- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Quotes Added: Gov related entity hacked reporter's Sharyl Atkinson laptop
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:25 pm to CptBengal
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:25 pm to CptBengal
Bengal covers it pretty well but I'll expand a little on it.
Commercial probably means created by a governmental contractor and then sold to a governmental entity.
Proprietary means the governmental entity owns the rights to said program. It was most likely created to meet a specific set of criteria.
Nonattributable means the program most likely is not directly traceable to an organization. Deniable assets are all the rage in intelligence communities.
None of this is particularly out there in the realm of possibilities.
Commercial probably means created by a governmental contractor and then sold to a governmental entity.
Proprietary means the governmental entity owns the rights to said program. It was most likely created to meet a specific set of criteria.
Nonattributable means the program most likely is not directly traceable to an organization. Deniable assets are all the rage in intelligence communities.
None of this is particularly out there in the realm of possibilities.
1
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:28 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Giving definitions is spinning? Pot meet kettle
Which is in fact, more spin, and then the original topic is an afterthought. I know the game you play, it isn't that hard.
So let's go back to the OP. Do you think SA was hacked by Gov related entity or another entity? Give your reasons for discrediting her.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:32 pm to moneyg
quote:Contracted for an IT department for a television network. Was designing applications but it was all hands on deck when they were hit with viruses a few times. The worst were a couple of the tv reporters / anchors who wouldn't stop clicking on the same damn e-mails, even after you cleaned their computers and walked them through what happened. You would finally have the whole newsroom clean then you would start seeing e-mails going out to everyone from the same people who started it.
Interesting. What experience do you have with people in the news and their laptops?
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:35 pm to ItNeverRains
quote:No.
So let's go back to the OP. Do you think SA was hacked by Gov related entity or another entity? Give your reasons for discrediting her.
Because there is no direct evidence given to back such a claim.
No such claim is made by Atkinson or "Number 1". It is only inferred, at least as far as the quotes I have seen.
Therefore there is nothing to refute.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:38 pm to AUin02
quote:That wouldn't make it commercial.
Commercial probably means created by a governmental contractor and then sold to a governmental entity
quote:Which means that "Number 1" can't determine who it would belong to and that it is commercial. Thus the big issue in logic fail.
Nonattributable means the program most likely is not directly traceable to an organization. Deniable assets are all the rage in intelligence communities.
This post was edited on 10/27/14 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:42 pm to DosManos
quote:
Question: why would they plant classified documents on her computer? How could the government frame that as a bad thing when they slander her later?
seriously?Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:44 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
How is this lawless POS still president ?
Obama didn't know about it happening until he read about it on the Drudge Report.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:52 pm to mmcgrath
mmcgrath, maybe you need to read the full article to gain context and to fit the puzzle together, lets not be four year olds, we can understand exactly what happened if we use deductive reasoning.
( “ A couple questions ” )
1) It's commercial software
2) It's “nonatributable” but also “proprietary”? )
So, by reading the full article you find out this : Atkkinson says the source ( Number One a government employee ) who's connected to government three letter agencies” told her the computer was hacked into by a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributal spyware that is proprietary to a government agency.
Now, let use deductive reasonin: This source is in one of the “three letter agencies” and would know very well what spyware the government uses, and even though it is far better and probably far more expensive spyware than most people or companies have access to, so much so that it can't be tracked/traced, it is probably exclusive to those government agencies, one of which her source is employeed by, so he/she would know this as a fact, in other words whoever sells this spyware, probably sells it exclusively to our government. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can sell something commercially and only to the government, this happens with the military all the time.
As for it being “nonattributable” well that only applies to people outside of the three letter agencies, if you work in one of the three letter agencies, and have used the spyware before you can identify the spyware, even though it was created to be nonattributable.
Then you say there is no specific allegation in any direct quote.
Not this crap again !!!
“Number one” told her that classified documents were planted deep within her computer. Who, besides government agencies, can or want to plant classified information inside someones computer ? I mean it really takes a naive person not to see what happened to this woman, it strains credulity to deny this.
In your experience with reporters did they have classified government documents placed deep within their files ? Or did they get spyed on by spyware that is only used by our government, as told to her by someone who works in one of these government agencies ?
Remember, this is the same administration who spyed on the AP and tapped James Rosen's, of FOX NEWS, parents phones, and seemed like they were trying to build a case against him.
The government ( Ospyo and company ) are the only people who had an ax to grind with Sharyl Atkkinson, her CBS bosses were getting blowback from the administration, she was getting cursed out by Obama aides, she had classified government documents placed on her computer, she had spyware that only the U.S. GOVERNMENT had access to ( according to an inside source ) on her computer.
Only a naive person can't see what went on here, I don't need semantics thrown at me, I can see a pattern with this administration.
This administration is evil incarnate.
( “ A couple questions ” )
1) It's commercial software
2) It's “nonatributable” but also “proprietary”? )
So, by reading the full article you find out this : Atkkinson says the source ( Number One a government employee ) who's connected to government three letter agencies” told her the computer was hacked into by a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributal spyware that is proprietary to a government agency.
Now, let use deductive reasonin: This source is in one of the “three letter agencies” and would know very well what spyware the government uses, and even though it is far better and probably far more expensive spyware than most people or companies have access to, so much so that it can't be tracked/traced, it is probably exclusive to those government agencies, one of which her source is employeed by, so he/she would know this as a fact, in other words whoever sells this spyware, probably sells it exclusively to our government. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can sell something commercially and only to the government, this happens with the military all the time.
As for it being “nonattributable” well that only applies to people outside of the three letter agencies, if you work in one of the three letter agencies, and have used the spyware before you can identify the spyware, even though it was created to be nonattributable.
Then you say there is no specific allegation in any direct quote.
Not this crap again !!!
“Number one” told her that classified documents were planted deep within her computer. Who, besides government agencies, can or want to plant classified information inside someones computer ? I mean it really takes a naive person not to see what happened to this woman, it strains credulity to deny this.
In your experience with reporters did they have classified government documents placed deep within their files ? Or did they get spyed on by spyware that is only used by our government, as told to her by someone who works in one of these government agencies ?
Remember, this is the same administration who spyed on the AP and tapped James Rosen's, of FOX NEWS, parents phones, and seemed like they were trying to build a case against him.
The government ( Ospyo and company ) are the only people who had an ax to grind with Sharyl Atkkinson, her CBS bosses were getting blowback from the administration, she was getting cursed out by Obama aides, she had classified government documents placed on her computer, she had spyware that only the U.S. GOVERNMENT had access to ( according to an inside source ) on her computer.
Only a naive person can't see what went on here, I don't need semantics thrown at me, I can see a pattern with this administration.
This administration is evil incarnate.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:03 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:Where is this said? "connected to" does not equal "government employee".
Atkkinson says the source ( Number One a government employee ) who's connected to government three letter agencies”
quote:Unless "Number 1" has personal experience with this specific software, no one can say that it is from the government except conspiracy theorists. .
would know very well what spyware the government uses, and even though it is far better and probably far more expensive spyware than most people or companies have access to, so much so that it can't be tracked/traced,
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:03 pm to Champagne
quote:
Obama didn't know about it happening until he read about it on the Drudge Report.
yea if we can just get Drudge shut down, all this corruption and stuff will go away.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:16 pm to mmcgrath
Any fool can see shes being evasive on purpose to try and protect her source. Come on man, anyone can see the facts here, Obama and company were trying to out her sourcs, this administration has been heavy handed at this.
Do you really think a reporter is going to get a source that is only “affiliated” in some capacity with one of the three letter agencies ? When everyone can get a source within with little effort ? GET REAL.
Nonsensical.
Do you really think a reporter is going to get a source that is only “affiliated” in some capacity with one of the three letter agencies ? When everyone can get a source within with little effort ? GET REAL.
Nonsensical.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:16 pm to Jagd Tiger
We have only ourselves to blame for allowing government to amass this much power.
The biggest problem today?---there are no repercussions for those in government that abuse the constitutional rights of citizens. The democrats are using the IRS, NSA, EPA, CIA, FBI and on and on to get their political enemies. The republicans will do nothing for fear or losing their money grabbing power centers. Boehner will never do anything to attack Obama.
Republicans should be outraged----at the REPUBLICANS for lying down while government does this.
The biggest problem today?---there are no repercussions for those in government that abuse the constitutional rights of citizens. The democrats are using the IRS, NSA, EPA, CIA, FBI and on and on to get their political enemies. The republicans will do nothing for fear or losing their money grabbing power centers. Boehner will never do anything to attack Obama.
Republicans should be outraged----at the REPUBLICANS for lying down while government does this.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:22 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
This administration is evil incarnate.
Democrats gonna Democrat.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 3:25 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
A couple of questions:
1) It's commercial software?
2) It's "nonattibutable" but also "proprietary"?
I took it to mean that it was contracted and developed for government intelligence use (Not the work of a single programmer). It being non-attributable is a complicated way of saying "no labels". There was nothing in the coding that would say it was for use by CIA but the security analyst recognized it as a program proprietary and exclusive among the intelligence communities.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 4:48 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Origin of the Classified Documents?
Therefore there is nothing to refute.
Rational for burying them in her computer?
Posted on 10/27/14 at 5:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:quote:Origin of the Classified Documents?
Therefore there is nothing to refute.
Rational for burying them in her computer?
Assuming that the 3 classified documents exist and that they are not part of a virus and she doesn't know how they got there... There is no claim made as to where they came from... so nothing to refute.
Of course anyone reasonable would ask her if she notified the government of the documents or ask her to produce them.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 6:18 pm to mmcgrath
quote:We probably can feel secure in assuming that a computer virus did not plant Classified Documents in Attkisson's computer. So again where did those documents come from?
Assuming that the 3 classified documents exist and that they are not part of a virus
quote:One would assume she notified the government since the DOJ announced it did not plant them or access her computer.
Of course anyone reasonable would ask her if she notified the government of the documents
Posted on 10/27/14 at 8:00 pm to NC_Tigah
This brings up the question about the guy who the government had on the ropes about leaking to the media, maybe the government planted documents in his computer also, who knows.
Anyone that thinks the Obama administration wasn't behind this is basically living with their head buried in the sand, and nothing anyone says will make sense to them.
It's called living in an alternate universe.
Anyone that thinks the Obama administration wasn't behind this is basically living with their head buried in the sand, and nothing anyone says will make sense to them.
It's called living in an alternate universe.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 8:40 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
mmcgrath
You should really change your handle to "m ... Hey y'all, I'm Semanticon. I specialize in avoiding the issue at hand ...mcgrath"
Posted on 10/27/14 at 8:53 pm to CptBengal
quote:Fortran.
What do you program in, champ?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News