U.S. Prosecutors Consider Charging Russian Officials in DNC Hacking Case

a reply to: DJW001

What makes you think they are taking anyone's word on anything?

Are you sure you're up to speed on all the details of this situation?

The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.

Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.

Slate

And why would anyone need to physically access the servers?

Oh, I don't know.

Why would a crime scene investigator ever actually need to visit the scene of a crime?

edit on 2-11-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The scene of the crime was cyberspace. And the investigation has obviously moved on since January.

a reply to: DJW001


Attempting to affect the 2016 election is what the overall investigation is all about, isn't it?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Seems they knew but didn't care about security or hacking ...

a reply to: DJW001

And the part of cyberspace that the crime took place in (the servers of the DNC) was never examined directly by the FBI forensics specialists, was it?

Not sure how the investigation can move on from a 3rd party analysis from a company which has been shown to have been wrong in similar analysis before and be considered at all credible.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: GuidedKill

They'll have to sanction some Russians and tell them not to operate a computer anymore.

That'll show 'em.

So you are okay with espionage against the United States?

That's your claim, not mine.

Why not be honest ?

When a foreign government illegally accesses American emails it is espionage. Are you okay with that? It's a simple question.

Why would anybody care what I think ?

Is there an agenda here ?

Besides, I'll wait for the proof on this one.

So far, there is no proof.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why would anybody care what I think ?

Then why do you post here so much?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Again, what do we know about the investigation since January? If the Donald Trump Justice Department thinks it has a case against six Russians, they probably have dug up enough hard evidence to satisfy even Donald Trump.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Seems they knew but didn't care about security or hacking ...

Yeah, the DNC knew"

September 2015 - The FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee's help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.

So, the FBI contacts the DNC IT department and tells them they have a compromised system. DNC genius tech says he/she can't find anything and doesn't tell his/her boss.

A couple of months later:

November 2015 - The FBI reaches out to the DNC again, warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached.

FBI goes back to DNC and says, hey, remember that compromised system we told you you had? Well, it's leaking... DNC says, we had no idea we had a compromised system. (wonder if anyone was fired?)

A few months later, one of the most powerful man in the United States falls prey to an absurdly simple scam due to a typo:

March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

June 14, 2016 - The Washington Post reports hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC's computer system, stealing oppositional research on Donald Trump and viewing staffers' emails and chat exchanges. The Kremlin, however, denies that the government was linked to the hack, and a US official tells CNN that investigators have not yet concluded that the cyberattack was directed by the Russian government.

CNN timeline of DNC 'hack'

And now here we are today relying on the word of a 3rd party company that has a questionable history in the area in which they are being relied upon.

Sounds like a lot of ass-covering tactics to me.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DJW001


Attempting to affect the 2016 election is what the overall investigation is all about, isn't it?

Correct. It is legal for United States citizens to campaign as they see fit, provided they do not not break the law. It is illegal to hack others' emails. It is not allowed for foreigners to participate without declaring themselves foreign agents. Do you have a point?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Why do you keep rehashing news from January? We don't know what the FBI has been doing quietly for the past nine months.

a reply to: DJW001

Are you implying that in the interim, the DNC has granted the FBI access to the servers themselves?

Do you have a link to show that, or are you assuming?

they should say there going after paid shills, the reactions would be priceless.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Could be but I'll wait for the indictments because ..........

according to people familiar with the investigation

source that demands subscription !

Good journalism ISNT FREE.

You want something of value?

PAY FOR IT.

I'm more suspect of "free news" paid for by ADVERTISERS than subscriptions.

News sources not beholden to advertisers are more likely to be honest.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

Are you implying that in the interim, the DNC has granted the FBI access to the servers themselves?

Do you have a link to show that, or are you assuming?

Are you implying they did not? Do you have a link to show that, or are you assuming!

a reply to: DanteGaland

I'm more suspect of "free news" paid for by ADVERTISERS than subscriptions.

News sources not beholden to advertisers are more likely to be honest.

Did you really just say that?

More than two-thirds (69%) of all domestic news revenue is derived from advertising. That amounts to roughly $43 billion of the $63 billion accounted for in this report, according to the most recent annual figures.2

Pew Research Center from 2014

a reply to: DJW001

As of the most recent verifiable information we have on the matter, the FBI still has not examined the physical servers of the DNC and so until such news is negated by reports to the contrary, that is on what my conclusion is based.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

As of the most recent verifiable information we have on the matter, the FBI still has not examined the physical servers of the DNC and so until such news is negated by reports to the contrary, that is on what my conclusion is based.

So, in the absence of any news of the secret investigation, you are assuming. The Justice Department does not like to lose cases. If they are making indictments, they believe they have a case.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The point being that news outlets that have money on the line tend to value their credibility more than faceless bloggers. [/off topic]

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah.

News that's "FREE" to you and me because o advertisers is more likely to be BIASED.

Compared to a subscription model like the WSJ.

You can't TRASH the WSJ because they make people pay.