand what I am saying. There are no sources who quote only fact anymore and one can no longer believe what is written or said unless you were present during that conversation.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Maybe I took you literally and not figuratively as you may have intended.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Please show me the comment you are referring to that says what you have stated in your first sentence

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

it is now virtually impossible to pick out fact from misinformation. Go back and reread my posts and maybe this time you will understand what I am saying. There are no sources who quote only fact anymore and one can no longer believe what is written or said unless you were present during that conversation.

Are you talking about my statement that there are no sources who quote ONLY fact anymore? How does that translate into every source of information was compromised or, all information was contaminated?

Well Rick it seems to me that misinformation or non-factual information is contaminated information.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Well Rick it seems to me that misinformation or non-factual information is contaminated information.

Yes, deadhorse and you are obviously misinterpreting what I am saying so let's leave it at that. Your statement above is correct, but you are just zeroing in on the wrong words.

Just to lighten the mood away from the semiotics discussion.

Sex robot cafe aims to offer Londoners fellatio with their morning coffee

https://www.rt.com/uk/361200-robot-sex-cafe-london/

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They don't really need to attack either of those two with bots to get them to post bullshit though

The job the bots do is posting links to shit articles on FB and twitter. The shit articles from sites like brietfart, infowars, sputnik and RT.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So this non-story is all GOP wind and piss.

Or the alleged unbiased investigation company funded by partisan groups and and employing biased investigators is creating a scenario of lies?

I like the slim girls with long legs and medium breasts, what do you like/your preference?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So this non-story is all GOP wind and piss.

Or the alleged unbiased investigation company funded by partisan groups and and employing biased investigators is creating a scenario of lies?

I like the slim girls with long legs and medium breasts, what do you like/your preference?

I would stick to wanking over jazz mags; your input on sensible topics is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

jazz mags

We enjoy Japanese threesomes in this house mate. My Kay catalogues were left behind.