c r o w d s t r i k e

a reply to: facedye

There is a difference, under the law, between a "whistleblower" and a leaker.

In order to be be protected under the whistleblower law, one does not leak to the public, one goes through channels. If one leaks, one risks consequences, in particular if the leak involves classified information. If one whistleblows, one is protected.

Just to clarify the legalities.

a reply to: Phage

Hey Phage,

I appreciate you adding your input - always do. However, I think your main point here takes a backseat to the fact that truth shouldn't have a particularly safe channel of expression. It should always be encouraged, no matter who transfers its message, nor who delivers it to the rest of us.

With that being said, you're right. Human behavior dictates that different methods of delivering honesty has different consequences. I just think that if we're speaking about ethics in this regard, and if we're speaking about what we all 'ought' to do, then it certainly doesn't matter how the truth gets disseminated - so long as it's the truth.

a reply to: facedye

You asked about the different treatment. I told you the reason. Legalities. And we are, supposedly, a nation of laws.

a reply to: Phage

does that matter?

a reply to: facedye

Yeah. I think laws matter.
But maybe that's just me.

a reply to: Phage

well, more specifically, what kind of dissection are you willing to make to discern between a whistleblower and a leaker in terms of humane treatment and lawful processing?

whether you're a whistleblower or a leaker, aren't you doing the 'right thing'? and if you are doing the right thing, should you be treated differently depending on the method in which you do it in?

a reply to: facedye

I think that Snowden knew what he was doing, operating in what he believed to be the interests of this country and accepted the consequences of violating the law. That's why he lives in Russia now.

I think that Assange was not working in the interests of this country, nor did he believe he was. When busted, he got whiney about it, claiming persecution.

I think Snowden is a patriot (misguided somewhat, I can't agree fully with his actions). I think Assange is a jackass.

a reply to: Phage

I respect that position. I guess I just also believe that Snowden shouldn't have to live in Russia, and Assange shouldn't have to be sitting in a dark room somewhere waiting for his next round of electric shock treatment.

you're a bit more cruel than I thought. that's cool.

Here's a few things you might have missed op.



Remember the crowdstrike was behind that intelligence report that nobody believed concerning fuzzy and fancy bear.

if you look at the timing of those $100,000 cash infusions, the first was just after Seth Rich was killed, the second happened to be after another death. Sorry, I forget who that one was.

Know that their nickname is clown strike among many infosec professionals.

Does anyone else want to know what John McAfee might know?

The big conspiracy is that the DNC hack never happened. That an insider (Seth Rich)simply copied a directory and put it on a USB stick and passed it off to get to Assange. Some say the FBI never saw the server. They said it was never a mirror made. Other say the FBI has it. I have never heard them say that. I'm sure the conservative right would love a copy of that mirror so they could do their own forensics.

a reply to: Phage

I think it's important to remember that Assange is not an American citizen, and never had any real ties to America. He's Australian, and personally I think he was just pure hacker who was very capable and curious and wanted to know for himself.

I wonder if he is not in protective custody instead of jail, because I think he would be as dead in jail as Epstein was but maybe deader, because alive he can steal name his source. Guccifer 2 probably, maybe? never existed. Crowdstrike was probably talking out their ass, and may have been told to do that in exchange for big funding for startup.

a reply to: hadriana

I think it's important to remember that Assange is not an American citizen, and never had any real ties to America.

I know.

He's Australian, and personally I think he was just pure hacker who was very capable and curious and wanted to know for himself.

And personally, I think he's a dick.

a reply to: hadriana

I agree with you. McAfee is honestly one crazy mfer, so i'm not even sure where to begin with where to fit him within this entire formula.

In the case of Seth Rich, that's an interesting matter of robbery and murder without robbery, now isn't it? unless we're discussing his laptop?

a reply to: facedye

Remember though, just a few weeks ago mcafee started freaking out really bad about something? Thinking they were going to kill him. The timing is just odd, and I think even though he's crazy, he's smart and he would know the technical capabilities of crowdstrike leadership better than anyone.

I keep hearing talk about AI. There is no real AI that I know of at this point, only machine learning routines. It still has problems and with one very adept crew that I know who is leading the field, they have false positives. There is also anomaly detection. There is signature detection. I don't know of any real AI in the field of infosec today.

a reply to: hadriana

Thinking they were going to kill him.

It's not the first time.

a reply to: Phage

No it's not, and while he may be paranoid I think he's got good reason. I know the timing is really interesting on this particular blow up, and if you just go back a few weeks, you'll see it was a really big particular blow up and the timing is just ...interesting.

a reply to: hadriana

No it's not, and while he may be paranoid I think he's got good reason.

Self medication would be a likely culprit.

a reply to: facedye
The whole Seth Rich thing is weird.
no I'm not talking about a laptop but a USB drive supposedly handed off to a UK former ambassador I think it was, Craig Murray?

They're trying to cover up the absolute b******* ??? in the Mueller report that claimed that Russia was behind the hacks.
Miller never investigated Seth Rich or his laptop, or the possibility that it was a whole directory tree just copied onto a USB drive by an insider, and the DNC lied and spun a tale colluding with Democrats in upper intel.

Personally I think the whole Ukraine hornet's nest is trying to cover up the entire fabrication that has been fed to the US public. It may well be covering up simple incompetence on the part of the FBI to really investigate what the public, at least the right, really wanted to see investigated and brought in as evidence. At worst it might be covering up intentional manipulation by story fabrication, and at the heart of it all, a failed coup attempt by US intelligence.

They are doubling down now by railroading him for daring to investigate things for himself.
I found this
youtu.be...
McAfee says Russians didn't hack DNC.

a reply to: hadriana

Remember the crowdstrike was behind that intelligence report that nobody believed concerning fuzzy and fancy bear

What do you mean no one believed? The only ones who refused to believe is his base and they simply chose not to because they sure didnt have a valid reason for not believing it.
And still don't.
So no, no one remembers that.

a reply to: hadriana

Mueller also didnt investigate the sky falling down around chicken little.
Theres a reason for his scope and conspiracies were not part of it. Lol.
Of course he didnt investigate that nonsense.

a reply to: Sillyolme
No one I know with an infosec background bought it. Sorry, I know that the general public did.

What about CANVAS and Popovic? How could they tie in? They were active in Ukraine for the protests there. Popovic is called the regime changer. Could our intelligence agency's DNC hackneys have turned to him to help get a slow coup ball rolling?

I really don't know. I just have questions. If I were POTUS and had the means, I would try to get my questions answered too. Or maybe people don't think the intelligence agencies need anyone checking on them?