What to make of the Durham filing?

[DANC]

When the Federalist Papers said that the FBI "CONFIRMED" (in all caps, IIRC) that HRC's server was hacked, it was a lie. The FBI did not CONFIRM that.

Mark calmly explained why it was a lie. You stupidly made fun of Mark for not realizing that the server was hacked, because you didn't understand what you were reading.

Now you are trying to change the subject rather than own up to your mistake.

As Mark himself explained, people have different definitions for hacking. it's a catch-all term.

As I pointed out to you - which you have ignored - is that the FBI couldn't determine if the server had been hacked BECAUSE THE FBI DIDN"T HAVE ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES AND OTHER COMPUTER COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE SERVER. My emphasis.

The FBI didn't have access to those items BECAUSE THEY WERE DESTROYED. Again, my emphasis.

Your lack of curiosity as to why these items were destroyed is telling. You're a fool if you think these items weren't destroyed to hide hacking activities.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As Mark himself explained, people have different definitions for hacking. it's a catch-all term.

As I pointed out to you - which you have ignored - is that the FBI couldn't determine if the server had been hacked BECAUSE THE FBI DIDN"T HAVE ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES AND OTHER COMPUTER COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE SERVER. My emphasis.

The FBI didn't have access to those items BECAUSE THEY WERE DESTROYED. Again, my emphasis.

Your lack of curiosity as to why these items were destroyed is telling. You're a fool if you think these items weren't destroyed to hide hacking activities.

I don't lack curiosity about any of that. But right now, I am more curious about your inability to distinguish between "CONFIRMED" and "couldn't determine."

 

[DANC]

I don't lack curiosity about any of that. But right now, I am more curious about your inability to distinguish between "CONFIRMED" and "couldn't determine."

You totally lack any curiosity about it and what part of 'the FBI didn't have access' don't you understand?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You totally lack any curiosity about it and what part of 'the FBI didn't have access' don't you understand?

I understand it just fine. You still are incapable of owning up to the fact that you got "CONFIRMED" wrong.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I voted for both of them. But you think I'm a cult member.

You throw that term around for anyone who defends Trump at all.

Not at all. I only use the term for those that believe the big lie and defend Trump when for anything and everything. That would describe you pretty well.

 

[jet812]

Yes, I thought it went without saying that "way too many" was a synonym for "more than zero."

I'm out and about in a relatively backwoods part of the state most of the week. I can tell you this kind of thinking is surprisingly common.

Bullshit.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

He's already admitted to having been a Democrat.

You're late to the party.

I was a Reagan Democrat and officially switched to Republican after Bill Clinton's election. They were slowly losing me throughout the late 80s and early 90s, but that was the last straw. I'm certainly no Democrat now. I'm a Republican, not a Trumpster Republican.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here's the actual filing:

USA v. Sussmann - Durham Filing - Motion On Potential Conflicts of Interest | PDF | Conflict Of Interest | Attorney–Client Privilege

This is a legal document in the case of USA v. Sussmann.

www.scribd.com

Here's the important takeaway for those who want to press the Fox News narrative: Fox has played up Kash Patel's claim that Durham accuses Clinton of paying a tech company to "infiltrate" Trump servers. However, this is simply not true. The word "infiltrate" doesn't even appear in the filing. Nor does any claim that anyone attempted to infiltrate Trump servers, whether on Clinton's behalf or otherwise. Patel simply lied on TV, and Fox and others are running with that lie.

The filing does not accuse anyone of infiltrating or otherwise doing anything to either Trump's private servers, or the servers of the Executive Office of the President. There was no hacking.

That said, it does make one accusation of shady tech magnate behavior that I would not advise - not saying it's criminal, but I'd steer clear. It suggests that the unnamed tech magnate's company had a special deal with the EOP to handle all of EOP's DNS resolution traffic, and that the DNS resolution data he was accessing was therefore "proprietary" and "non-public" (in a way that DNS resolution traffic would normally not be). In no reasonable world can that be considered "hacking," and I really doubt that there's any reasonable way to make that into a crime of any kind, but it's definitely a gray area I wouldn't want to be in, just in case.

@UncleMark Maybe you can shed some light on the implications of a dedicated arrangement for DNS resolution. Should the EOP have any expectation of privacy in this situation?

Read the filing, especially paragraph 5. Patel has it right. Durham describes infiltration.

Scribd: Explore 170M+ documents from a global community

Explore over 170M documents from a global community. Share information, and find inspiration on Scribd.

www.scribd.com

 

[DANC]

I was a Reagan Democrat and officially switched to Republican after Bill Clinton's election. They were slowly losing me throughout the late 80s and early 90s, but that was the last straw. I'm certainly no Democrat now. I'm a Republican, not a Trumpster Republican.

Like I said, you were a Democrat.

You're a Republican who doesn't support the Republican Presidential candidate. We call those Democrats. You can call yourself anything you want - I know what I call you.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Read the filing, especially paragraph 5. Patel has it right. Durham describes infiltration.

Scribd: Explore 170M+ documents from a global community

Explore over 170M documents from a global community. Share information, and find inspiration on Scribd.

www.scribd.com

DNS traffic is not infilitration. "Other data" is too vague to glean anything from.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Like I said, you were a Democrat.

You're a Republican who doesn't support the Republican Presidential candidate. We call those Democrats. You can call yourself anything you want - I know what I call you.

Of course, you know what to call me - Republican. It's not even a question.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

DNS traffic is not infilitration. "Other data" is too vague to glean anything from.

So, it’s not illegal to monitor the internet traffic of the office of the president under false pretenses for the purpose of trying to obtain information to damage that president?

Is that not what’s being alleged in the indictment?

If so, it seems kind of disingenuous to say “well, that’s not hacking or infiltration”.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

DNS traffic is not infilitration. "Other data" is too vague to glean anything from.

Huh? Do you even know what Durham alleged? Doesn’t sound like it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So, it’s not illegal to monitor the internet traffic of the office of the president under false pretenses for the purpose of trying to obtain information to damage that president?

Is that not what’s being alleged in the indictment?

If so, it seems kind of disingenuous to say “well, that’s not hacking or infiltration”.

It might be. But the motion (not indictment) doesn't allege spying on "internet traffic" generally. It alleges mining DNS resolution requests. These are not generally private or expected to be private. When you decide to visit, say, rivals.com, your computer sends a request to a DNS server to turn the phrase "rivals.com" into an internet IP address so that your computer can actually find what it's looking for. That request is what we're talking about. Generally speaking, DNS resolution requests are not - and cannot - be private by their very nature.

"Other data" is tantalizing, but doesn't mean much without more detail.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Huh? Do you even know what Durham alleged? Doesn’t sound like it.

Yes, I do. I read the motion, and linked it. Apparently you didn't understand it. Please highlight which part alleges "infiltration" to correct my mistake.

 

[NPT]

Like I said, you were a Democrat.

You're a Republican who doesn't support the Republican Presidential candidate. We call those Democrats. You can call yourself anything you want - I know what I call you.

There is a difference between supporting a Republican candidate and following one blindly. I don't want to see Trump nominated again because that gives the Democrats the best chance to win IMO. I completely understand voting for him in 2016 just to shake up the status quo but surely there are better candidates that aren't life long politicians.

Aloha is definitely a Republican because he supports a lot more Republican policies than Democrat policies.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

It might be. But the motion (not indictment) doesn't allege spying on "internet traffic" generally. It alleges mining DNS resolution requests. These are not generally private or expected to be private. When you decide to visit, say, rivals.com, your computer sends a request to a DNS server to turn the phrase "rivals.com" into an internet IP address so that your computer can actually find what it's looking for. That request is what we're talking about. Generally speaking, DNS resolution requests are not - and cannot - be private by their very nature.

"Other data" is tantalizing, but doesn't mean much without more detail.

Can we at least dispense with the notion that they weren’t spying on Trump and continued doing so even after he took office?

 

[UncleMark]

As I pointed out to you - which you have ignored - is that the FBI couldn't determine if the server had been hacked BECAUSE THE FBI DIDN"T HAVE ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES AND OTHER COMPUTER COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE SERVER. My emphasis.

The access logs are on the server, not the accessing devices. So, that has absolutely no bearing on... anything.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can we at least dispense with the notion that they weren’t spying on Trump and continued doing so even after he took office?

That's not the notion at question. Obviously, they are being accused of looking through data available to them in order to hurt Trump. In this case, it appears they were hoping to find DNS resolution requests that would help tie Trump to Alfa Bank. If you want to call that "spying," whatever. Spying seems a strong word to me. I'd go with "snooping." But it's semantics, so who cares.

But the allegation is that they "infiltrated" Trump's and the EOP's servers. That's simply not what is alleged, and it's a lie for anyone to claim it is, as Patel did on Fox.

 

[DANC]

Of course, you know what to call me - Republican. It's not even a question.

Not if you don't vote Republican and vote for a Democrat who is opposed to Republican philosophy.

But, like I said, you can call yourself whatever you want. But the Republican party is leaving you in the dust.

 

[DANC]

There is a difference between supporting a Republican candidate and following one blindly. I don't want to see Trump nominated again because that gives the Democrats the best chance to win IMO. I completely understand voting for him in 2016 just to shake up the status quo but surely there are better candidates that aren't life long politicians.

Aloha is definitely a Republican because he supports a lot more Republican policies than Democrat policies.

But he doesn't support Republican policies when he voted for a Democrat for President.

 

[DANC]

The access logs are on the server, not the accessing devices. So, that has absolutely no bearing on... anything.

If that's true, then are you saying the FBI was wrong when they said they couldn't determine access because of the destroyed items?

 

[DANC]

Can we at least dispense with the notion that they weren’t spying on Trump and continued doing so even after he took office?

Thanks for cutting to the chase.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

That's not the notion at question. Obviously, they are being accused of looking through data available to them in order to hurt Trump. In this case, it appears they were hoping to find DNS resolution requests that would help tie Trump to Alfa Bank. If you want to call that "spying," whatever. Spying seems a strong word to me. I'd go with "snooping." But it's semantics, so who cares.

But the allegation is that they "infiltrated" Trump's and the EOP's servers. That's simply not what is alleged, and it's a lie for anyone to claim it is, as Patel did on Fox.

It was the losing candidate in a presidential election hiring people to craft the narrative that they person they lost to was beholden to Russia via contacts with Alfa bank, after the election was over.

It’s probably not technically “hacking”, but it sure as hell ain’t good.

I guess we’ll find out if it was illegal.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It was the losing candidate in a presidential election hiring people to craft the narrative that they person they lost to was beholden to Russia via contacts with Alfa bank, after the election was over.

It’s probably not technically “hacking”, but it sure as hell ain’t good.

I guess we’ll find out if it was illegal.

As Mark pointed out, "hacking" isn't a technical term. But there's no probably about it. What is alleged in the filing isn't anything that any reasonable person would ever describe as "hacking." And, more importantly, it's decidedly not any kind of "infiltration," which is the actual term that was used - and prominently highlighted - in the story. It's dishonest reporting.

You're kind of doing the same thing as DANC. You want to move on to how awful HRC and her lackeys were. I'll be happy to go there with you as soon as we can settle this first question without hiding from it. Patel lied. Fox lied. The report is false. Let's dispense with that before moving on.

 

[UncleMark]

@UncleMark Maybe you can shed some light on the implications of a dedicated arrangement for DNS resolution. Should the EOP have any expectation of privacy in this situation?

@Hank Reardon or @Marvin the Martian would be the ones to ask, but I suspect that yes they would. Then again, I think anyone would, to some respect. I use the public Level 3 DNS servers and assume my lookups aren't being monitored, but have no idea how "private" they are.

The question I have is why in God's name is the EOP using a third party for DNS services? You mean to tell me the US government doesn't do this itself?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

@Hank Reardon or @Marvin the Martian would be the ones to ask, but I suspect that yes they would. Then again, I think anyone would, to some respect. I use the public Level 3 DNS servers and assume my lookups aren't being monitored, but have no idea how "private" they are.

The question I have is why in God's name is the EOP using a third party for DNS services? You mean to tell me the US government doesn't do this itself?

Thanks. I'm pretty sure that little warning window that pops up when I open a special tab to...read the Economist or something...tells me that my service provider will know every website I visited, so I just assumed there should be no expectation of privacy. But, yeah, there is definitely a difference between "the data is open to whoever is looking" and "someone is actively searching the data."

 

[DANC]

@Hank Reardon or @Marvin the Martian would be the ones to ask, but I suspect that yes they would. Then again, I think anyone would, to some respect. I use the public Level 3 DNS servers and assume my lookups aren't being monitored, but have no idea how "private" they are.

The question I have is why in God's name is the EOP using a third party for DNS services? You mean to tell me the US government doesn't do this itself?

Mark, off the subject, but I asked you a question earlier and I don't think you answered:

Why do we have voting machines that has software on them that does anything other than tabulate votes?

 

[UncleMark]

If that's true, then are you saying the FBI was wrong when they said they couldn't determine access because of the destroyed items?

Did they say that? If so, they're talking about something beyond my level of understanding. Server logs record access by IP, not device. If I access Rivals with my desktop or laptop or phone, all three would be recorded by the IP number assigned by Comcast to my modem. Bring your laptop or phone over and the same thing happens. That's why I do all my hacking from the library.

 

[DANC]

Did they say that? If so, they're talking about something beyond my level of understanding. Server logs record access by IP, not device. If I access Rivals with my desktop or laptop or phone, all three would be recorded by the IP number assigned by Comcast to my modem. Bring your laptop or phone over and the same thing happens. That's why I do all my hacking from the library.

Yes, I posted it in reply to Goat. Here it is- you probably will need to expand it.

Page 2.

Hillary R. Clinton Part 01

vault.fbi.gov

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did they say that? If so, they're talking about something beyond my level of understanding. Server logs record access by IP, not device. If I access Rivals with my desktop or laptop or phone, all three would be recorded by the IP number assigned by Comcast to my modem. Bring your laptop or phone over and the same thing happens. That's why I do all my hacking from the library.

Also why you watch your porn there.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes, I posted it in reply to Goat. Here it is- you probably will need to expand it.

Page 2.

Hillary R. Clinton Part 01

vault.fbi.gov

You didn't even read your own links. The FBI did not say that they couldn't determine access.

 

[UncleMark]

Mark, off the subject, but I asked you a question earlier and I don't think you answered:

Why do we have voting machines that has software on them that does anything other than tabulate votes?

I don't think we should. I don't know how fleshed out a voting tabulator software platform is, but it should be the absolute bare bones. If the machines in service have Windows, you're screwed out of the gate. A bare bones open source build with only the necessary modules should be the standard. The problem I can imagine is that the people making the decisions are county clerks with no understanding of basic machine functioning and who are susceptible to a good sales pitch, and who like something that looks familiar, like the Windows machine on their desk.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think we should. I don't know how fleshed out a voting tabulator software platform is, but it should be the absolute bare bones. If the machines in service have Windows, you're screwed out of the gate. A bare bones open source build with only the necessary modules should be the standard. The problem I can imagine is that the people making the decisions are county clerks with no understanding of basic machine functioning and who are susceptible to a good sales pitch, and who like something that looks familiar, like the Windows machine on their desk.

Call me a Luddite, but I think voting is one thing we should just do, and count, on paper only.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

As Mark pointed out, "hacking" isn't a technical term. But there's no probably about it. What is alleged in the filing isn't anything that any reasonable person would ever describe as "hacking." And, more importantly, it's decidedly not any kind of "infiltration," which is the actual term that was used - and prominently highlighted - in the story. It's dishonest reporting.

You're kind of doing the same thing as DANC. You want to move on to how awful HRC and her lackeys were. I'll be happy to go there with you as soon as we can settle this first question without hiding from it. Patel lied. Fox lied. The report is false. Let's dispense with that before moving on.

Huh? You yourself conceded that you didn’t actually know if it was legal or illegal activity in the context of how it happened. My assumption is that Durham felt like it was illegal or it wouldn’t have been in the indictment.

You’re doing what you are accusing me of doing. The equivalent of yelling “ITS NOT HACKING!!! ITS NOT INFILTRATION!!!”

I concede that it was probably dishonest reporting but I don’t know for sure whether it was legal or not, so it doesn’t seem like much of a distinction.

 

[UncleMark]

That's why I do all my hacking from the library.

Also why you watch your porn there.

No, I download it there. I watch at home. Too many kids at the library, might tel someone I'm having a seizure or something.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Huh? You yourself conceded that you didn’t actually know if it was legal or illegal activity in the context of how it happened. My assumption is that Durham felt like it was illegal or it wouldn’t have been in the indictment.

You’re doing what you are accusing me of doing. The equivalent of yelling “ITS NOT HACKING!!! ITS NOT INFILTRATION!!!”

I concede that it was probably dishonest reporting but I don’t know for sure whether it was legal or not, so it doesn’t seem like much of a distinction.

Again, it wasn't in the indictment. This is a motion regarding possible conflicts of interest.

I'm not doing what you're doing, because I'm not changing the subject. I readily admitted I thought it was shady behavior, and I also made it clear that, while I doubt it's illegal, I can't know for sure. What I do know is that it is not infiltration. No one hacked any Trump servers. No one hacked any White House servers.

(Or, rather, no one is accused of doing so in this particular motion.)

But Patel went on Fox and basically said that is exactly what Durham alleged, which he absolutely did not do. It was a lie. I just want you guys to own up to that without prevarication or deflection. I'll be glad to give you any thoughts you want about the other issues if you can just do that. Just say "Yes, Patel lied. The motion doesn't say what he claims it says." That's it.

 

[NPT]

Here's the actual filing:

USA v. Sussmann - Durham Filing - Motion On Potential Conflicts of Interest | PDF | Conflict Of Interest | Attorney–Client Privilege

This is a legal document in the case of USA v. Sussmann.

www.scribd.com

Here's the important takeaway for those who want to press the Fox News narrative: Fox has played up Kash Patel's claim that Durham accuses Clinton of paying a tech company to "infiltrate" Trump servers. However, this is simply not true. The word "infiltrate" doesn't even appear in the filing. Nor does any claim that anyone attempted to infiltrate Trump servers, whether on Clinton's behalf or otherwise. Patel simply lied on TV, and Fox and others are running with that lie.

The filing does not accuse anyone of infiltrating or otherwise doing anything to either Trump's private servers, or the servers of the Executive Office of the President. There was no hacking.

That said, it does make one accusation of shady tech magnate behavior that I would not advise - not saying it's criminal, but I'd steer clear. It suggests that the unnamed tech magnate's company had a special deal with the EOP to handle all of EOP's DNS resolution traffic, and that the DNS resolution data he was accessing was therefore "proprietary" and "non-public" (in a way that DNS resolution traffic would normally not be). In no reasonable world can that be considered "hacking," and I really doubt that there's any reasonable way to make that into a crime of any kind, but it's definitely a gray area I wouldn't want to be in, just in case.

@UncleMark Maybe you can shed some light on the implications of a dedicated arrangement for DNS resolution. Should the EOP have any expectation of privacy in this situation?

The DNS can be set by the user. It can be set on the computer that you are using, If it's not set there it will go to the router if you are connected to one. If the DNS isn't set there then it goes to the ISPs DNS.

Google's public DNS servers are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. Personally I use OpenDNS servers set on my router because I want to use their filtering since kids use my wifi sometimes.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

@Hank Reardon or @Marvin the Martian would be the ones to ask, but I suspect that yes they would. Then again, I think anyone would, to some respect. I use the public Level 3 DNS servers and assume my lookups aren't being monitored, but have no idea how "private" they are.

The question I have is why in God's name is the EOP using a third party for DNS services? You mean to tell me the US government doesn't do this itself?

The client should cache the DNS. So if I go to Rivals, my phone should know the path. So I am not sure what could be learned. I do not recall length of cache, but I am not sure what could be learned

By the way, there is a sporting event of some kind on.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Did they say that? If so, they're talking about something beyond my level of understanding. Server logs record access by IP, not device. If I access Rivals with my desktop or laptop or phone, all three would be recorded by the IP number assigned by Comcast to my modem. Bring your laptop or phone over and the same thing happens. That's why I do all my hacking from the library.

In general, hardware identifiers (think MAC addresses) aren’t transmitted across subnets. So internally I can see MAC addresses of systems accessing company resources (like, if you used your phone on the corporate Wi-Fi we can see that address and likely run you down) remote systems would not see that during ordinary web browsing.

I say “in general” because who really knows what sort of magic shit the feds can do, with the help of an ISP.

Also, if you’re accessing something using some sort of application, like online gaming, that might transmit internal hardware identifiers. So you could get banned on some game server and get a new IP, or even ISP, and your system could still be banned.