CIA: Director 'stands by' Russian interference assessment

[Cyber Liberty]

if it's so worthless, especially my opinion (it is), then why did you just waste two long paragraphs on it?  Are you trying to justify your position of shoot first, trial later?  Hmmm?

And no, by the way, it's not clear to me.  Trial first.  I'm peculiar that way.  Meanwhile, the voters of AL will decide, many who whom would take your parade of distaste as a good reason to vote FOR him, just to cheese you off.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I've seen evidence the DNC server wasn't hacked at all, the emails were  leaked by an insider. 

A close examination of the timestamps of the emails showed they were copied too quickly to have been done over WiFi or internet, they had to have been copied to a thumb drive, and that required somebody physically sitting at the computer housing the emails.  A remote copy would have shown timestamps milliseconds, or microseconds apart, but they were done a thousand times faster than that.

Be careful what you believe (and yeah, that applies to what I'm about to explain -- fortunately for me at least *I* know I'm right).

First of all, file timestamps are worthless as evidence, as they can be changed trivially.  Also, even if they haven't been altered, they only reflect the last access/modification time, so if the data has simply been copied more than once they reflect nothing about the first copy.  Some methods of transfer retain the original timestamps (actually, they probably just set them back to their original value -- at least that's what the commercial product I worked on did).  There are internet connections, and possibly wifi (I don't keep up with wifi as I really don't use it) that are faster than thumb drives. 

And finally, timestamps are based on seconds, there is no such thing as milli/microsecond granularity (at least not in any commonplace OS, it would certainly be possible to write one that did have finer granularity).  Now, IF timestamps were reliable, there is a way to use them to show that data was transferred at at least a certain rate, but sub-second granularity isn't it.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Fortunately, on this board, it means every bit as much as yours. And as a member of the Republican party it likewise is the same as your own. And collectively, the view of Republicans across the country means a great deal on this issue. So you're all kinds of wrong. None of that disenfranchises Alabamans...pulling a party candidate who won a primary is in no way akin to trying to overturn a national election. Party nominations are a VERY different animal, and technically a party could simply appoint nominees to the general election if it so chose...an unwise approach perhaps, but thats another issue altogether.

I don't get it. Why are you wanting to defend someone who is clearly a predator...or at least was...by HIS OWN ADMISSION. A 17 year old is NOT an adult. Just because you could marry 12 year olds in 12th century England, does not make dating underage girls in this nation acceptable. Its not. And like I said, that's not even examining the charges of pursuing a 14 year old. Why would any Republican/Conservative want this man to represent them in the Senate...he is a child predator by his own admission, and perhaps worse.

A 17 year old is not an adult, by the arbitrary definition of adult we use today, but she was at the time of sufficient legal age to tango.

17 (and 18, an 19 at least) were too young for me when I was in my 30s (and beyond).  There's a line somewhere in or around that age range where young people become "adult enough", I'm not sure where it is, but those ages are just too close to it for my taste.  Doesn't make them underage, just too young for me.

BTW, didn't the 14 yo turn out to actually have been 17?

[Cyber Liberty]

Be careful what you believe (and yeah, that applies to what I'm about to explain -- fortunately for me at least *I* know I'm right).

First of all, file timestamps are worthless as evidence, as they can be changed trivially.  Also, even if they haven't been altered, they only reflect the last access/modification time, so if the data has simply been copied more than once they reflect nothing about the first copy.  Some methods of transfer retain the original timestamps (actually, they probably just set them back to their original value -- at least that's what the commercial product I worked on did).  There are internet connections, and possibly wifi (I don't keep up with wifi as I really don't use it) that are faster than thumb drives. 

And finally, timestamps are based on seconds, there is no such thing as milli/microsecond granularity (at least not in any commonplace OS, it would certainly be possible to write one that did have finer granularity).  Now, IF timestamps were reliable, there is a way to use them to show that data was transferred at at least a certain rate, but sub-second granularity isn't it.

There was more to it than just "time stamps."  There was an expert examination of the messages, and the fact remains they were offloaded faster than could have been accomplished using a remote access (especially if over the internet, which is painfully slow).  Had to have been done on a local mass storage device.  There was simply no way to have moved the quantity of data that was pilfered in the amount of time it appeared to take. 

[Cyber Liberty]

BTW, didn't the 14 yo turn out to actually have been 17?

That's my understanding, and she has a long history of false accusations.  Also worked for Hillary Clinton has a sign-language translator (there are photos).  The case of the alleged "13-year-old" has fallen apart, and what remains are people angry a 32-year-old man would date a 17-year-old girl, even if sex is not involved.  I have my doubts people in AL would hold that against him.

[KingsX]

That's my understanding, and she has a long history of false accusations.  Also worked for Hillary Clinton has a sign-language translator (there are photos).  The case of the alleged "13-year-old" has fallen apart, and what remains are people angry a 32-year-old man would date a 17-year-old girl, even if sex is not involved.  I have my doubts people in AL would hold that against him.

What do you bet many of those same people think it's perfectly normal for a single woman to have multiple sex partners before she marries ??

My 26 year old father married my mother when she was barely 17.  You couldn't find a family more traditional, moral, family-oriented than ours.

Totally normal, especially in times past when it was the norm for older men to marry teenage women.   Parents of young women preferred an older settled man who could afford to support a wife and children.  Remember the times before birth control,  families would have a dozen or more children,  women sometimes died in childbirth. and older widowers would remarry younger women.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

There was more to it than just "time stamps."  There was an expert examination of the messages, and the fact remains they were offloaded faster than could have been accomplished using a remote access (especially if over the internet, which is painfully slow).  Had to have been done on a local mass storage device.  There was simply no way to have moved the quantity of data that was pilfered in the amount of time it appeared to take.

No, there was either incompetent examination, or incompetent reporting.  The "evidence" was basically wrong on every level.

You can't tell anything about access/copy time from examining the messages themselves except by looking at timestamps, and as I mentioned, those are worthless as evidence for several reasons.

As I mentioned, the Internet is so much faster than a local device.  Your connection might suck, mine is at least twice as fast as a USB2 connection and if I paid a little more I could go 10x faster -- and that's just within the residential tier.  If you have the money to pay for it you can get a network that is faster than HRC's server could transfer it to ANYTHING.

BTW, even if HRC had a really crappy internet connection, and there was a foolproof way of determining the speed at which the files were copied to their final location, remember that you could only measure the FINAL transfer.  So if they really did use a locally attached device, and then copied the files somewhere else, you could only measure that second copy.  The only way to measure the speed at which the files were copied off HRC's server would be if you were examining the thing they were copied to, which obviously they are not because they wouldn't be using words like "such as a thumb drive" (not a direct quote), they'd be using words like "the thumb drive" -- though again even if they were that doesn't prove they're not just looking at a copy of a copy of a copy.

There's basically nothing in the (reported) examination that has any basis in reality.  BTW, that's true of an amazingly large percentage of what you see reported and pretty much anything you see done with IT on TV.  I watched a movie some years back in a area with a lot of IT workers, and when they used an actual command (nmap) with the correct syntax and output the crowd actually cheered -- not because it was an important plot device or turn, but because we've never seen accuracy before.

[Cyber Liberty]

Fair enough, I accept your schooling on this.  It is true the DNC and Clinton's servers were eminently hackable.  And they knew it.  The Dems like to claim "It was the Russians!" but Wikileaks (who have released some of this) says it was not.  They could be lying, but Assange doesn't owe the Russians anything more than to the Clintons.  It was Ecuador who gave him Sanctuary.