Author Topic: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)  (Read 12005 times)

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #100 on: March 30, 2017, 05:15:46 PM »
LR, even for sake of argument the Russians were behind this, it still would be a left wing media conspiracy to focus on this to obfuscate and distract from the actual contents of the spilled emails.  E.g. Obama and Clinton knowing that the Sauds and other "allies" are directly funding DAESH.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #101 on: March 30, 2017, 08:15:51 PM »
LR, even for sake of argument the Russians were behind this, it still would be a left wing media conspiracy to focus on this to obfuscate and distract from the actual contents of the spilled emails.  E.g. Obama and Clinton knowing that the Sauds and other "allies" are directly funding DAESH.

The whole world basically knows the Saudi's fund all that stuff and spread the seed of Jihadi Islamism through Wahhabism. Therefore it isn't exactly shocking that Obama and Clinton are aware of those facts as well.  We don't talk about it much because of all that gooey black stuff the have under their sand.  The only real way (long term) to cut off the funding for Islamism is to develop an energy source that eliminates the need for oil.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #102 on: March 30, 2017, 11:34:35 PM »
The only real way (long term) to cut off the funding for Islamism is to develop an energy source that eliminates the need for oil.

Or failing that, find ways to produce it and bring it to market that undercuts what it costs them to extract and transport it. Either road leads to the process being unprofitable for them so long as it can be sustained.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #103 on: March 31, 2017, 12:28:42 AM »
LR, even for sake of argument the Russians were behind this, it still would be a left wing media conspiracy to focus on this to obfuscate and distract from the actual contents of the spilled emails.  E.g. Obama and Clinton knowing that the Sauds and other "allies" are directly funding DAESH.

The whole world basically knows the Saudi's fund all that stuff and spread the seed of Jihadi Islamism through Wahhabism. Therefore it isn't exactly shocking that Obama and Clinton are aware of those facts as well.  We don't talk about it much because of all that gooey black stuff the have under their sand.  The only real way (long term) to cut off the funding for Islamism is to develop an energy source that eliminates the need for oil.

That helps, but ceases to be a complete fix when Obama expedites immigration from Muslim areas where Christians are being murdered, while allowing only 0.5% of Christians from those areas to immigrate.  Plus like you said, the fact that most of our Muslim communities have some degree of funding from Saudi wahabist rascals, means that we get "home grown" Islamist terrorism in proportion to a growing Muslim population.

And there's a difference between funding Islamism generally, and funding DAESH specifically.  At least a difference of plausible deniability, since Obama (like Bush and Clinton before him) refused to ever acknowledge the problem of Islamism.  Ironically, by embracing the right wing turd "radical Islam", Trump avoids dealing with the Wahabist funding disease and Islamism generally, just as deftly as Obama and the BushClintons.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 12:32:04 AM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #104 on: March 31, 2017, 12:33:50 AM »
The whole world basically knows the Saudi's fund all that stuff and spread the seed of Jihadi Islamism through Wahhabism. Therefore it isn't exactly shocking that Obama and Clinton are aware of those facts as well.  We don't talk about it much because of all that gooey black stuff the have under their sand.  The only real way (long term) to cut off the funding for Islamism is to develop an energy source that eliminates the need for oil.

I wish that this was the extent of the relationship with the Saudis. But the petrodollar consists of far more than "we need oil". It would be more accurate at this point to say that it is one of the fundamental bases of the currency and that the balance of trade relies on weapons exports to places like Saudi Arabia. The current configuration of political alliance in the mid-East is also fixated on Saudi Arabia being pitted against Russia, Syria and Iran, whilst simultaneously allowing proxy armies to operate out of Saudi Arabia that can do various dirty work that official governments don't have a local mandate to do any more (such as attack Syria). And this is without getting into the really nasty stuff!

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #105 on: March 31, 2017, 01:19:38 AM »
LR, even for sake of argument the Russians were behind this, it still would be a left wing media conspiracy to focus on this to obfuscate and distract from the actual contents of the spilled emails.  E.g. Obama and Clinton knowing that the Sauds and other "allies" are directly funding DAESH.

The whole world basically knows the Saudi's fund all that stuff and spread the seed of Jihadi Islamism through Wahhabism.

Actually there are several forum members who pretend at least not to believe this, at least while arguing with me.  Some even say that it violates "freedom of religion" to block immigration of people who think that DAESH is Allah's authorized Califate.

Quote
Therefore it isn't exactly shocking that Obama and Clinton are aware of those facts as well. 

But it was certainly shocking to see them acknowledge it in actual words.  Bear in mind that these guys never even use the word "Islamist" in their whole freaking reign.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #106 on: March 31, 2017, 02:20:10 PM »
Wow I've been away from this board for too long.  So refreshing to say things and actually have people give thoughtful responses.  Have been getting used to getting flamed on social media :P

you seem to think the PHP code was the only thing used, and concluding the hackers were unsophisticated, what is your basis for that belief?

Sorry, definitely didn't mean to imply that, and even if code is PHP that in no way intrinsically implies it is not sophisticated.  I'm very language agnostic myself, you can write good or bad code in any language.... though for low level stuff, you certainly can get to it easier in C or C++ which have long been my languages of choice.  The reason I conclude that the Hacks were unsophisticated is mainly from public statements and reports which indicate that simple tools were used that are easily obtained and require little experience to use.

It would confirm the content of any logs as far as the from where and when.  Also as I said the logs weren't necessarily compromised.

But what would you expect to find in said logs?  IP addresses?  I've already looked at what they put forward for such evidence, and it looks very contrived.  Unless the ISPs were actively sucking up a lot of data on all these IPs you'd still have no idea about what data was going back and forth or who was behind those IPs.  ISPs don't log that level of detail on a large scale.  It would be outrageously expensive.

Please feel free to quote the report, I didn't notice anything in the report that said or implied what you did.

Which report, the blog post by Counterstrike or the Grizzy Steppe report? My citation was cut and pasted from the blog post.

Because sometimes the hackers have to bring out the more sophisticated tools and leave traces.  They do as much as they can with the tools that aren't specific to themselves, but usually that isn't sufficient to compromise the target to the degree required.  Also hackers are often careless and leave other traces - such as the times that things are carried out and not carried out.  It is also often the case that hackers have hubris and will leave signatures that they figure the investigators will be too dumb to figure out.

Sure, I understand that.  But also, it would be easy to use these same tools to generate false signatures, just like the CIA has been doing as documented in the recent "vault 7" wikileaks stuff.

There are also nondeliberate signatures such as order that commands are carried out; what directories are explored first; etc.  Decisions that don't matter but there is no reason for any two hackers to choose the same order - but the same hacker will tend to stick to whatever order they happen to choose.

Again, all stuff that could easily be replicated using automation tools.  I don't see what this proves.


The logs would provide a signature of what was being done, that a forensic investigator would be able to determine.  That is one of the points of logs...

Logs don't necessarily provide a lot of info unless you've gone to painstaking effort to audit the slightest details on your system.  Based on what I've seen, I don't think the IT folks in charge of this stuff put that much work or effort into security.  I don't think they have a lot to go on there.  Certainly in the case of Hillary's private server, the contractors were so inept that they had to go on reddit asking how to do stuff.  Not as much is known about the setup at the DNC, but considering how easy it was to get in... I'm assuming it was not better.

It is also consistent with exfilitration designed to limit risk of detection.

Quote
That doesn't make any sense. They knew or should have known that there was not much in the way of security in place.

They knew or should have known nothing of the sort. There is different security at different layers.  Abnormal traffic is often an ISP level feature, whereas the type of security they compromised is a hosted system.

No, I'm gonna have to disagree.  Abnormal traffic at least in the small amounts it would represent to transfer a relatively small compressed email archive is NOT anything that is a normal ISP feature would flag or stop.  The signal to noise ratio on something that inconsequential would not be worth dealing with.  Yes there could be machine learning algorithms that might flag stuff that isn't normal for a specific connection, but even that stuff makes way more noise than they want to deal with.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 02:25:04 PM by linuxfreakus »

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #107 on: March 31, 2017, 04:02:06 PM »
IMO, the bottom line is that computer forensics can (if properly planned before there is a problem which seems highly doubtful here) provide a lot of insight into what was accessed and when.... but it is exceedingly difficult to answer questions about who did it (impersonation is not that hard) or most especially why an event took place.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #108 on: March 31, 2017, 05:17:39 PM »
IMO, the bottom line is that computer forensics can (if properly planned before there is a problem which seems highly doubtful here) provide a lot of insight into what was accessed and when.... but it is exceedingly difficult to answer questions about who did it (impersonation is not that hard) or most especially why an event took place.

The 'who' in this case is derived from what exploit code/tools were left behind - if tools are proprietary to a particular hacking group (say a tool that exploits a previously unknown zeroday in a particular way), then if that code is used for an attack it is a good indicator that that group carried out a specific attack.  The Grizzly Steppe report provided hash signatures of tools that were unique to active campaigns previously attributed to FancyBear and that importantly the knowledge of these campaigns and tools was classified and therefore unless the someone recently hacked by FancyBear during these recent campaigns is doing a false flag operation (basically the CIA or NSA but possibly there are a few other nation states such as China; but also our allies such as Israel, France, UK that could do it) then there is high confidence of the attribution.

What was lacking in the Grizzly Steppe report was the origination of the knowledge of these tools and why they can be uniquely attributed to FancyBear - that is because the report was meant to be advisory (check for these hash signatures of all software on your server, if you find them it means you were probably targeted by FancyBear and should contact the FBI) rather than evidentiary (here is the chain of reasoning for why we uniquely associate these hashes with FancyBear).  Of course once the hash signature is made public the coder can change the code such that the tool will generate a unique hash signature (although I'm surprised that this isn't common practice already ... but then many hackers are lazy).
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 05:22:30 PM by LetterRip »

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #109 on: March 31, 2017, 06:50:08 PM »
So where do they say that they've never seen these particular tool(s) other than from the two groups they're looking at? ... and how do they know the precise hashes? the stuff that ends up on a server isn't always the same stuff that granted you access...   I've not seen any such claims or evidence.  What I've seen are generic explanations of how phishing and malware attacks work, which makes me think thats what happened (if not straight up leaks from insiders)... but not specific evidence or information.

Hiding behind claims of "trying to protect methods and information" are ridiculous.  They already named the groups and if they aren't pulling it out of thin air, those guys know full well what they used to gain access and if they were made, then they already know what tools to not use going forward if they don't want to leave "fingerprints".
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 06:55:42 PM by linuxfreakus »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #110 on: April 03, 2017, 02:39:07 PM »
So Fox News is reporting that Susan Rice ordered the unmasking of the Trump associates and that they were monitored for over a year.  No headlines on CNN or CBS, maybe they are asleep at the switch?  lol.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2017, 10:09:26 AM »
Actually, it was Bloomberg that reported it, and it is on CBS as of 3 hours ago.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2017, 10:27:31 AM »
I wasn't trying to say who got the scoop, just that it was being reported on a major network and ignored on others.  Taking almost a day to report on what could be a major scandal is bizarre, especially in an environment where they are leading with unconfirmed anonymous reports when they are critical of the President.  It's pretty clear that the delay was almost completely for spin purposes.

I note CNN's "response" (can't call it a report anymore) hangs its hat on a single anonymous source disputing what happened.  Best part here is with how hard Fox went one way and CNN and CBS the other way, someone owes us a retraction down the road.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2017, 02:26:55 PM »
Yeah, CNN is pretty much instructing people to ignore it.  Chris Cuomo said it was "demonstrably untrue"... they did the same thing with wikileaks in the leadup to the election... told people not to look and just leave the reporting to them.  We know how that worked out.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2017, 02:44:21 PM »
This is in most ways, a prematurely reported possible scandal. BBC's Zurcher sums up as follows:

Quote
Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice says that while she did request the "unmasking" of some Americans in contact with foreign subjects under government surveillance, she did not do so for "political purposes".
If that's where the story ends, then she was almost certainly legally exercising the broad powers high-level US national security officials have to review reports produced by the intelligence community. There were growing indications that the Russian government was attempting to influence the US presidential election, and a national security adviser would be remiss not to closely inspect any information about possible American involvement.
If, on the other hand, Ms Rice widely disseminated information about US citizens or leaked it to the press, as some Republican critics allege and she adamantly denies, then the picture grows much darker.
The bottom line is that someone, somewhere did reveal details about conversations Michael Flynn, Ms Rice's successor as national security adviser, had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. That leak, while it revealed that Flynn was being less than truthful with the US public, was illegal.

I think this is a good even handed report. I wouldn't read CNN as anything but entertainment these days, and I would expect news organizations to take their time and do some research for at least 24 hours before blasting a bunch of unconfirmed information.

This is especially true when the original article is written by Eli Lake, who contributes to Daily Beast, Washington Times, and other highly partisan sites.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2017, 03:08:00 PM »
Maybe the solution to this situation is to rigorously define what "news" means in legal terms, and require any media outlet to follow those stringent rules if they want to include the word "news" in their self-description. This may sound a bit trivial, but I think the populace puts a lot of trust in the letters "n-e-w-s" and there is power in perceived meaning. I think it could make a big difference if you had some networks like CNN forced to use descriptors other than news, and for other ones to have to 'pass muster' in qualifying for the descriptor "news" to be used in their title, advertising, descriptions, and web options. There could then be a list of "approved" news networks, and I think a good chunk of the public would probably try to get their information from them rather than from "information sources" that are not news sites.

Right now it seems like people get their information from all over the place, including Facebook, stupid sites, and who knows where else. Part of that is laziness, but I think part of it is also that "news" has become so watered down that there is a general perception that since there is no gold standard there is basically no standard at all, and so people will gravitate towards whatever media source will say what they want to hear. But I think it would be a lot harder to fool oneself if the site where you were getting your info is blatantly "not a news station". The difficulty, of course, would be in setting some basic controls so that "news" stations didn't devolve into partisan clearinghouses, and part of that goes into budget constraints and having to get information second-hand, which is often from partisan sources. It's hard to solve all of this at once, and to an extent it's a technological problem of having easy access to an audience but very little access to primary information.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2017, 03:54:00 PM »
Quote
Fox News is reporting that Susan Rice ordered the unmasking of the Trump associates
If that's what Fox is reporting, then Fox needs to make a correction, don't you think?

And if Fox isn't reporting that, maybe you should correct your attribution..?

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2017, 05:02:39 PM »
I don't know how far this story will go either, and secondly whether or not it was illegal, and thirdly whether anyone would actually "go down" over it are completely different issues.  It takes a LOT for it to get to stage 3.  There is so much grey area in the laws that they can basically do whatever they please as far as I can tell, so aside from public outrage, I don't know what else can come of this unless a whole lot more info is yet to come. Rice sure has changed her story quite a bit as details unfold :P

The part that is unsettling about CNN (in this example) and much of the rest of the MSM is that they *are* taken seriously by a lot of people, and the stuff that gets broadcast/published is often full of wrong information, speculation presented as facts, etc, etc... and the coverage more closely resembles a sporting event than documentary.  We end up with an awful lot of people who believe things that aren't true, or at least do not deserve nearly the level of credibility/certainty that is attached.

This is in most ways, a prematurely reported possible scandal. BBC's Zurcher sums up as follows:

Quote
Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice says that while she did request the "unmasking" of some Americans in contact with foreign subjects under government surveillance, she did not do so for "political purposes".
If that's where the story ends, then she was almost certainly legally exercising the broad powers high-level US national security officials have to review reports produced by the intelligence community. There were growing indications that the Russian government was attempting to influence the US presidential election, and a national security adviser would be remiss not to closely inspect any information about possible American involvement.
If, on the other hand, Ms Rice widely disseminated information about US citizens or leaked it to the press, as some Republican critics allege and she adamantly denies, then the picture grows much darker.
The bottom line is that someone, somewhere did reveal details about conversations Michael Flynn, Ms Rice's successor as national security adviser, had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. That leak, while it revealed that Flynn was being less than truthful with the US public, was illegal.

I think this is a good even handed report. I wouldn't read CNN as anything but entertainment these days, and I would expect news organizations to take their time and do some research for at least 24 hours before blasting a bunch of unconfirmed information.

This is especially true when the original article is written by Eli Lake, who contributes to Daily Beast, Washington Times, and other highly partisan sites.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 05:11:44 PM by linuxfreakus »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #118 on: April 04, 2017, 05:48:21 PM »
The part that is unsettling about CNN (in this example) and much of the rest of the MSM is that they *are* taken seriously by a lot of people, and the stuff that gets broadcast/published is often full of wrong information, speculation presented as facts, etc, etc... and the coverage more closely resembles a sporting event than documentary.  We end up with an awful lot of people who believe things that aren't true, or at least do not deserve nearly the level of credibility/certainty that is attached

As I think about it, that is probably one of the most apt descriptions of CNN I've seen in a while. It IS almost like watching a sporting event broadcast, brought to you by one of the teams involved.

Substitute Democrat and Republican with Patriots and Falcons (in any sequence), and have the Anchor announce that the Patriots are down by 6 point, are in a 3rd down and 12 yards to go, and cut to analysis of what the Falcons can do to prevent a first down.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #119 on: April 04, 2017, 07:26:02 PM »
Maybe the solution to this situation is to rigorously define what "news" means in legal terms, and require any media outlet to follow those stringent rules if they want to include the word "news" in their self-description.

I was thinking either consumers should be able to sue companies that have news in the name for fraud/false advertising when they behave like some of the cable 'news' channels.  Or actual news organizations such as BBC should be able to sue Fox, etc. for damaging the reputation of actual news organization.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 07:33:12 PM by LetterRip »

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #120 on: April 07, 2017, 06:20:35 PM »
Right now it doesn't sound like the "unmasking" accusation will go far.  Unmasking requests can't be used by themselves to spy on an American citizen, from what I understand.

Quote
The FBI and NSA regularly produce reports for government customers. The customer could be another investigating agency, Congress, the Justice Department or the White House. If an American’s name appears in a piece of intelligence — for example, if agents intercept a conversation between two foreign nationals who mention an American friend in passing — those preparing the report generally "mask" the American’s name, replacing it with something like "U.S. Person."

The recipient of the report might decide that in order to fully understand the intelligence, they need to know the "U.S. Person’s" identity. So they make a request for the name to be unmasked, and the agency that produced the report either approves or denies the request. The NSA approved 654 requests in 2015, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

It’s not just agencies conducting criminal or counterintelligence investigations that make the unmasking requests, as Cotton said. It’s anyone who consumes intelligence reports.

So the person requesting the unmasking doesn't know from the report who will be unmasked.  So unless she has prior knowledge of who's name will be unmasked, it is useless for finding out any particular individuals who might be in the reports.

Quote
The official who wants to abuse the process would have to get agency workers on board with her plan because they would have to make sure she receives reports about the American in question. They would also have to make sure that any unmasking request would be granted, said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty & National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, a civil liberties group.

"It’s certainly not an easy or direct route to spying on political opponents," she said, adding that there are other provisions of surveillance laws that are far more susceptible to abuse.

Stonekettle Station goes into more detail (or at least uses more words :) ).

So no one can say that Susan Rice purposely unmasked Trump associates names, because she wouldn't have known the masked names were their names until she unmasked them.  And while not usual, it would be part of her job if she had reason to find out who the mysterious, masked person's name was.

So until they find evidence that she had prior knowledge of those names, I don't see anything to this story.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2019, 10:20:51 PM »
Took me awhile to find this original post. 
The AI generated fake puppet show video is back in the news.  Or at least the social media. 

This time it was Scarlet Johansson raising awareness of people pasting whoever they want onto porn star's bodies.  Maybe this will be the thing that gets attention to this threat? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/business/technology/deepfakes-how-a-new-technology-is-being-used-to-put-womens-faces-on-porn-stars-bodies/2018/12/30/af0cff27-f7d1-4fcc-bb4f-011e6e086f30_video.html?utm_term=.231f04fc44f3

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« Reply #123 on: January 14, 2019, 11:02:29 AM »
While that is interesting, and I'm all for highlighting news distortion for political ends, that's not the kinda thing I was talking about.

Unless I missed it and they turned the hosts of the station into digital sock puppets against their wishes and made them say exactly what they wanted, when the real reporting didn't line up with the political goal?

We're approaching, or already at a point that any scandalous accusation can be furnished with a believable fake video.  Selective reporting and biased propaganda will soon be "the good ol' days" of media manipulation.