John McAfee: ‘I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians’ (Kim dot Com agrees)

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: theantediluvian
...
I think he knows what he's talking about given his background.
...

Would you "think" the same if he agreed with the US intel claims?

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

It appears that American Intelligence has become an oxymoron.

Yes. The way to get this kind of oxymoron is to blend a*****holes with idiots in an Oxyclean solution until they are bleached lily white, homogenized and recast in a special mould as a series of near-identical, corporate clones.

But seriously, listen to John McAfee. He presents himself as someone who doesn't take orders from anyone.

Assuming that's true, and given that he's got better street cred in these matters than most anyone else in these forums (unless those would include the original agents themselves!), my money's on John.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: theantediluvian
...
I think he knows what he's talking about given his background.
...

Would you "think" the same if he agreed with the US intel claims?

why does anyone here think that mcafee has all the details, even the top secret details?....and has anyone heard of "plausible deniability", as it concerns the identification of the "hackers"?....I've work in the field, and there is a lot he doesn't know. as far as his expertise in malware, and hacks, mcafee antivirus software is "ok", but not great.

I'll take the word of the people that love America, and that want to protect us Americans

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady


Put trust in,

Buzzfeed
Or
John Mcafee

I think i will go with john Mcafee.
Who btw makes very well constructed arguments. Unlike buzzfeed and Wapo and CNN who did nothing but parrot what they were handed.

why does anyone here think that mcafee has all the details, even the top secret details?

Why does anyone here think that anyone has all the details, even the top secret details?

Do you for one know for a fact that the FBI does? That would make you an FBI agent. With all due respect to you personally, I don't think FBI agent would post something so whiny as "why does anyone here think that mcafee has all the details, even the top secret details?" Don't be naive. Those g-men (who wear g-strings?) have to keep their jobs, and to do that, they at least must claim to know who the bad guys are. After all, if they don't know who the bad guys are, the taxpayers or FBI director will just have to start firing them.

John McAfee knows how hackers think and behave better than, or at least as well as, anyone alive on the planet -- that certainly includes the FBI as well as their paid consultants.

McAfee has the privileged knowledge that comes with the social connections of having been one of the original Silicon Valley genius-entrepreneurs, and a man of considerable intellect for a great many other things besides technology. That is why his opinion matters so much.

Or at least he wants us to think that. McAfee seems pretty much the classic narcissist who loves being in the media spotlight. But give him credit, at the very least IQ-wise he has the right stuff to be right.

Namdru


P.S. It was never the Russians. It was someone working for someone working for someone working for the FBI.

a reply to: Namdru

what do you have against McAfee?

The guy was taken out unrightfully by a bunch of assholes.

Whose side are you on anyways?

originally posted by: LuXTeN
a reply to: Namdru

what do you have against McAfee?

The guy was taken out unrightfully by a bunch of assholes.

Whose side are you on anyways?

I have nothing against McAfee, only the greatest respect. After all, I used to work for Symantec!

As for sides, I am a loose cannon. McAfee is like that too, except has loads and loads of green paper. A force to be reckoned with.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

If you knew absolutely anything about either McAfee or Kim Dot Com, you'd realize how much you were scraping the bottom of the barrel. McAfee is an unhinged.
..

I was just about to post the same thing. The Trumpohiles will cite any source whatsoever as long as it supports their view of what they WANT to believe and at the same time run down any source that does not. Jesus Christ could appear on a flaming pie in the sky saying the Tweeter-in-Chief is a tool and Charles Manson could say he is a god. They'd be all over Jesus for consorting with a prostitute and declare Charles Manson a cultural icon. Fake News = anything that disagrees with their narrative. Two things lost this past election: HRC and critical thinking.

a reply to: theantediluvian

McAfee was probably the one who helped get into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter.

While that's not verified, the FBI was having issues getting into it, McAfee publicly stated he could help and suddenly they were in just some time after.

That being said both are characters but also professionals in their field.

But the owner, creator and top minds of one of the largest security software companies is unhinged so dismissed.

His company literally has to determine the biggest threats across the world, but he's "unhinged" so he's dismissed.


Judging by your blinding loyalty to partisanship and the way you talk to people who disagree with what you believe, I'd say your unhinged.

a reply to: Namdru

Thanks for the Update.

a reply to: jimmyx

... even though they were never allowed to directly examine the evidence themselves?

Why do you think THEY have all the details?

originally posted by: Namdru

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

It appears that American Intelligence has become an oxymoron.

Yes. The way to get this kind of oxymoron is to blend a*****holes with idiots in an Oxyclean solution until they are bleached lily white, homogenized and recast in a special mould as a series of near-identical, corporate clones.

But seriously, listen to John McAfee. He presents himself as someone who doesn't take orders from anyone.

Assuming that's true, and given that he's got better street cred in these matters than most anyone else in these forums (unless those would include the original agents themselves!), my money's on John.

Except his claim is an oxymoron...

He is basically saying :

Hacking is untraceable and stoppable , which is why I sell anti virus sortware!!"

Lol

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: theantediluvian
...
I think he knows what he's talking about given his background.
...

Would you "think" the same if he agreed with the US intel claims?

why does anyone here think that mcafee has all the details, even the top secret details?....

I'll take the word of the people that love America, and that want to protect us Americans

Why does anyone here think the US intellegrnce is being completely honest and/or forthright with the intel. Just because they said no it doesn't make it truth.

What about people who love America and want to protect Americans but don't believe this?

≠

originally posted by: Namdru

Except his claim is an oxymoron...

He is basically saying :

Hacking is untraceable and stoppable , which is why I sell anti virus sortware!!"

Lol

Lol is right...all the way to the bank, in his case! IMO, McAfee is the kind of guy who would think twice before writing the malware necessary to keep his edge in the business...and then he would write it, or re-write it, and release it himself in the wild. Except he wouldn't use destructive malware, only annoying and self-replicating, and he would release a lot of it. At least, that's what I would do if I could go back in time and get rich on the early anti-virus business!

Of course John wouldn't do that now. Terrible way to make money. Anti-virus software is basically a dead industry. Zero-days rule, the rest is an afterthought.

And as for Peter Norton, of course, he would never have done such a thing, now would he have? All geeky with his pocket liner full of pens and heat-shrink tubing and s**t....

Those were the days!

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Did anybody catch the part where he says they would be 'scheduled for suicide?'

He was referring to the level of incompetence that would have been required for Russia to make the mistakes of not removing an IP address and using a cyrillic keyboard, as claimed by the FBI/DHS/666 whatever.

Very cryptic and if you caught it, also very telling.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Did anybody catch the part where he says they would be 'scheduled for suicide?'

He was referring to the level of incompetence that would have been required for Russia to make the mistakes of not removing an IP address and using a cyrillic keyboard, as claimed by the FBI/DHS/666 whatever.

Very cryptic and if you caught it, also very telling.

So maybe it was, sorta, the Russians...i.e., not one of theirs, but someone else's working as one of theirs. Maybe that's what JM meant.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Question to you:

Is it the US government's responsibility to take on the cyber security of private entities and private individuals?

The DNC is a private entity and John Podesta is a private individual. If you think the answer is yes, where does that stop? Should the government be assuming responsibility for your cyber security? Do you really want them taking control of your devices in that way ... just for your own safety, of course.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Question to you:

Is it the US government's responsibility to take on the cyber security of private entities and private individuals?

The DNC is a private entity and John Podesta is a private individual. If you think the answer is yes, where does that stop? Should the government be assuming responsibility for your cyber security? Do you really want them taking control of your devices in that way ... just for your own safety, of course.

I don't think that anyone knows to what degree the federal government is responsible for these things. Clearly they have a responsibility to provide for the national defense on a physical level. If the state of Russia were to physically raid Microsoft HQ, I don't think the argument would be that it's Microsoft's responsibility to repel the attack. When the founders outlined their positions on the common defense, warfare was an ancient thing. This sort of thing is comparably novel and I think we have much thinking to do on how to manage it.

That said, I think the preponderance of evidence suggests Russian complicity in these attacks and that their goal was to manipulate the election. That doesn't mean that they were successful in a meaningful way nor does it doesn't mean that the Obama administration's response was appropriate. But it is worth knowing, and it is worth knowing if Russia favored a particular candidate strongly enough to motivate such string-pulling.