It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guccifer brought to US amid Hillary email probe

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I agree. Hackers at that level leave no trace...It is ridiculous to think that they would give that info (that he didn't access her servers) out to the press.

The facts speak for themselves...The FBI has been very busy with this investigation as of late and now Guccifer has been extradited. It isn't a coincidence, IMHO.

Hillary For Prison '16




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.


Is what I said unreasonable?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.


Is what I said unreasonable?


Absolutely unreasonable.... much more likely he is here to testify or make a deal.

You think they went to the trouble to extradite the man to the US for 18 months just to discuss server security issues with him over tea and crumpets whilst he tells his tales? That makes zero logistical or monetary sense.

The FBI has already interviewed him while he was in the Romanian prison... no real need for him to be here, unless he has further use to them for something.
edit on R082016-04-08T23:08:33-05:00k084Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.


Is what I said unreasonable?


Absolutely unreasonable.... much more likely he is here to testify or make a deal.

You think they went to the trouble to extradite the man to the US for 18 months just to discuss server security issues with him over tea and crumpets whilst he tells his tales? That makes zero logistical or monetary sense.

The FBI has already interviewed him while he was in the Romanian prison... no real need for him to be here, unless he has further use to them for something.


Thank you for taking care of that for me...

I am going to go eat some pizza and watch Star Wars with my hubby now.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Good! I'm glad they brought him back. You know how dangerous those romanian prisons are.

Or hillary is Red John and Guccifer is a dead man before the NY primary.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


She will be recommended for indictment by the FBI.

Wanna bet soda on it?


Why bet a soda on it? I'm still open to all possabilities.

You, on the other hand, have bet your reputation as a former FBI badass that she is going to prison.

I think I'll sit back and see how your bet pays off.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.


Is what I said unreasonable?


Absolutely unreasonable.... much more likely he is here to testify or make a deal.

You think they went to the trouble to extradite the man to the US for 18 months just to discuss server security issues with him over tea and crumpets whilst he tells his tales? That makes zero logistical or monetary sense.

The FBI has already interviewed him while he was in the Romanian prison... no real need for him to be here, unless he has further use to them for something.


Much more likely?

That would mean you still leave open the possibility I speak of.

It's about time.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


She will be recommended for indictment by the FBI.

Wanna bet soda on it?


Why bet a soda on it? I'm still open to all possabilities.

You, on the other hand, have bet your reputation as a former FBI badass that she is going to prison.

I think I'll sit back and see how your bet pays off.


I am so flattered that you consider me a "former FBI badass"... I guess you think all "former FBI" employees are bad asses... I am honored although your perception of reality is a tad bit skewed.

I understand you can not afford a soda... that's what happens you you chose poor career choices in life.

We can bet whatever,, make it free so it doesn't strain your budget.


My bet is solid as gold..... I have no problems taking stands on issues,,,, its much better than trying to sit on the middle of the fence all the time... you get less splinters in your bum that way.

I haven't bet anything other than what you deem to have some value. All I need to see is a recommendation from the FBI for an indictment(s) of Hillary Clinton, and I have no doubt what so ever that is forth coming shortly.

Why do you place such great value on a relatively obscure thing like a reputation on conspiracy website? Is you life so meaningless that something so trivial becomes so important to you? That's it? Your goal in life is to destroy someone's reputation on a conspiracy website? I really hope you didn't waste money on college.

The FBI will recommend indictment(s) for Hillary and about a dozen others soon.










edit on R422016-04-09T09:42:13-05:00k424Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: introvert
It is my opinion that the FBI is interested in talking to Guccifer in order to better secure their email/online entities from hackers like him. This is an investigation in to security and such, so it makes sense that they would want to pick his brain to see how he did some of the things he did.


Hmm, reaching much?

If that is all it was about, then why would they extradite the dude from freaking ROMANIA???

That is a LOT of paperwork, red tape and expense in order to have a conversation about how to prevent hacking.

In Hill's case, it is easy...Don't keep classified and sensitive government documents on your private, home based server.


Is what I said unreasonable?


Absolutely unreasonable.... much more likely he is here to testify or make a deal.

You think they went to the trouble to extradite the man to the US for 18 months just to discuss server security issues with him over tea and crumpets whilst he tells his tales? That makes zero logistical or monetary sense.

The FBI has already interviewed him while he was in the Romanian prison... no real need for him to be here, unless he has further use to them for something.


Much more likely?

That would mean you still leave open the possibility I speak of.

It's about time.



There is no possibility that the FBI extradited Guccifer to the US to discuss "server security" with him. Is that plain enough for you or would you like a picture?

How did you arrive at your conclusion? Explain that one:

1. Guccifer is extradited 1700 miles to the US from Romania.

2. Guccifer is facing 9 felony counts in federal court, but yet they only brought him here for 18 months. That averages out to 2 months per count if convicted. Why not wait until he finished his sentence in his home country instead of dragging him here right in the middle...why is it so important that he be here during this time frame?

3. Guccifer was known to have gotten into several US officials emails and he was aware that Hillary was using a private server.

3. Guccifer was interviewed in the Romanian prison by various US agencies.


So your position is that the FBI spent literally tens of thousands of dollars to bring the man to the US to ask him the same exact questions that they have already had a chance to ask him without having to move him.

Makes perfect sense to me, said no one ever.

PS: You are way closer to my side than I will ever be to your side... you know Hillary is guilty as hell but you can't say it because of your job and political reasons... it's ok to be tied to the system.... it's ok to be scared to say what you really think.

I would wager the chances of Hillary being recommended for indictment at 100% at this point an time.



Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn my side....yes it issssssssssss.

What a great day to be alive and breathing fresh country air!!!!!!!
edit on R062016-04-09T10:06:24-05:00k064Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I can actually contribute to this from experience.

One part of my job is managing an email server, etc. for a small to mid-size company.
We have an excellent firewall, strong security setup (for a business), excellent virus protection etc.

And still - a chunk of my day EVERY day is monitoring email and firewall logs, and blocking IPs, sometimes adjusting settings, and changing passwords, because EVERY day, all day long, we have intrusion attempts.
Much of it is likely bots, as they tend to look similarly scripted. Sometimes it gets interesting and I see concerted efforts.
Although I have faith in our firewalls, etc., if something happens, I need to be on top of it and not have something going on for days or hours or weeks without having made best effort to protect the company.

We are NOT a high value target. I don't see why they bother. But hackers are not just some obscure occasional attempts by some teen sitting in a basement. There are some countries that are hitting harder than others. The problem is HUGE and the criminal networks are extensive.

Now, Clintons are a high value target. If so much effort is put into hacking small businesses, what do you think was going on with her basement servers? Was someone monitoring them full-time?
Of course the official government systems have extensive staffs of people monitoring and securing 24/7/365.
Even if Hillary's server had top-notch firewalls, etc., who was watching them? Did she have full-time staff to keep an eye on what was going on? It does not look like she did.

So, if this one guy, who is known to just be a semi-amateur, not in the same league as the country-backed criminal networks, was able to get into the email accounts of so many high-profile government people, and was known to be in possession of Hillary emails, as he was, then he is part of this investigation for good reason. If he got in, who else got in and then covered their tracks?
It proves her server was vulnerable.
This guy said he was reading her emails for hours every day. And no one noticed?
What else did no one notice in the activity on her servers?

ETA: Bottom line: There is no way in the world that there were not attempts on her server. And it does not sound like her security was set up to meet the standards of government employees.
edit on 4/9/16 by BlueAjah because: eta

edit on 4/9/16 by BlueAjah because: spelling



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I can actually contribute to this from experience.

One part of my job is an email server, etc. for a small to mid-size company.
We have an excellent firewall, strong security setup (for a business), excellent virus protection etc.

And still - a chunk of my day EVERY day is monitoring email and firewall logs, and blocking IPs, sometimes adjusting settings, and changing passwords, because EVERY day, all day long, we have intrusion attempts.
Much of it is likely bots, as they tend to look similarly scripted. Sometimes it gets interesting and I see concerted efforts.
Although I have faith in our firewalls, etc., if something happens, I need to be on top of it and not have something going on for days or hours or weeks without having made best effort to protect the company.

We are NOT a high value target. I don't see why they bother. But hackers are not just some obscure occasional attempts by some teen sitting in a basement. There are some countries that are hitting harder than others. The problem is HUGE and the criminal networks are extensive.

Now, Clintons are a high value target. If so much effort is put into hacking small businesses, what do you think was going on with her basement servers? Was someone monitoring them full-time?
Of course the official government systems have extensive staffs of people monitoring and securing 24/7/365.
Even if Hillary's serer had top-notch firewalls, etc., who was watching them? Did she have full-time staff to keep an eye on what was going on? It does not look like she did.

So, if this one guy, who is known to just be a semi-amateur, not in the same league as the country-backed criminal networks, was able to get into the email accounts of so many high-profile government people, and was known to be in position of Hillary emails, as he was, then he is part of this investigation for good reason. If he got in, who else got in and then covered their tracks?
It proves her server was vulnerable.
This guy said he was reading her emails for hours every day. And no one noticed?
What else did no one notice in the activity on her servers?


I don't get that either,,,, the guy was logging in under the user accounts,,,, no one ever noticed that "Hillary" was logging in to check her emails even when she was asleep?

That should have been a yuuuuuuuuuuuuge red flag.... heck even cheap sites today can tell when someone is logging into an email account from a unrecognized IP address.

So if he testifies that he was logging in and reading her emails everyday, what does that do for Hillarys "no one ever accessed the server" story?

At this point, nothing really surprises me anymore.

questions questions questions
edit on R022016-04-09T10:02:32-05:00k024Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Exactly!!!
In addition to the block logs, which show failed attempts with bad passwords,
we have a simple report where I can see all IPs that have successfully accessed an account for a time period.
If I see unknown IPs, it can be investigated. Of course there are some restrictions on connections, but I won't get into that.

There are block logs, where I can spot suspicious activity on accounts.
Of course there are standard protocols to block, lock, etc., but professional criminals change their IP every time they get an auto block and keep trying again.

At the very LEAST, her server should have been set up to ONLY allow connections from her device.
If even ONE other person accessed her server, then the most basics of security were being ignored, and there had to be other failures.

ETA: I'm sure that is why they offered her a government device with a government email. They could control who could connect to her account then. Her email account would have only been accessible from that device.
- In addition to then complying with FOIA, which she was obviously avoiding.
edit on 4/9/16 by BlueAjah because: ETA


(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

[SNIP]


Removed since the body of the text I was replying was removed.
edit on R142016-04-09T11:14:03-05:00k144Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Let's put his another way, Rick.

You stepped-up to a poker table with less than a full deck. After only looking at one of your pocket cards, you shoved your stack all-in.

That's called a fool's bet. You never put money on the table when a fool has bellied-up.

I'll wait to see all the cards before I place any bets. That is the smart thing to do.

And you are more than welcome to edit all you like. Most of it is just loony rantings. I understand now why you edit so much.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Wow, this thread has drifted so much.
Is this now a thread of personal attacks, instead of regarding the topic of the OP?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Wow, this thread has drifted so much.
Is this now a thread of personal attacks, instead of regarding the topic of the OP?


It always turns out that way.

The best cure for a weak defense is to go on a full blown offense..... hopefully no one will notice that you have no defense.

You will notice that certain people cough cough will always attempt to turn the thread away from any discussion of Hillary Clinton and drive it anywhere but there.... we must talk about anything other than Hillary!!


I stand by my assumption that Guccifer is indeed in the US at this particular time due to the ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server.

That is the topic of discussion.

Hillary says her server was never compromised...Guccifer says he used to read her cables every day for hours.... somebody is lying. I do not know about Guccifer, but I already know without a doubt that Hillary is a liar.


edit on R572016-04-09T10:57:16-05:00k574Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-04-09T11:01:28-05:00k014Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

ATTENTION



That is enough talking about either other.

Discussion of other members is ALWAYS considered off topic here at ATS.

Return to talking about the thread subject, and ONLY the thread subject.

Any more postings about each other will result in post removals and post bans handed out.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
18 months should be long enough to have him testify as needed. I would think he is here as an expert witness as well as a part of the issue.

Anything can be hacked. I tell clients that when they are worried about access to employee information, etc. You can apply all the security you want but you are only as good as the people you employ, not the equipment you purchase and how you allow access.

I had one DOD client that I had to always go onsite to work at. Had to leave all electronics at the front desk and was checked twice before I could be allowed to work at a monitored station with remote access to a server. These a best practices any IT person would put in place. It amazes me something how much access i have to an internal network when IT is lax on security. There should be someone outside of the host company I would think that was monitoring the server for her.

Also, they keep referring to this as an email server. Why would she have a private 'server' for emails only? If you did, you would want them to be 'hidden' and it means that if something was sent to them, it was hitting this server and THEN being sent to her e-device. The server is not the only point of access to find out what she was doing. Also, I am sure that it was also being used to store documents. That to me is worse then emails....
edit on 04am30amf0000002016-04-09T11:49:26-05:001126 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join