There are only two ends. The servers, and the computers/laptops at the DNC connecting to them. To investigate any end FBI needs a court order, and they haven't got it. The DNC didn't invite them either. Mere hacking of a private business/organization isn't a murder, it doesn't trigger an ex-officio investigation. So there was no investigation.
Thus illustrating you have no idea how the internet works. And thus illustrating you don't understand what the FBI is or how they operate much less US laws on such things. Wrong again. Further confirmation of the above. The FBI does not need a court order to investigate a suspected federal crime. They may need such an order to look for certain evidence if the party(ies) responsible choose not to cooperate although there are circumstances under which it's not needed even then. FYI here's a wiki description of one of the older laws governing such acts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act This link mentions some others: http://www.hackerlaw.org/?page_id=55
Maybe they don't need, but to find any useful clues they need it and badly. To investigate such an incident they need to: - examine the servers, computers. laptops - a warrant is needed for this, unless the DNC surrenders the evidence voluntarily, or - spy on internet communications of the DNC at the time of the incident - they needed a warrant for this to. The US is still more or less free country - unlike China, Russia, the EU where all internet traffic of their citizens is spied, monitored, and saved for later use. So in the US, after the incident, there is nothing to investigate except computers of the victim.
Not really. As you have mentioned the firm doing the investigation was sharing the information with them. They may well have had more resources than the FBI could have afforded to allocate to the investigation as well and it allowed the FBI to allocate its resources elsewhere. You are leaving a lot out. Traces and records exist of a lot of such activity and in a case like this many ISPs will share with the FBI. Indeed I'm not sure but seem to recall that in some cases they are required to. A lot of the investigative work involves looking at the leads developed by the initial investigation i.e looking at the DNC computers. It doesn't stop there. The fact that the government doesn't save it doesn't mean that it isn't being saved. Indeed the very nature of the internet means that it is almost guaranteed that there will be pieces left out there in various places. Thus your conclusion is incorrect.
What one can safely say is; that the authorities are more concerned about revealing their abilities, and what they can legally admit to doing, rather than any individual hacking event. Even then, certain authorities try to play by "nicer" rules than others. And that is why, it only takes a single clumsy mistake to cause entire hacker networks to collapse and get sucked into internet oblivion, otherwise known as "pick up the soap, punk". That veneer of legality and respectability is important for the illusion of civilisation, but has never really hindered state-actors, as long as they can maintain plausible deniability. Use of third-party actors, and / or friendships to gain surreptitious access to HW to harvest information even from national ISPs is not unheard of...
Criminals have existed for like ever, and they are not going away, ever. Especially hackers, because the money is good, lots of free time, and you can work from your home, or from a hotel on the Canary Islands. Hacking is the safest criminal activity there is, those people feel so safe they are bragging publicly about their exploits, like here, hacker Jono about his (real and registered) attack against Donald Trump’s campaign website: Hacking is not done by some guy typing furiously at his keyboard as Hollywood movies shows. The real and boring hacking is carried out by automated tools, usually botnets (several thousands active right now), each of them built from tens/hundreds of thousands computers, laptops, smartphones and anything connected to Internet. They usually report back to the threat actor using a covert channel like p2p networks, TOR, IRC. Good luck finding the threat actor if the phishing link Podesta received may have been sent to him from an owned security camera in Cameroon, and his mail retrieved by an owned laptop in China. I don't say the Russians didn't hack the DNC, because any internet-connected entity is hacked almost every second, and many of the threat actors are Russians (not because they are evil, but because good jobs are scarce there) - working privately for profit, and some for the Russian government. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter, and all that is whining of the losers, and hysterics of a left-leaning media trying to capitalize on the Russian election-hacking narrative. Earlier it was the "fake news" epidemic which won the election for Trump - a fake news itself, now it's the Russians. Which I'm betting will be another case of fake news (like the Russians hacked the U.S. power grid - another advancing the narrative fake news). View attachment 25325
Interesting, from a press conference at the White House: ON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians? JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different. KARL: 20 million people had their personal data taken… fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching act– EARNEST: I’m not downplaying the significance of it, I’m just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I can’t speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity– KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House. EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can’t speak to what response may have been initiated in private. KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? You don’t do that stuff secretly.
Donald J. Trump: 19h The Democratic National Committee would not allow the FBI to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by Russia...... 19h How did NBC get "an exclusive look into the top secret report he (Obama) was presented?" Who gave them this report and why? Politics! 18h So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on? 2h I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.
#68. Sounds juicy. Pretty sure there is a lot of juice. Epic volumes, of biblical proportions. Jan 20 dreamin' (sung to the tune of the Mamma's and Poppa's- California Dreamin') http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-aK6JnyFmk
Trumpy baby...Politics has nothing to do with it. You have been giving the big middle finger to the intelligence community from the get go, as if there would be no repercussions or very irritated employees of said community. Those of us who are not so self-absorbed would call it...Revenge. Because other people had done that legwork for them... https://github.com/eset/malware-ioc/blob/master/sednit/part1.adoc https://github.com/eset/malware-ioc/blob/master/sednit/part2.adoc https://github.com/eset/malware-ioc/blob/master/sednit/part3.adoc Only proves the hack...Not who or where it came from.
From the freshly released report, lots of hand waving, lots of "we assess" and, nothing. The evidence: We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. - we assess the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, - Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia, - Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, - Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, - Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, - Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately after the election, - Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties, - In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, - Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences, - Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of global populist movements, - Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, proclaimed just before the election that if President-elect Trump won, Russia would “drink champagne” in anticipation of being able to advance its positions on Syria and Ukraine, - RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption.
wm., What part of do you fail to grasp? The declassified report can be found here: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
If there were something important, ironclad proof in the "the full supporting information" they wouldn't bother with all the hand waving. They would say we have proof, but we couldn't show you. Nobody in the US watches RT, Sputnik, Putin's hours long chatters on the Russian TV, or Vladimir Zhirinovsky (a nobody, an entertaining talking head, known for his bitching about everything). What they were saying never reached the Americans. So where is the proof that Russia changed the outcome of the latest American elections? Donald Trump: While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democratic National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. There were attempts to hack the Republican National Committee, but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful.
Which is exactly what they are saying...We have proof, but we can't show you. Where is your security clearance... Apparently the RNC defenses were not that good... http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-gop-congressman-says-russia-hacked-republicans-too/ What's that...I was not supposed to publicly say that...Oh, holy crap! I retract my previous statement.
Hand waving: The agencies believe that Putin wanted to discredit Clinton because he blames her for anti-Putin protests from 2011 and 2012. Reality: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. It must have been an exceptionally good speech...
This is why I cited somebody with an impeccable clearance - Mr Trump, and he said: "there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines." The RNC wasn't hacked, they say there "he retracted that statement".
Takao, this is another clear case of "Horse => water; fail" That said, your patience is truly enduring. Respect. Me, I'm all for facepalms, and wet owlets at this stage.
You cited someone who has clearance, but not trust...Mr. Trump only has his clearance because he is the President-Elect, not because he has been properly vetted and found impeccable. Further, the point is not whether or not the hack had an appreciable effect on the election...The point is Did or did not Russia do it. We're not talking about hacking voting machines, we are talking about the Russian-backed hack of the DNC. Open mouth...Insert Foot, shoe, and Shoe store. An inconvenient truth slipped through the crack. No wonder he quickly retracted.
