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.

 

Meet the Real (Not Russian) IT Staff That Spied On and Hacked The U.S. Congress

page: 5
108
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Again... no named sources.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
How do you know Congress was not hacked?
Do you work with the Capitol Police?

Do you think this is fake news?

No. That isn't what I said or meant at all.


Funny. Do you realize that is not how hacking works?
One hack leads to another.

But these guys worked for Congress and the DNC was hacked last year. So they shouldn't have had access to those servers. Plus the GOP was hacked as well. That data just wasn't ever dumped. But in any case you can't just ASSUME that these hacks are related without evidence. That is lazy investigating.


But her name is there, and it is the one name that pops up in every article.

And she resigned as DNC chair. That you can not deny. So why did she resign again?

OH NO! Her name was there! She couldn't just be very unlucky or just stupidly inept?


No, nothing of the kind but you want to read it that way.

I guess that bolded word "previously" means nothing to you. Just some random nonsense string of characters, huh?
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
but
but
but


dude you are now defending spys

No. I'm trying to keep an open mind on the characteristics of the case. It's called denying ignorance. I know it has become rather uncommon around here, but it still exists.

It's not like I'm saying they didn't do anything wrong or anything. I just don't agree with the OP's crazy conclusion that this hack is the same as last year's hack. Even his OP article didn't make that conclusion if you'd bother to read it beyond just the excerpt that was posted in the OP.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So how do you prevent that? Ask them at the hiring process, "By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a spy would you?"



Seriously?

It is called a Security Clearance.

This is what background checks are designed to rat out.
If in doubt, they will administer a lie detector test.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burntheships

But wasn't it the DNC that got hacked and not the Congress? Couldn't this be a completely separate hack or are we just going to jump to conclusions that these are related? I don't see any definitive connection to them and the hack last year being made by the Daily Caller except for mentioning Schultz' name. In FACT, the article even seems to be suggesting they are unrelated.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

But hey jumping to conclusions never bit anyone in the ass right?

So the Democrats being too inept not to hire Muslim spies to work for them counts for what?

So how do you prevent that? Ask them at the hiring process, "By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a spy would you?"

Thanks for admitting that the Democrats in Congress are incapable of vetting their own employees.

Believe it or not, I'm not on the Democrats' payroll and am not beholden to them.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So how do you prevent that? Ask them at the hiring process, "By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a spy would you?"



Seriously?

It is called a Security Clearance.

This is what background checks are designed to rat out.
If in doubt, they will administer a lie detector test.


Lie detector tests aren't fool proof, guy. This isn't Hollywood. Next you'll be telling me they just need a dose of Sodium Pentathol.
There’s No Foolproof Way to Detect a Lie



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I just don't agree with the OP's crazy conclusion that this hack is the same as last year's hack.


I concluded that these suspects work for the same Congressional offices.

Never said it was the same hack.


Besides, hacks don't work that way, come on Krazy, even you know this!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burntheships

But wasn't it the DNC that got hacked and not the Congress? Couldn't this be a completely separate hack or are we just going to jump to conclusions that these are related? I don't see any definitive connection to them and the hack last year being made by the Daily Caller except for mentioning Schultz' name. In FACT, the article even seems to be suggesting they are unrelated.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

But hey jumping to conclusions never bit anyone in the ass right?


These IT contractors were " shared by about 40 House Democratic members".
www.abovetopsecret.com...
They worked there for years.
So, the time they worked for Schultz would have been while she was head of the DNC.

Many or all of these other Democrat members would likely have access to DNC email, etc.

If these guys were doing all kinds of IT support for these members, they might have been asked to help set up computers, phones etc, including email access.
The email access could have included setting up their DNC email account.
Some people will freely give their passwords to a trusted IT person.


edit on 2/10/17 by BlueAjah because: spelling



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

So what does this mean to you?

Meet the Real (Not Russian) IT Staff That Spied On and Hacked The U.S. Congress

Because that certainly looks like you are connecting the hackers to last year's hack to me.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Lie detector tests aren't fool proof, guy. This isn't Hollywood.


NSA does not administer "Hollywood types" of lie detector tests.
You only have the impression you do from watching movies.

And the lie detector comes last, so the way it works it first
they investigate you. And not like some imagine. LOL.

All three brothers, one of their wives.
Someone was turning blind eyes or worse.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Yes they MIGHT have had access to this. I'm glad you said that word so you are admitting that you don't know for sure these guys are connected to the DNC hack as well. Thanks for that.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Possibly. As I told another poster, I'm not beholden to the Democrats. They can clean their own laundry. I'm just correcting your idea that lie detectors can't be overcome (as can background checks clearly), and yes even the NSA's lie detector tests can be overcome.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So how do you prevent that? Ask them at the hiring process, "By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a spy would you?"



Seriously?

It is called a Security Clearance.

This is what background checks are designed to rat out.
If in doubt, they will administer a lie detector test.


Lie detector tests aren't fool proof, guy. This isn't Hollywood. Next you'll be telling me they just need a dose of Sodium Pentathol.
There’s No Foolproof Way to Detect a Lie


Busted.

More and more federal employees reported last year having to submit to a polygraph examination in the quest of a coveted security clearance for federal employment or to keep a federal job. But unless you are like George Washington and you “cannot tell a lie,” this controversial method could leave you rattled and unaware that you might have incriminated yourself during the process.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burntheships

So what does this mean to you?
Meet the Real (Not Russian) IT Staff That Spied On and Hacked The U.S. Congress
Because that certainly looks like you are connecting the hackers to last year's hack to me.



That is a title, don't exclude all of the information in the OP,
Unless of course your a Democrat beholden to the Party.




and yes even the NSA's lie detector tests can be overcome


Really, I would love to hear about it.

Do you have a recent example?




edit on 10-2-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Great. So agencies have figured out that lie detectors cause people to react nervously (giving them false positives) so they use that against screeners to get them to incriminate themselves. That's actually pretty clever, but it certainly isn't proof that lie detectors are fool proof. It's just a way to work around their flaws.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueAjah

Yes they MIGHT have had access to this. I'm glad you said that word so you are admitting that you don't know for sure these guys are connected to the DNC hack as well. Thanks for that.


I work in IT.
I know how it works.

I am responsible for setting up network accounts, email accounts and many other things.
I use the standard practice of setting up temporary passwords, then require employees to reset to something only they know when the account is activated.
The same procedure is followed if they forget a password and I need to reset.
If I need to add their account to some other device, or am helping them with something or training them, I will ask them to type their own password, while I turn around so that they know I did not see.

Yet - you would not believe how many times, someone will have a problem and be explaining how they tried to log in and they used this user name and this password...
And before I can stop them... I am saying "nooooo" don't tell me that... sigh... now I have to reset your password again.

I don't WANT to know. The main reason is that I do not want to get blamed if logs show that they did something wrong.
It's an ethical issue.

People are naive. An unscrupulous person WOULD take advantage of that to ask for a password or otherwise take note of one freely given to them.

This is NOT hypothetical. It happens all the time.


edit on 2/10/17 by BlueAjah because: eta



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I don't need an example to know that lie detectors can be overcome. Even Xuen just proved me right by showing how the NSA and other organizations are working around the flaws in lie detectors to get people to incriminate themselves. But if you already know about this tactic, you can easily counter it by just saying you are nervous if the tester asks you to elucidate on a spike he saw. Naturally this is probably easier said than done when it comes to the NSA and I wouldn't recommend trying this, but I can't say it is impossible either.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Congratulations. So do I. Heck I work for a pharmaceutical manufacturing company where in order to take a # you have to fill out a change control. So I know all about ethics and what you are saying.

My entire point from post 1 was not to jump to conclusions about linking this hack with last year's hack just because it involves the Democrats again. It IS possible and that isn't something I'm denying. It's just that no one else is linking those two events yet. Or at least no one that matters.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burntheships

I don't need an example to know that lie detectors can be overcome.


Well, good idea not to give one, I'll at lease give you that.


Even Xuen just proved me right by showing how the NSA and other organizations are working around the flaws in lie detectors to get people to incriminate themselves. But if you already know about this tactic, you can easily counter it by just saying you are nervous if the tester asks you to elucidate on a spike he saw.


Sure, that is an obvious answer, but not given a pass.
They just proceed to ask you why are you nervous.



Naturally this is probably easier said than done when it comes to the NSA and I wouldn't recommend trying this, but I can't say it is impossible either.


It wouldn't work anyways.

Lets look at why, in this case. One of these is a long term employee. He would
have to up his clearance, Which is why I say someone was turning a blind eye.

But at least you admit that there are ways to know the guy was likely up to no good
and if anyone had looked they would have found the red flags.

Way beyond asking "are you a spy?"

edit on 10-2-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good.
Then you must understand that if they were consulting for that many Democrats, and if they had bad intentions, they could easily have gained access to their email accounts, including their DNC accounts.

From what I have observed, most Democratic congress members do not seem very smart.




top topics



 
108
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join