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.

 

"Fake" News: In Hillary's Name...

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75


I wish we had more here.... we need to quit letting them divide us...we are so much stronger together!
Thank you too!


Amen!




posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

School me. I understand hacking... and the difference between hacking and leaking... but how could the intelligence agencies prove that the Russians gave the hacked information to Wikileaks?

So with the new aide taking the blame...at first I thought it was the easiest hack of all time. Send an e-mail, leave in the phishing link and then tell him it's a legitimate email....wait a day and then say oops, I meant illegitimate!

BUT that seems way too easy. And this aide just list his name and shrugs his shoulders? I still think there is something very strange going on there. Hillary or Huma being behind it would make sense, and explain why the kid is still alive...but if it was really Podesta all along...

Man...you can really get lost in this rabbit hole.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75


So with the new aide taking the blame...at first I thought it was the easiest hack of all time. Send an e-mail, leave in the phishing link and then tell him it's a legitimate email....wait a day and then say oops, I meant illegitimate!

BUT that seems way too easy. And this aide just list his name and shrugs his shoulders? I still think there is something very strange going on there. Hillary or Huma being behind it would make sense, and explain why the kid is still alive...but if it was really Podesta all along...


Yes -- way too easy. And way too convenient. I had a tough time wrapping my head around that, reading about it again and again. One of those things that just doesn't add up in the big picture.


Man...you can really get lost in this rabbit hole.


It's freaking mind-boggling. Just trying to keep up is a constant effort. And the harder you try, the more "wrong" it all seems.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
Yeah just way too easy...his twitter is locked down now and I don't have an account




edit on 12/15/2016 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
No. Fake is fake -- including mis-truths, half-truths, and un-truths.


So Trump's statements about the wall are... fake news?

]


Actually, there is. It's extremely difficult and you have to be very good at hacking.


School me. I understand hacking... and the difference between hacking and leaking... but how could the intelligence agencies prove that the Russians gave the hacked information to Wikileaks?

Packet sniffing, for one thing. However, I'm not sure they have access to all the routers feeding into Wikileaks but they undoubtedly can snag information from routers that link to those ones.

Heck, you know how headers are deconstructed. Data leaves footprints everywhere.




How is the reaction of the people who voted for Clinton a fake news story? How is their "no comment" a fake news story?


I didn't say it was. I was just noting the lack of comment on it.

But your article title was on fake news and Clinton. If the articles linked are not fake news then ... I really think you should change the title.


Nope. I'm saying the fake news is the media's misrepresentation of Podesta's endorsement of the elector briefing as coming from Hillary... especially since even Podesta doesn't say that he's speaking/acting on behalf of Hillary or her campaign.


Said it came from Clinton's campaign manager. Uhm... how is this wrong?



...and the rest of the things you link - how are these fake news items?

A fake news item is an item from a news source that is completely fiction and has no basis in fact. It is not "a campaign manager says one thing and the candidate saya another (as has happened frequently n the Trump camp and every other presidential candidate.


If you want to limit your definition of fake news, okay -- that's your choice. If you want to assume the same things as the media tells you, okay -- that's your choice.

I generally look at multiple sources.

ALL information here on ATS comes from a source (whether one person's op-ed or a news agency or something else.) I personally find blog posts and message board posts to be less accurate than news media (though in truth, I always read multiple news sites, including BBC)


But I stand by my premise: Much is being done in Hillary's name without so much as a peep from Hillary herself, much less Hillary's confirmation and approval.

How do you know that it is NOT with her approval?

She's still on Twitter (twitter.com...) and speaks up and I know she's not blindly ignoring the news.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Boadicea

School me. I understand hacking... and the difference between hacking and leaking... but how could the intelligence agencies prove that the Russians gave the hacked information to Wikileaks?

So with the new aide taking the blame...at first I thought it was the easiest hack of all time. Send an e-mail, leave in the phishing link and then tell him it's a legitimate email....wait a day and then say oops, I meant illegitimate!

BUT that seems way too easy.


Okay... I'm confused. I thought you said you knew about hacking.

This is the easiest way (phishing) to get control. And it's been the standard "sneak into places" method for well over 30 years (I remember the first big one because it hit my company (thanks to someone who simply HAD to open every piece of email and click on everything) and then doing the cleanup for over 500 computers.)

And people still fall for it, yes. Heck, you should see the stuff they fall for on Facebook that compromises their accounts.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Packet sniffing, for one thing. However, I'm not sure they have access to all the routers feeding into Wikileaks but they undoubtedly can snag information from routers that link to those ones.


Ahhhh... gotcha... I think! So am I understanding correctly that if they were able to track the hacking, that they could also potentially track the subsequent transmittal of that information to Wikileaks the same way? Assuming, of course, that it was transmitted electronically, as opposed to printed out and handed off in a hard copy.

ETA: Thank you! Very much appreciated!!!

Regarding my use of "fake news," I'm standing by it. Unless and until Hillary personally addresses these issues and gives her personal stamp of approval, I have no reason to believe she does.

I know I may be wrong... I know there may be much more to this than I can know... but I'm not believing anything "just because." Nothing is business as usual these days. Anything can still happen.


edit on 15-12-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I'm not sure if you were addressing Martin or me, but I'll answer...

When I spoke to "understanding" the hacking, I was speaking to the difference between the Russians hacking their computers and an insider leaking the information. I didn't mean to say more than that.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Boadicea
Yeah just way too easy...his twitter is locked down now and I don't have an account


Color me shocked. Again, way too easy and way too convenient.

ETA: And now we have to wonder was this kid set up to take the fall? Or was he paid off to take the fall???
edit on 15-12-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I never said I knew about hacking...
But yes I do know about it and know phishing it hack #1. But you don't think it's odd an IT left the link active? First thing I would do would be to scrub the link.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Hmmm... once again in Hillary's name only:

Hillary Clinton: Putin's Alleged Involvement in Democratic Hack Stems From Longtime Grudge

Actually, two anonymous sources claim that Hillary said this. Maybe she did. I certainly wasn't there and have no personal knowledge. And it does make sense that Russian officials still smarting over her accusations against them would do this, and revenge makes more sense to me than that they were trying to help Trump -- even if helping Trump was the effective result. Just not the motivation.

But there is no excuse for this sloppy journalism. They know the difference between hearsay and direct quotes.

Incidentally, the video also made the erroneous claim that Trump was "defending" Russia by asking why White House waited until after the election to address the hacking. No. That's not defending Russia. In fact, the tweet actually presumes the guilt of the Russians! The challenge was all about the White House and what they did or did not do about it.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Byrd

I never said I knew about hacking...
But yes I do know about it and know phishing it hack #1. But you don't think it's odd an IT left the link active? First thing I would do would be to scrub the link.


Nope.

We get all kinds in the IT department. Most are simply people with certifications and degrees and have good computer skills but that's it.

Then there's the bunch like me. I come from the era of the Old School hackers (Cult of the Dead Cow, etc.) and learned some pretty unusual things in my time. More recent hirees are up against the Script Kiddie School of Hacking and many are simply unaware of what the potentials are.

Most of 'em haven't a clue what DEFcon is or where it is, etc...



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Hmmm... once again in Hillary's name only:

Hillary Clinton: Putin's Alleged Involvement in Democratic Hack Stems From Longtime Grudge

Actually, two anonymous sources claim that Hillary said this. Maybe she did.


Check the article again.


Two Clinton donors tell ABC News that Clinton made the claim Thursday night at Manhattan's Plaza Hotel during an event dubbed a "thank you" party, at which she expressed her gratitude to donors. Her former running mate Tim Kaine was in attendance, as was New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

In an audio recording from the event obtained by The New York Times, Clinton can be heard saying that the hacking attacks were ordered by Putin "because he has a personal beef against me.”


They've got it on tape.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Byrd
Regarding my use of "fake news," I'm standing by it. Unless and until Hillary personally addresses these issues and gives her personal stamp of approval, I have no reason to believe she does.


Okay...consider this:
* she has a Twitter account and can say what she likes
* So does her husband
* They both have separate Facebook accounts
* So does the Clinton Campaign Staff (individual members, various committee heads, high level donors)

If it was being said in Clinton's name but she didn't approve it, why wouldn't Bill or Hillary or Robby Mook or the very high profile and outspoken Joel Benenson or the rest of a long list of important campaign staff with Twitter and Facebook accounts and media access say anything? When Lewandowski started making stuff up on behalf of Trump, it was shouted out and shut down.

How do you account for the fact that over 30 people with close contact to Clinton (and ties to many other things) are still active and commenting on other issues but haven't stepped in to call Podesta a liar?

My own take on it is that it's a diversion against the Troll Army. You probably didn't follow her on Facebook or on Twitter, but anytime she said something, thousands (and sometimes it seemed like millions) of people showed up to make off-topic (fake) accusations, call her names, etc, etc, to provoke fights and express their contempt for her (you should have seen the nasty things they wrote when she simply wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.)

They don't follow and troll Podesta or her other staff members closely. So a strategic "end run" around the troll army by having an official campaign statement released and duplicated on Twitter seems like a sensible tactic. As the manager, he gives an official stamp to it (as opposed to it being released by Mook or Benenson) and as a male he gets less flak than a female staffer does.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


In an audio recording from the event obtained by The New York Times, Clinton can be heard saying that the hacking attacks were ordered by Putin "because he has a personal beef against me.”


Shame on me! My apologies -- and thanks for correcting the record.

My apologies to all.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Fair enough. All of that makes sense too and I'm not ruling it out... just discounting it I guess. Something feels off about all this, and this is what pops out at me -- but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.


(you should have seen the nasty things they wrote when she simply wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.)


I'm glad I didn't. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I've seen some things said that make me cringe. I probably wouldn't be tweeting under those circumstances either.

I'm sure I'll be proven right or wrong sooner or later... we'll find out together, eh?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Byrd


In an audio recording from the event obtained by The New York Times, Clinton can be heard saying that the hacking attacks were ordered by Putin "because he has a personal beef against me.”


Shame on me! My apologies -- and thanks for correcting the record.

My apologies to all.


Eh, you should see the number of times I've misread things over the years!!!

It happens. No worries.


In all fairness, there has been a decline in the quality of news writing since papers went to the Internet and decided to citizen-source a lot of news. Misleading titles and badly composed sentences can throw any reader off.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


In all fairness, there has been a decline in the quality of news writing since papers went to the Internet and decided to citizen-source a lot of news. Misleading titles and badly composed sentences can throw any reader off.


That much we definitely agree on! Journalism has fallen sooooooo far.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Nope? I didn't ask you about hackers I asked out an someone who has a real job in IT.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Byrd

Nope? I didn't ask you about hackers I asked out an someone who has a real job in IT.


I retired from 30 years as a systems analyst/computer support specialist, working on everything from the early VAX machines to the PCs, BBSs, and the Internet (as many here can attest... I've mentioned it before and am not making this up to impress anyone.) I did hardware, software, routers... the whole shebang. I was a consultant on computer security for three police departments in the 90's. My son is currently a network admin/support specialist for a large company.

Would those meet your concept of a real job in IT?




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join