c r o w d s t r i k e

a reply to: facedye

Exactly my point. The definition of whistleblowers and leakers is greatly distorted in the three ring circus. Snowden, not so much, Assange is a publisher of materials so I doubt he will ever see the US as a result of extradition. Snowden could have played whistleblower but, normally they dont run off to an adversary for protection. I was being more argumentative, but whistleblower needs clarification.

Absolutely the reason I brought it up. There must be another reason for the protective blanket they are covering this individual with. Second or third hand information should not be used as a basis for criminal accusations as they are doing here. It is serving its purpose, to keep hearings going until the election, and to essentially shut down Congress from any normal legislative work that Trump could use as an election plus.

originally posted by: hadriana
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.

wow, you know what I actually forgot all about that until you just reminded me. thank you. that's beyond odd when you start adding all of this together

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

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.

Thank you.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

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


Oh Really ? Maybe Someone should Remind them of that . There is Tons of Evidence the C.I.A. is Guilty of Domestic Spying and Leaking Sensitive Government Information to the Media for Obvious Political Reasons .........

However, this was a communication with a foreign government, so, in this situation it wasn't outside their purview.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
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).

Yeah... 100 mill here, 100 mill there, so innocent...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

"Don't be evil"

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

they use things like this for foreign intelligence, then? can you please elaborate given the context here?

There are many unsavory things about spy-craft.

I imagine the intention was to offer agents a way to 'remove' foreign personnel who were a risk to American interests, with the least blow-back possible.

We have seen the same thing with the Russian use of A-234 (Novichok) in the UK, except it was administered so clumsily that there were collateral poisonings, too.

This allowed the UK to identify that it was not a single death by 'natural' causes the toxin and all those poisoned, recovered.

Not so for Alex Livtvinenko who was allegedly injesting Polonium-210 in 2006 and died of radiation poisoning, or for Georgi Markov who was injected with a pellet fired from an 'umbrella', containing the poison ricin.

Spy services have, and use, weapons of assassination. It's not a US thing.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: hadriana
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.

wow, you know what I actually forgot all about that until you just reminded me. thank you. that's beyond odd when you start adding all of this together

It depends on your definition of AI. AI isn't consciousness.

Many would class the Google search engine as a 'soft' AI, and some of the computer game playing, and Turing test defeating ones as 'hard' AI.

Google AI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: hadriana
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.

wow, you know what I actually forgot all about that until you just reminded me. thank you. that's beyond odd when you start adding all of this together

It depends on your definition of AI. AI isn't consciousness.

Many would class the Google search engine as a 'soft' AI, and some of the computer game playing, and Turing test defeating ones as 'hard' AI.

Google AI

i find your point of view on this a bit archaic, if not narrow. giving birth to a child and raising it to understand its surroundings is not unlike giving birth to intellect encased in a non-biological vessel, which grows more and more aware incrementally over time and through effort.

if you aren't certain about the origin of consciousness in a biological entity, what gives you confidence over knowing what AI is or isn't capable of? logically speaking, "AI isn't consciousness" is merely a conflated supposition. it certainly isn't true on its face by any means. in fact, i find it unfortunate that you underestimate the power of something that thinks and makes decisions faster than any human being alive, only handicapped by its current public inability to make independent decisions. before you can run, you will crawl.

lastly - if you don't think your entire life is merely a matter of patterns, programming and experience in and of itself, we'll find it hard to see eye on this.

a reply to: chr0naut

There are many unsavory things about spy-craft.

I imagine the intention was to offer agents a way to 'remove' foreign personnel who were a risk to American interests, with the least blow-back possible.

…

Spy services have, and use, weapons of assassination. It's not a US thing.

are you really willing to commit to the notion that "weapons of assassination" used by the CIA were specifically and only limited to foreign nations?

in other words, are you confidently stating that all forms of murder and manipulation conducted by the CIA only applies to foreign nations?

… the CIA has never meddled in homeland affairs? there's no precedent for this statement? is that what you're saying? if so, I hope you have your seatbelt on for all the rebuttals you're about to receive.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: hadriana
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.

wow, you know what I actually forgot all about that until you just reminded me. thank you. that's beyond odd when you start adding all of this together

It depends on your definition of AI. AI isn't consciousness.

Many would class the Google search engine as a 'soft' AI, and some of the computer game playing, and Turing test defeating ones as 'hard' AI.

Google AI

i find your point of view on this a bit archaic, if not narrow. giving birth to a child and raising it to understand its surroundings is not unlike giving birth to intellect encased in a non-biological vessel, which grows more and more aware incrementally over time and through effort.

if you aren't certain about the origin of consciousness in a biological entity, what gives you confidence over knowing what AI is or isn't capable of? logically speaking, "AI isn't consciousness" is merely a conflated supposition. it certainly isn't true on its face by any means. in fact, i find it unfortunate that you underestimate the power of something that thinks and makes decisions faster than any human being alive, only handicapped by its current public inability to make independent decisions. before you can run, you will crawl.

lastly - if you don't think your entire life is merely a matter of patterns, programming and experience in and of itself, we'll find it hard to see eye on this.

I have written code used in machine learning (using neural nets, successive approximation, inferentially-linked databases, goal-centric pattern matching and other machine learning and iterative emergence techniques).

I don't have any illusions about AI. They are tools to do a job and unlike human intelligence, are not generalists.

You cannot take and AI that sorts buttons and then get it to count fish. To make a fish counting AI, you have to start from the very beginning each time.

If it were just a matter of pure connections, the telephone switching networks of decades ago already had a power greater than any human brain. Doesn't mean they 'think'.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: chr0naut

There are many unsavory things about spy-craft.

I imagine the intention was to offer agents a way to 'remove' foreign personnel who were a risk to American interests, with the least blow-back possible.

…

Spy services have, and use, weapons of assassination. It's not a US thing.

are you really willing to commit to the notion that "weapons of assassination" used by the CIA were specifically and only limited to foreign nations?

in other words, are you confidently stating that all forms of murder and manipulation conducted by the CIA only applies to foreign nations?

… the CIA has never meddled in homeland affairs? there's no precedent for this statement? is that what you're saying? if so, I hope you have your seatbelt on for all the rebuttals you're about to receive.

Didn't say they were. I said they were supposed to be.

It gets muddied when you have foreign nationals and agents within your nation.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think CIA analysts kill many people. Mostly they work behind desks.

I think.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think CIA analysts kill many people. Mostly they work behind desks.

I think.

It is possible to do both.

(Long hours of boredom interspersed with moments of blind terror according to some).

I definitely recall John Nugan, who ran our little lending co-op and who "comitted suicide" with a gunshot to the head. No weapon was found at the scene. Go figure.

Francis John Nugan From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nugan Hand Bank From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things that make you go hmmm?

a reply to: chr0naut

CIA analyst is the culprit.
Obviously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

CIA analyst is the culprit.
Obviously.

WanBankers, all of them.