What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

DNC Leaks...official thread (2 Viewers)

Mile High said:
I want to see leaked emails from Donald Trump and the Republicans for the past 10 years  Once those have been released I can then make a decision on what's more credible. Until that happens all I see is a foreign government with an agenda trying to help one side getting elected. That doesn't bother you that the Russians want Trump to be president?
Click to expand...
Maybe his/RNC emails are secured? HRC was circumventing security controls put in place by our government to prevent things like this from happening and keep our sensitive data secured, and by doing so the content was put out there to be accessible by hacker organizations. Whose fault is it that these hacker organizations accessed it in that scenario? 

 
Want to Know Julian Assange’s Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago

Amid a seemingly incessant deluge of leaks and hacks, Washington, DC staffers have learned to imagine how even the most benign email would look a week later on the homepage of a secret-spilling outfit like WikiLeaks or DCLeaks. In many cases, they’ve stopped emailing altogether, deleted accounts, and reconsidered dumbphones. Julian Assange—or at least, a ten-years-younger and more innocent Assange—would say he’s already won.

After another week of Clinton-related emails roiling this election, the political world has been left to scrub their inboxes, watch their private correspondences be picked over in public, and psychoanalyze WikiLeaks’ inscrutable founder. Once they’re done sterilizing their online lives, they might want to turn to an essay Assange wrote ten years ago, laying out the endgame of his leaking strategy long before he became one of the most controversial figures on the Internet.

In “Conspiracy as Governance,” which Assange posted to his blog in December 2006, the leader of then-new WikiLeaks describes what he considered to be the most effective way to attack a conspiracy—including, as he puts it, that particular form of conspiracy known as a political party.


“Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence—let alone the computer systems which manage their [subscribers], donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail campaigns. They would immediately fall into an organisational stupor and lose to the other.”



And how to induce that “organisational stupor?” Foment the fear that any correspondence could leak at any time.


“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive ‘secrecy tax’) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation.”



WikiLeaks would publish its first leak the same month as that blog post, a communication from a Somalian Islamic cleric calling for political assassinations. Three years later it’d put out the Pentagon and State Department leaks provided by Chelsea Manning, and six years after that, leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton advisor John Podesta would lead to the ousting of DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and shake Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was a crappy, annoying manifesto. And it was ahead of its time by many years. Dave Aitel, former NSA analyst

The last decade has shown just how prescient Assange was. Take, for example, the Russian hackers who published private files from the World Anti-Doping Agency after Russia’s athletes got banned from the Olympics for doping. “Now a group like WADA has to take everything they say to every person into account. They have to think, this could leak,” says Dave Aitel, a former NSA staffer and founder of the security firm Immunity who focuses on cyberwar and information warfare. “The idea is, ‘If we can prevent them from having secrets, they have to operate very differently.'”

That move comes straight from Assange. “It was a crappy, annoying manifesto,” Aitel says. “And it was ahead of its time by many years.”

A spokesperson for WikiLeaks says Assange’s essay was a “thought experiment” that the organization still believes to be true. “Organizations have two choices (1) reduce their levels of abuse or dishonesty or (2) pay a heavy ‘secrecy tax’ in order to engage in inefficient but secretive processes,” the spokesperson writes. “As organizations are usually in some form of competitive equilibrium this means that, in the face of WikiLeaks, organizations that are honest will, on average, grow, while those that are dishonest and unjust will decline.”

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. Julian Assange, writing in 2006

Of course, Assange’s claim that a political party leaks in direct proportion to its dishonesty looks almost laughable after the last several months. WikiLeaks has published leaks exclusively damaging to Clinton and the Democratic Party, while publishing nothing from Donald Trump or his campaign. (Trump has, of course, faced the leaks of his 1995 tax returns and a damning video where he brags about sexual assault. But mainstream newspapers published both, and neither came from the sort of internal communications Assange wrote about. Trump himself also famously doesn’t use email, as good a security measure as anyone could hope for.)

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have both said that recent WikiLeaks releases originated with Russian state-sponsored hackers seeking to influence US electoral politics. Assange’s essay doesn’t account for the possibility that a government might exploit or collude with a leak platform like WikiLeaks. (WikiLeaks’ spokesperson denied that there has been any “official claim that any documents published by WikiLeaks have come from a state actor,” somehow ignoring last week’s DHS and ODNI announcement.)

The notion in Assange’s essay that only corrupt conspiracies keep secrets is one that Clinton herself has argued against—ironically, something we know because she said it in a speech whose partial transcript WikiLeaks leaked last Friday. Speaking to the National Multi-Housing Council in 2013, Clinton cited how President Lincoln secretly promised jobs to lame duck Congressmen of the opposing political party if they agreed to vote for the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery. “If everybody’s watching all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” she said. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

But the other point Assange makes—the “secrecy tax” that organizations pay when they try to avoid leaks—rings true. Any organization that has tried to encrypt all its communications, delete them, or throttle, quarantine, and compartmentalize them in the name of secrecy knows the toll that paranoia takes.


“An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself against the opponents it induces…. When we look at a conspiracy as an organic whole, we can see a system of interacting organs, a body with arteries and veins whose blood may be thickened and slowed till it falls, unable to sufficiently comprehend and control the forces in its environment.”



Let that be a warning to the Democratic Party and any other organization with secrets to keep. If the leaks don’t kill you, the fear of them just might.
Click to expand...
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/?mbid=social_twitter

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's this story about Hillary bribing someone to change the classification on emails - heard a quick note on the local news radio.  

 
Capella said:
I love how every other post in here is "this could be big!" and then it has literally zero impact. :lmao:
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of leaks that will have implications after the election.  The early leaks led to firings.  The leaks that have come out will likely lead to more firings, investigations, lawsuits, and an even greater distrust for government.  As far as anything to derail the election, I don't think we have seen anything close to that yet.

 
Quez said:
There have been plenty of leaks that will have implications after the election.  The early leaks led to firings.  The leaks that have come out will likely lead to more firings, investigations, lawsuits, and an even greater distrust for government.  As far as anything to derail the election, I don't think we have seen anything close to that yet.
Click to expand...
Agreed...right now the media is going to do as little as possible until the election...my guess is after that they may change their tune as they try to regain respectability...that being said some are so far in the bag that may not even happen...will be interesting to see how much they pursue...

 
No shock the Clinton camp (and half of the FFA) hoped the San Bernadino shooter was someone named Chris Hayes instead of Shared Faroq or whatever his name was. 

 
CBusAlex said:
Ok or not, it's not news. Hillary takes donations from lobbyists. Everyone knew this already. A leaked email discussing taking donations from lobbyists isn't going to change anyone's mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah might not change minds, but I think the leaks are putting a spotlight on these contributions and show its more pervasive than the majority of people understood.

im sure in the end Clinton will win, but this big money influence in our political system has to change...how? I don't know 

 
This thread needs more Mr Ham promising that his inside sources at Wikileaks are drop the real bomb on Friday that will change everything.  

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
What's illegal about them in this case?
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing. 

They are discussing whether to use bundlers who are registered as lobbyists for foreign governments.  That violates no law that I am aware of.  As Marc Elias points out, they're allowing people who represent tobacco companies, BIg Pharma, etc. to be a bundler.  But some of them are worried about the optics of accepting money from lobbyists who represent governments.  They seem to come out on the side of at least not having a bright line rule against it, but looking at the bundlers the way they'd look at any other lobbyist who wanted to be a bundler, on a case by case basis.  Apparently the Obama campaign did draw a bright line rule against it, but gained very little from the practice.

 
msommer said:
So maybe the Ecuadoreans didn't want their internet lines to be used by Assange for creepy pedo stuff?
Click to expand...
He is a rapist and pedo now? :lmao: . I'm sure everyone will believe this, and it won't backfire...

Conveniently the pedo claims come around the time John Kerry is actively trying to get Ecuador to shut him up.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thunderlips said:
Meh. Doesn't seem like much....and even if there is something....why should I believe it?  
Click to expand...


Ref: doesn't seem like much - As a Bernie supporter it makes me sick that we had a clear path away from this direction.  As for the Clinton supporters, I can see your perspective on this being business as usual for our system.

Ref: why should I believe it - Because the Clinton side is trying to ignore it rather than refute it.  Also haven't seen anything in the media disputing the e-mails are legit and that they have been doctored.  

 
Quez said:
He is a rapist and pedo now? :lmao: . I'm sure everyone will believe this, and it won't backfire...

Conveniently the pedo claims come around the time John Kerry is actively trying to get Ecuador to shut him up.  
Click to expand...
Now?  The rape/sexual assault claims have been pretty fundamental to anything written about Assange since 2010.  It's why he's in the Ecuadoran embassy in the first place.  To avoid extradition to Sweden. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Now?  The rape/sexual assault claims have been pretty fundamental to anything written about Assange since 2010.  It's why he's in the Ecuadoran embassy in the first place.  To avoid extradition to Sweden. 
Click to expand...
Technically he's worried about the Swedes extradicting him to the US.

IIRC he was supposed to be interviewed by the Swedish police in the Ecuadorian embassy a few months ago. Don't know if it happened

 
Quez said:
He is a rapist and pedo now? :lmao: . I'm sure everyone will believe this, and it won't backfire...

Conveniently the pedo claims come around the time John Kerry is actively trying to get Ecuador to shut him up.  
Click to expand...
Well, the Ecuadorians have not commented on the reasons behind the alleged cut of internet privileges, but if he's been a bad boy they probably know about it. 

Obviously could be something different entirely

 
msommer said:
Technically he's worried about the Swedes extradicting him to the US.

IIRC he was supposed to be interviewed by the Swedish police in the Ecuadorian embassy a few months ago. Don't know if it happened
Click to expand...
This is what he says.  That explanation seems a little strained to me as the US has an extradition treaty with the UK.  I don't see how the Swedes would have been any more likely to extradite him. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
This is what he says.  That explanation seems a little strained to me as the US has an extradition treaty with the UK.  I don't see how the Swedes would have been any more likely to extradite him. 
Click to expand...
It could be in the specifics of the deal or earlier precedent set, although I am at a loss to think about what that precedent could be. IIRC Sweden sheltered draft dodgers during the Vietnam war so I'd hesitate to believe they are very helpful (unless the extradition treaty has been updated)

 
msommer said:
Technically he's worried about the Swedes extradicting him to the US.

IIRC he was supposed to be interviewed by the Swedish police in the Ecuadorian embassy a few months ago. Don't know if it happened
Click to expand...
He'll likely get both the Swedish version of prison with tennis, coffee and library and then the US Ft. Leavenworth treatment. This is going to happen. I don't think the Bahamian government sticks its nose into international spy intrigue without cause.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assange really isn't the issue here.  He isn't wikileaks.  If they extradite, silence, kill, etc. the show will carry on.  The guy has clearly been planning for this for a long time, and has all sorts of contingency plans.

 
Quez said:
The Democratic operative captured in the O'Keefe tapes has been fired.

http://m.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/heads-roll-democratic-operative-fired-after-15212754/
Click to expand...
Part II of "Rigging the Election" is out they have them on tape admitting to bussing in people to vote.  Hours after Obama says Trump needs to stop whining about rigged elections.

https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs

The guy behind this says they will be releasing videos everyday up until the election. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quez said:
Part II of "Rigging the Election" is out they have them on tape admitting to bussing in people to vote.  Hours after Obama says Trump needs to stop whining about rigged elections.

https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs

The guy behind this says they will be releasing videos everyday up until the election. 
Click to expand...
You just swallow this nonsense without question, huh? And we wonder how Trump happened...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top