CNN: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange got 'new computing & network hardware,' maybe hacked 2016 election data, in weird Ecuador embassy meetings

boing
48

I suspect that the contemporary leaker sometimes deals in database dumps and multimedia; but this report still sounds like something out of the movies where ‘hacking’ is essentially a battle of strength between computers, and occasionally a test of whether the hacker can type fast enough to penetrate the code walls.

Significant storage still isn’t wildly cheap; but the idea that it’s something special that the Russians would smuggle you from their spy gear stocks is deeply retro: when it comes to high capacity or high compute performance you probably want to stay away from bespoke spy gear, since it lacks commercial economies of scale.

They might be footing the bill; but just buying some 1tb microSD cards in Newegg(if you want sneaky); or one of the 60 drives/4U enclosures (if you want bulk capacity) will beat any number of microfilm spy pens.

49

The RUSSIA obsession at this site is off-putting and a little sad, frankly. I thought you guys were tech savvy. Who is Bill Binney anyway?

The Guardian still has an utterly false story up about Manafort meeting Assange. This from CNN smells very similar.

When we don’t want to look at our own role, we seek to blame external actors.

2 Likes
50

What are you saying actually? There was no Russian involvement in the election? The deep state chose Trump?

2 Likes
51

Are you saying that if a foreign intelligence service “gifted” you the hand delivery of a generic 1 tb microSD card that it would be cool and safe to use, because it was generic?

I don’t think you see the issue there.

52

@Pink_Frankenste
@paulhay2000

She’s not what I would call a journalist an unbiased source.

http://progressivearmy.com/2018/02/16/caitlin-johnstone - a-performing-strut-in-a-wikileaks-and-consortium-news-web/

…Johnstone is not shilling for an organized fascist outfit, but serves as a strut in a network that claims to own a truth that transcends politics and is especially averse to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party — WikiLeaks.

A quick analysis of her pieces clearly reflects this notion. Over 35 articles contain ‘WikiLeaks’ in their titles or hashtags, with 18 additional ones centered around WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange. The pieces all contain unreserved, and highly favorable endorsements and promotions of Assange and WikiLeaks.

Highlights include titles such as: ‘Julian Assange is a planetary hero’, ‘Julian Assange has balls the size of Antarctica’, ‘Why Julian Assange is the most important person in the world right now’ and a love poem she simply called ‘Julian’.

An analysis of her positions on American politics, Syria, libertarianism, the two-party system, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, whistleblowers, the CIA, NSA, Chelsea Manning, Donald Trump, a collection of conspiracy theories and of course her fetish to team up with white nationalists also indicate that she is toeing the WikiLeaks, i.e. Assange’s, party line.

A popular Australian writer named Caitlin Johnstone — who calls herself a “Rogue Journalist” and seems to have a hard time understanding American politics — thinks the Bernie left should collaborate on taking down the “Deep State” and the MSM with one Mike Cernovich, the white nationalist rape apologist who probably has Roger Stone on speed dial.

8 Likes
53

Will Mitch Mcconnell please stop being an ass?

2 Likes
54

After watching this a few years back, I’ll never be able to hear that cliche and not think of this video…

2 Likes
55

First, what difference does “unbiased source” make as long as you know the bias? Daily Koz is an unbiased source? You use a biased source to discredit another biased source?

I’ve read all the smear articles about Johnstone, however, I find the content of her material to be spot on. So if you’re going to attack the points she makes AND then maybe her character that’s fine.
“An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion.”

She does not "team-up with white nationalists.’ That is an egregious smear. It’s just wrong.

56

Mueller

But I suppose the life long Republican official, operating under a Republican AG and a Republican Deputy, in Trump’s own DOJ is a stooge for Nasty Nancy. And he didn’t actually find enough actual evidence to convince a jury to indict named Russians. That’s propaganda.

The thing that really bothers me about this claim isn’t that it just opts to ignore things like all the named people on the record about it, 3rd party confirmations, and additional info that’s come out since the news broke. It’s that it requires accepting Trump’s take on the subject. That the investigation was a Coup attempt lead by secret Democrats. And all that right wing nonsense about Deep State fifth columnists. It is exactly as paranoid as the Red Baiting it evokes.

And its not for nothing that the first places I saw these arguments was in alt-right online spaces and fringe right publications. Its a common enough tactic on the right. Frame your right wing crazy in reference to something the left has traditionally disdained to give it the veneer of progressive thought. Effectively laundering it. And its a tactic the Russian misinfo campaign used quite a bit to boot strap GOP generated conspiracy about Clinton into left wing spaces.

5 Likes
57

Criticizing Johnstone for wanting to work with people like Mike “Pizzagate” Cernovich isn’t an ad hominem.

That’s criticism of a bad idea.

If you, like her, think working with Mike Cernovich (specifically him, by name) is a good idea, then that’s all I need to know about where you’re coming from, argument-wise.

10 Likes
58

It’s not a smear if it’s true.

4 Likes
59

This stuck out and should be independently verifiable:

“Kremlin-backed outlets, including RT, breathlessly amplified the leaks on social media. On at least two occasions, RT even published articles detailing the new batches of emails before WikiLeaks officially released them, suggesting that they were coordinating behind the scenes, which they deny.”

(emphasis mine)

6 Likes
60

No. Why can’t you just read what we write?

Like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, we have skepticism about the effectiveness of Russian interference. Also, there is evidence that who the actors involved were is unclear (see earlier post about German hackers).

Also, there is nothing I’ve posted or written about Qnon or Deep State wanting Trump anywhere. Again, it’s an ad hominid attack.

Also, we also don’t trust our national security agencies who’s main job really seems to be giving themselves jobs. It’s profitable to have all these threats to our democracy from outside actors. Which gets us to media, it’s been very profitable for MSNBC and CNN to hype the Mueller report and rumors from unnamed sources.

Look at article Cory posted about the hack, totally anti-Sanders reporting the NYT is doing. The NYT? The paper of record. (It’s not new btw.)

My biggest fear is that my skepticism is going to be completely correct. And that’s going to hurt anything left of Fox News Right Wingers tremendously. Something to point to to discredit valid concerns.

It also detracts from the more real dangers of money in politics, gerrymandering, voter suppression by the right, lame presidential candidates who have no interest in fixing the power imbalance in America.

It’s also disheartening that the lessons of the Cold War and anti-Russia propaganda are completely forgotten.

The amount of venom and anger one gets when legitimately challenging this narrative should also be a red flag that something is amiss.

I admit, I get my info from sources that I trust but that I also meet with skepticism, but I’ve done my vetting on them and feel comfortable posting about it. I also don’t know every little detail and have scanned every single document and article. I filter my news. So I’m not claiming to be an expert, but I have yet to find anyone counter these claims with any sort of rational discussion. It’s all screaming and yelling and conspiracy this and your source is friends with white nationalists that.

Finally, as to my original reply to this article, if we’re just talking about “her emails” (sorry, I couldn’t resist but I think it’s a fair dig) and say Assange did intentionally leak them to damage Clinton, which I actually don’t really doubt but I just don’t think he did it to prop up Trump. (It is possible to hold both those opinions btw.) Then isn’t the real problem that there was damaging information in those emails, the Clinton was a compromised by them? Combined with the fact that she is a neo-liberal war hawk a problem with Clinton? Is she not those things? Yes if it’s Clinton or Trump by all means Clinton. But why was it that choice to begin with? The dirty tricks against Sanders? The smear campaign against Sanders and the fictional army of Bernie Bros?

Those are the much more tangible and effectual issues that need be addressed over interference that millions of dollars, 22 lawyers (or something) and over two years of investigation have not slam dunked.

At the very least, lets look at ‘ourselves’ with the same vigor.

1 Like
61

False dichotomy. The Russian government did interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. Ignoring it, and the role social media played in facilitating it unprecedented scale is foolish. You can’t solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it, and the United States has a number of serious political problems including unchecked outside interference.

10 Likes
62

It is verifiable and has been debunked that RT did this. It’s in the article I posted by Johnstone. That’s my belief. If that is the case then, why doesn’t CNN correct where they have said otherwise?

Sure be skeptical of RT like any source, but they do provide a voice to left media that CNN and MSNBC and NYT et all just won’t allow or heavily marginalize.

Stating that funding by RT invalidates any arguments is a terrible position to take.

64

I looked over some of her work myself, and someone who denies there is evidence that anyone spear-phished Podesta is someone I’d say goes a good bit past healthy skepticism and instead just refuses to see things that doesn’t fit their preconceptions.

And hey, smearing people’s character by implication looks like one of Johnstone’s go-to tactics. To pick one of numerous examples, in the bit about the Podesta leak I read she implied you can’t trust The Washington Post because CIA has a big Amazon Web Services contract, an implication that makes a couple of unspported leaps.

6 Likes
65

Russia Today is controlled by the Russian state, and is just as unreliable and biased as Fox News or maybe Breitbart. They have no interest in promoting American leftist underdogs, they’re interested in stirring shit up and creating division and doubt.

You really should not trust them at all.

11 Likes
66

There is “investigative journalism”, which is digging for info the government doesn’t want us to know. Then there are government officials inviting friendly reporters for off-the-record briefings, with the expectation that the reporters will apply the correct spin. Usually it is pretty obvious which is the case.

67

Russia today is owned and funded by the Russian Government and are a semi-official mouthpiece for the Russian government abroad.

And man I’m super glad they’re giving voice to marginalized left wing elements like Nigel Farange and the NRA. State TV from a nation with no free independent press and a fascist government. Saving the left from something something.

8 Likes
69

The judge has slapped Mueller for making claims about Russian government involvement: