& I do not understand him even entertaining (news conferences). It will be nothing but a (gotcha "question" parade). Just run the gd thing with press releases & Twitter strokes. Media does not mean him well. Recognize that fact and he'll save himself a lot of bull .
Don The Con can't handle journalists, or face-to-face confrontations, typical less bully, hiding behind tweets.
You know what I'd do if I were Trump? I'd tell Media:::"Fine, I'll give ya's a chance. We'll do a Press Conference. But, we'll do it strictly by Obama Rules=no (gotcha moments). None. If you (gotcha) just once, I'll turn and walk off. And we'll never do another.
Now, Let us proceed..."
to find them, they'd have to hack Hillary's stuff, or would the hackers just politely ask Hillary to give the emails to the hackers?
I see that was a mile over your head.
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
... "find"?
He said that after said "if they hacked" the emails.“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
... "find"?
You idiot. He didn't ask them to hack.
"find" in this context is necessarily "hack".
so "I hope you are able to HACK the 30,000 emails ...."
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/1...overt-actions/Remarkably, only secondary commenters (including me, in point 13 here) have suggested the most obvious explanation: The likelihood that Russia targeted the former Secretary of State for a series of covert actions, all impacting key Russian interests, that at least started while she was Secretary of State. Those are:
- Misleadingly getting the UN to sanction the Libya intervention based off the claim that it was about protecting civilians as opposed to regime change
- Generating protests targeting Putin in response to 2011 parliamentary elections
- Sponsoring “moderate rebels” to defeat Bashar al-Assad
- Removing Viktor Yanukovych to install a pro-NATO government
Importantly, the first three of these happened on Hillary’s watch, with her active involvement. And Putin blamed Hillary, personally, for the protests in 2011.
Never mind the relative merit of these covert operations. Never mind that Putin has not, yet, released any evidence to support his claim that Hillary (or CIA) supported the 2011 protests targeting him personally; there is no doubt he believes it. During the primary Hillary as much as confirmed that when her diplomats negotiated the UN voted in 2011, they had regime change in mind the whole time. The US has acknowledged its covert operations against Assad in Congressional testimony. And hackers released a call from Victoria Nuland acting like she was in charge of deciding what post-Yanukovych Ukraine would look like.
anonymous sources in the ODNI refuse to endorse the CIA's conclusions:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204EThe overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.
I think the need to get to the bottom of this is wholly independent of whether or not it had any effect on the election or even whether it was intended to have any effect.
After I learned of a tax break, I turned Republican for the first time in my 39 years of life. This must have been how Judas felt when he sold his soul for some coin. Screw it. Lets see what a Republican run country can do in 4 years. They only thing the Russians did was let me know I was a taco bowl voter. It didn't sway my Hillary support at the time. Just the tax break. I lost a few close friends when I posted a selfie at the election polls with a Make America Great Again Trump hat on. (offcials made me take it off) Liberals.....AHH That felt cool to say.
Sure, why not?
Yup NIA and FBI agree that the CIA conclusion is nothing but politized bull of the first order
Besides US interfered with hundreds of elections, why are they crying bloody murder then???
Hypocrites
All the attention on whether Russia hacked to effect Pres Finals.
How about the semi Finals where Bernie got burned.
Lets investigate that to the 10th power.
You didn't listen to the video I see.
It took you 39 years to figure out Republicans always push for tax cuts?After I learned of a tax break, I turned Republican for the first time in my 39 years of life. This must have been how Judas felt when he sold his soul for some coin. Screw it. Lets see what a Republican run country can do in 4 years. They only thing the Russians did was let me know I was a taco bowl voter. It didn't sway my Hillary support at the time. Just the tax break. I lost a few close friends when I posted a selfie at the election polls with a Make America Great Again Trump hat on. (offcials made me take it off) Liberals.....
the quoted text is not what he said? Or is this just another of "context" and "intent" bull ting?
Faith-based Attribution
Every network attack against a company like Sony Entertainment, an organization like the DNC, or a government agency like OPM, comes with a series of questions to be answered, including the obvious ones like when did it begin? What was taken? Who was responsible? Are the attackers out of my network?
Attribution, simply put, purports to answer the question of who is responsible. For example, CrowdStrike investigated the DNC network breach and determined that the Russian government was responsible. FireEye investigated the Sony Entertainment network attack and determined that the North Korean government was responsible.
It’s important to know that the process of attributing an attack by a cybersecurity company has nothing to do with the scientific method. Claims of attribution aren’t testable or repeatable because the hypothesis is never proven right or wrong.
Neither are claims of attribution admissible in any criminal case, so those who make the claim don’t have to abide by any rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, relevance, admissibility).
The closest analogy for a cybersecurity company’s assignment of attribution is an intelligence estimate, however intelligence analysts who write those estimates are held accountable for their hits and misses. If the miss is big enough (No WMDs in Iraq, missed India’s five nuclear bomb tests in ’98, missed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, etc.), there are consequences, and perhaps a Congressional investigation.
When it comes to cybersecurity estimates of attribution, no one holds the company that makes the claim accountable because there’s no way to prove whether the assignment of attribution is true or false unless (1) there is a criminal conviction, (2) the hacker is caught in the act, or (3) a government employee leaked the evidence.
In fact, when looking at professions who use an investigative process to determine a true and accurate answer, the closest profession to the attribution estimate of a cyber intelligence analyst is that of a religious office like a priest or a minister, who simply asks their congregation to believe what they say on faith. The likelihood that a nation state will acknowledge that a cybersecurity company has correctly identified one of their operations is probably slightly less likely than God making an appearance at the venue where a theological debate is underway about whether God exists.
Unstructured or Structured Analysis?
Many of the cyber intelligence analysts who work at companies like CrowdStrike, FireEye, and Mandiant have come out of the military or the Intelligence Community with prior analytic training.
So the quickest way to get to the heart of how these companies assign attribution is to look at how intelligence analysis was done during that time. Fortunately for us, Maj. Robert D. Folker, Jr. (USAF) did precisely that with his January, 2000 paper “Intelligence Analysis In Theater Joint Intelligence Centers: An Experiment In Applying Structured Methods” published by the Joint Military Intelligence College.
Folker believed that adding structure to the analytic process would result in superior results over the vastly more popular but frequently flawed intuitive approach. He gathered 26 active duty volunteers from Joint Intelligence Centers who were then divided into a Control group and an Experimental group. The Experimental group was given one hour of training in hypothesis testing, a structured methodology. The Control group wasn’t.
Notice what Folker observed in the Control group:
After reading the scenarios members of the control group formed a conclusion, then went back to the scenario to find evidence that supported their conclusion and ignored contradictory evidence. When asked to justify their answers, analysts in the control group often cited some “key” information that gave them a flash of insight.And the Experimental group:
Members of the experimental group examined all evidence provided in the scenario prior to making their decision. They felt confident that they were making the best decision they could with the amount of information available. They acknowledged that their decision may not be the right one and added that if more evidence became available they would reevaluate their conclusion taking into account this new information.Keep in mind that this study was done in 1999, when many of today’s cybersecurity professionals were serving in the military as intelligence analysts or investigators so it isn’t surprising that the same approach is frequently applied by cyber intelligence analysts today.
Unfortunately, cyber analysts who apply 20 year old habits to their attribution effort should pay more attention to what modern science has taught the IC about how the brain processes information; i.e., the impact of cognitive bias. IARPA, for example, has funded research into mitigating biases with gameplay. Or you could just read “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman.
Even if cyber intelligence managers and analysts were trained to apply the latest techniques to counter things like fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and bias blindspot, they would still have a huge deficit to overcome — the inability to measure the accuracy of their assessments.
Imagine taking an SAT test, turning it in at the end, and then being told that you have to assess your own grade based upon how well you think you did. And you never receive an official score. Would you hire any professional who couldn’t produce independently verifiable results of his proficiency? Of course not.
The solution to this problem is a simple one. If you can prove attribution, do it.
If you can’t, say so.
Just don’t claim the equivalent of a 1600 SAT score and expect us to take it on faith.
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fait...abc#.dv8mfrjjt
its the notion of just suggesting it that is telling.
And you believe a lying reporter that the words are accurate...
You should listen yourself instead of regurgitating the lies of others.
suggesting what? That we're receiving the same treatment we gave, and continue to give, others?
Does that offend you?
Get to the bottom of it, sure, and give em right back, but this should surprise no one.
Suggesting that we rig the Palestinian elections...
Yes. It offends me. As she just ran for president.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
