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.

 

c r o w d s t r i k e

page: 1
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Let's hop straight into this one - the left apparently want bad orange man who some say tells the true true out by the end of October, so we don't have much time to waste. Let's get as many facts on the table here as possible, since this is absolutely going to grow out of proportion past this point:

- Before going into the below, let's lay out a simple truth. The "whistleblower" is a CIA agent, and I will let the language of this article mostly speak for itself:



Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.

“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said Andrew Bakaj, his lead counsel. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

Neither the White House nor the National Security Council, its foreign policy arm, responded to requests for comment. The C.I.A. referred questions to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies, Michael Atkinson, who declined to comment.

A spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that protecting the whistle-blower was his office’s highest priority. “We must protect those who demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace,” Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the whistle-blower’s identity.


Whistleblower Is a CIA Officer

I don't really think I have to say much more than what's already being implied. Whistleblowers don't get this kind of treatment, and this kind of treatment is certainly unusual to see vocalized by the very government that doesn't have a history of taking kindly to whistleblowers. Unless SHTF, we won't know who this individual is, as s/he is obviously an active CIA agent. I'm confused as to why questions about conflict of interest haven't already been raised based on this alone.

- Crowdstrike is a "cybersecurity technology company" that provides "endpoint security, threat intelligence, and cyberattack response services." Let's cut right through the BS here - Crowdstrike is an organization that has been granted with legal authority to mine data centers at the whim of whatever "entity" is willing to pay them for whatever information they may or may not have access to. Don't think so? Then let's discuss - who can review the information stored within the data centers that have been built up in this country, and where can an individual or an organization become authorized to request data records?

- One of CrowdStrike's main founders is Dmitri Alperovitch, former VP at McAfee. He's identified on Wikipedia as a "Russian-American computer securtiy industry executive." You know, it's just interesting to me.. the deeper you dig, the more you find that there's a whole lot of Russians and Ukrainians working with the left to investigate Russians and Ukrainians over what Russians and Ukrainians are discussing with our current president. Being born in Ukraine myself, I still don't know what to make of this, aside from the certainty that this is really funny to me. Maybe I'm not articulating this too well, but, in other words: I'm bewildered by the fact that the left is vilifying "Russians" instead of "alleged foreign hackers from Russia" while literally working with Russians directly on their so-called investigations. Please review this Wikipedia link below and go through it, it's insanely interesting.

Alperovitch Wiki

- CrowdStrike has had several organizations fund its operations, however in 2015 (interesting year) it was given $100 million in capital by CapitalG, otherwise known as Google Capital. Huh? ...Google Capital?



Google Capital is the growth capital fund financed by Google that invests for profit in growth stage technology companies. Google Capital is the late-stage growth capital fund financed by Google, and based in Mountain View, CA.


Ok...



In 2015 CapitalG (formerly Google Capital), led a $100 million capital drive for CrowdStrike.[7] The firm brought on board senior FBI executives, such as Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director (EAD) of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, and Steve Chabinsky, former deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division. By May of 2017, CrowdStrike has received $256 million in funding from Warburg Pincus, Accel Partners, and Google Capital and its stock was valued at just under $1 billion.[8]


FBI Execs Employed At CapitalG

I see. So it seems to me that CrowdStrike is an organization that receives funding directly from Google's pocket, who employ senior FBI executives. Let's cut right to the chase - our federal government has been in the business of privatizing their own operations through "threat security technology companies" such as this to create a (so-far) legal safe-zone in which they can engage in a litany of operations that undermine their regular protocol. The Wikileaks simply pointed to an example of a much larger problem - the deep state is now effectively monitoring anything and everything outright, for their own advantage, without any obvious oversight. The deep state has been using this privilege to its own advantage, and to the disadvantage of those it opposes.

- Not long after, in December 2016 (interesting year) CrowdStrike put out a report essentially stating that "Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists."

IISS States CrowdStrike Erroneously Used Data

Here's where it gets interesting to me:



But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson told VOA that it stands by its findings, which, they say, "have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

The challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year’s hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.



Stands by its findings, eh? Considering its financiers and track record so far, is this response a surprise by any stretch of the imagination? I wouldn't say so. Either way, I think this establishes a fair point in that CrowdStrike can seemingly be used to weaponize information by an organization that doesn't necessarily have the best intentions. Obviously, the implications here are monumental.
edit on 27-9-2019 by spacedoubt because: Removed all caps from title.

edit on 27-9-2019 by facedye because: subject formatting




posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
C O N T I N U E D

- This is news to me, but according to everything I'm able to pull up and read through, this is the first that I'm hearing about CrowdStrike "actually performing the DNC investigation" to "turn over all the forensic data" to the FBI:



Non-partisan, eh? I'm not sure how they can back that one up. What do you think, ATS? Does CrowdStrike come off as non-partisan?

I'll close with this, on top of all I'm asking you to consider above:

- There is a massive conflation mind game happening here between "DNC Committee hacks" and the "Wikileaks" hacks. Am I missing something, or isn't it a fact that Wikileaks dumped all of these documents the media is referring to? Let me be specific:



On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted the cyberattacks and other operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[6] Multiple U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that specific individuals tied to the Russian government provided WikiLeaks with the stolen emails from the DNC, as well as stolen emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, who was also the target of a cyberattack.[6] These intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia hacked the Republican National Committee (R.N.C.) as well as the D.N.C., but chose not to leak information obtained from the R.N.C.[7]


DNC Cyber Attacks Wiki

Is it just me, or is this kind of division of events from the same source interesting to anyone else? I mean honestly, what is the aim of the highlighted portion above? "As well as stolen emails from Clinton's campaign chairman"? Isn't he literally part of the DNC?

It's like saying: "The mechanic provided the client with the repaired use of his entire vehicle, as well as all of the parts inside the engine."

It's a funny dissection to me. I honestly think this is all very simple, in the sense that the most horrible part about anything anyone's going to uncover about this entire situation is centered in the truthful meaning of whatever it is Assange got his hands on. As an entire country, and even planet, we have spoken and probed our elected officials ad nausem in every respect about the 2016 elections except for one:

What exactly was the context of the Wikileaks regarding Hillary's team?

I'll be sharing another angle on this perspective shortly, based on something that happened right before things went south with the Podesta findings - truly bizarre, and I can't wait to share it with you. Thanks for following this far along.


+6 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Dneipropetrovsk here and yes.

All this ponits to essentially this....




Welcome to the machinations of the =C=lowns =I=n =A=merica

🕵️‍♀️🤡🕵️‍♂️



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The NSA records everything. Why can't we get the actually recording declassified?



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
Dneipropetrovsk here and yes.

All this ponits to essentially this....




Welcome to the machinations of the =C=lowns =I=n =A=merica

🕵️‍♀️🤡🕵️‍♂️



Vinnytsia O'blast, ochenb priyatno


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

This exact quote from Al Green is exactly what it comes down to. They don't have anything left except to try to keep obstructing. They have accomplished absolutely nothing, and they know they will be held accountable in 2020.


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Liberal Media is "circling the wagons", labeling any Right-Wing/Trump references to CROWDSTRIKE as a debunked-fakenews CONSPIRACY THEORY.

One Example from Today: www.forbes.com... b

This sudden media attention tells me that there is something to the working theory that Crowdstrike colluded with the DNC to tie Russia to Trump, after all. It's not a "debunked conspiracy theory". Google's involvement lends even more credence to the suspicions.

Excellent thread! S&F.



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Probably because Trump doesn't want you to hear it.

It's kinda hilarious how he tried to 'beat' the impeachment talk by releasing the supposed transcript and ordered the IG report released. 'No, no, don't impeach! Here, have everything you wanted!!!'

Of course, blurting out to the press that he absolutely did talk to the Ukranian president about digging up dirt about his potential political opponent was just pure 6d chess.



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: facedye

The NSA records everything. Why can't we get the actually recording declassified?


Yeah why can't Schiff find those ? Hmmm 😎


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Crowdstrike examined the "hacked dnc servers"

Not the F@☆£#$ FBI


Tells you all you "need to know"

Where are the awan bröthers anywho?



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Google's contribution to Crowdstrike is a no-brainer because they essentially do the same thing, they mine huge data sets with AI.

I suppose that Google saw what they believed was a sure ROI and invested in yet another tech business (among the hundreds, or thousands, that they already do).

The nature of Crowdstrike's data is also risky in a public relations sense, and so it makes sense that Google would rather be a distanced investor, rather than a part owner.

With the DNC hack, Crowdstrike were also called in on the case after the hacks were public.

Their AI had the alleged capacity to make inferential links beyond human capability and therefore could 'probably' identify details of the hack and the hacker that no human could ever see.

For this reason, I believe the FBI deferred to Crowdstrike and gave them priority in the investigations. Because the method seemed so 'sciency' and amazing.

But here's the rub, the nonsense 'intel' that Crowdstrike gave about the use of a targeting app for Howitzer guns, that ran on Android 'phones in the Ukraine conflict, was the result of the same AI's analysis and of insufficient input data.

It clearly demonstrates the limitations of AI, as being similar to human limitation. But, Crowdstrike had farmed in millions on its AI and so they weren't in a position to evaluate things rationally. That's my opinion, anyway.

As for Trump's reference to Crowdstrike, it wasn't saying they did anything, it was just saying their name in a moment of dangling sentences and name dropping. Reading the alleged transcript, that whole section was like some sort of mental seizure of incoherence amidst a rather normal conversation. Almost like an add-in inferring things unsaid.

Definitely, the mention of Crowdstrike is great for the rumor mill because the general public has really no idea of what, exactly, they do, and how. (Similarly, with the DNC situation, there was a lot of guff about BleachBit as if it was some amazingly powerful 'deleter of secrets' and not just another temp file cleanup type of optimization utility [hint, a normal Windows delete and defrag would do the same thing]. And, not to mention there's no idea by most of the public how a Microsoft Exchange data store works and how it retains even deleted e-mails for just about ever).

In another thread I wondered if the syntactic decoherence recorded in the memo is Trump's 'tell' - a sign that he is bluffing. But that's very speculative, and a different thread.



edit on 27/9/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   
420 dimensional quantum chess moves

holy moley

They're going to name this political move the Trump Trap

AMAZING

The more they freak out the more of their own crimes he throws at them.

All they can respond is uh, thats a conspiracy theory.
lol
ENJOY THE SHOW



posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

If I happened to Find Out my Sister was Ease Dropping on my Phone Calls to a Girlfriend , there would be Hell to Pay for her Act . Kennedy was Right , the C.I.A. needs to be Smashed into a Million Pieces , then Rebuilt by President Trump with a Clear Understanding and Reminder who they Actually Work for , WE THE PEOPLE Of The United States .........



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: facedye

The NSA records everything. Why can't we get the actually recording declassified?


Because it totally exonerates the President



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: facedye

The NSA records everything. Why can't we get the actually recording declassified?


Because it totally exonerates the President


The NSA is under the Department of Defense, and of whom the President is the Commander in Chief.

If it exonerated him, it would most likely be released.

Perhaps there is a reason the President has not released a direct transcript or audio?

It also doesn't necessarily make him guilty, he may be constrained by national security concerns.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: facedye

If I happened to Find Out my Sister was Ease Dropping on my Phone Calls to a Girlfriend , there would be Hell to Pay for her Act . Kennedy was Right , the C.I.A. needs to be Smashed into a Million Pieces , then Rebuilt by President Trump with a Clear Understanding and Reminder who they Actually Work for , WE THE PEOPLE Of The United States .........



The CIA actually has no purview over domestic matters. It is there for gathering foreign intelligence.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It exonerates him

He will never be impeached. You know that to be true.

He will serve two full terms (unlike adern). You know that to be true.

And you’re gutted
edit on 27 9 2019 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I knew something like this was coming the minute Trump ousted Bolton because it signaled 2 things. 1) Trump's confidence in re-election. Let's face it, Bolton was brought in to do one thing; wage war. The reason Trump brought him in was in case he felt he needed a war to win re-election. Hence, Bolton getting jettisoned signaled that Trump no longer felt he needed that scenario to win the re-election.

2) Unfortunately for Trump he just made a very dangerous enemy like on the level of Allen Dulles-type level of danger. So I knew there would be a reprisal and not at all surprised to see it involving the Ukraine as Bolton had not been coy about his involvement there.

So now you see why the deranged left is no longer facing any opposition from the right-wing neocon portion of the deep state regarding impeachment. Trump is no longer of use to them so they are ready to feed him to the wolves.

As many on ATS fully realize, it could have been worse.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Most of these stories dont go into much detail about what dirt Trump was requesting about Biden. In the AP article its mentioned with one sentences and concludes with "Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son."

Then I read a CNN article and it says "Trump's claims that Biden and his son Hunter are guilty of corruption in Ukraine and China -- for which there is no evidence -- also threaten to emerge as a distraction for the former vice president."

The news isnt meant to tell you what to think, it should inform you of the facts and let you make up your own mind. How do they know there's no evidence? Has it been investigated? Supposedly Biden had the investigator fired. Just read the full transcript, listen to the unabridged version if it comes out. Research the claims on your own. I dont want to tell you what to think, I just want you to make up your own mind. Don't blindly trust anything you hear, from the President or anyone else. Theres misinfo all around us. Im seeing two different versions of the news every day. Two tangent realities. Don't trust, verify.
edit on 9/27/2019 by revswim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: facedye

In another thread I wondered if the syntactic decoherence recorded in the memo is Trump's 'tell' - a sign that he is bluffing. But that's very speculative, and a different thread.




You forgot to link it. Allow me to assist.

It's important that people read about "tells" so that the broader context of your posts can be understood. Now everybody will know exactly what's happening here.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join