Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: John McAfee and Ad Hominem attacks

  1. #1
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,662 Times in 1,264 Posts

    John McAfee and Ad Hominem attacks

    This is from a post on Gio's thread

    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    ...............
    MacAfee..,well I wouldn't put any weight in what this guy says as he is currently under investigation himself.




    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjBgNwAVLWQ


    John McAfee Accused of Rape and Murder in Explosive New Doc

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-new-doc.html
    I am curious about how much weight to put on John McAfee's demonization. Of course I have no personal knowledge of him but I have thought he sounds as though he understands something of "cyber security"? In GENERAL, it seems quite easy to destroy people's reputations. This is especially the case when a person steps outside the fence of socially agreeable behavior? I did not want to derail Gio's thread but I am really curious about John McAfee AND the way that people paint other people negatively and then others accept without challenge. I think that this kind of judgement is ad hominem.

    AND who are the real losers when we evaluate others this way?

    ad ho·mi·nem
    ˌad ˈhämənəm/
    adverb & adjective
    adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

    1.
    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "vicious ad hominem attacks"
    2.
    relating to or associated with a particular person.
    "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

    What does any one else have to comment on the topic??? Just sharing what I found:

    Steve Morgan
    How I Hacked John McAfee And Got Away With His True Life Story
    September 26, 2016
    ............................................
    From the outset, my main interest in McAfee was cybersecurity. I wanted to learn more about how he combated his first computer virus, how he started up, IPOd, and grew his namesake anti-virus company, and all things cyber. I was not expecting to find myself at the epicenter of McAfee’s soul and all of the connections that came with it. In retrospect, I really didn’t want to know the secrets. I’m a cybersecurity researcher, writer, and publisher. But to know McAfee the cyber scientist meant that I had to deal with his baggage.

    It’s been a while since I’ve written anything of substance on McAfee.

    Showtime knocked on my door several months ago. Someone sitting behind a gmail address said he’d found some articles I wrote on McAfee, and wanted to know if I’d be interested in talking with Showtime about a documentary they were filming on him. It took a couple of tough responses from me before the assistant would reveal his full name — and the name of the producer, Nanette Burstein.

    Burstein and I spoke on the phone for less than 30 minutes. It started off as an open ended discussion about John McAfee. She made it sound like Showtime was developing the story and looking for credible third parties who knew McAfee from different perspectives — business, personal life, his time in Belize, and other. I explained to Burstein that I had been planning to write McAfee’s biography, but then dropped out. She asked what I thought of McAfee. I explained that first and foremost, he was a cyber scientist — and one of the best I’d ever met. Then I shared my views on McAfee the entrepreneur. Burstein interrupted and framed our discussion squarely on Belize – which seemed odd to me. It was clear that I had information she hadn’t heard before – for instance details of McAfee’s daughter visiting him in Belize.. what she learned, what she thought, etc. Burstein sounded cordial but frustrated with me. It felt like she was looking for a ‘bad McAfee’ story… and wasn’t getting what she wanted. Our phone call ended with Burstein asking if I would travel into New York City for an interview which would be used in the documentary. I agreed. My research and quotes on cybersecurity appear in the media nearly every day – so this didn’t seem any different.

    Showtime never got back in touch with me. I did have a follow up email exchange with Burstein and her assistant. They informed that after speaking with ‘another reporter who traveled to Belize’, they didn’t need an interview with me. Something sounded fishy. In another email exchange Burstein claimed that she couldn’t use me because of ‘journalistic overlap’, given I was McAfee’s biographer. Then I knew something wasn’t right. Burstein and her assistant knew in advance that I was McAfee’s ‘ex’ biographer, and that I was speaking on my own behalf. Plus they had invited me in for an interview.

    A little research informed that Showtime and Burstein had already written their storyline well in advance of contacting me. “John McAfee: Guilty of Murder in Belize” a.k.a. “Gringo“. Being that I could not corroborate their story — or worse that I might conflict with it — I was not a ‘person of interest’ to them… only McAfee was. When I noticed the “other reporter” Burstein referred to — Jeff Wise — it immediately struck me that there was no original content in the Showtime documentary. I remembered this was the same Wise who wrote an article a few years ago titled “Exclusive: John McAfee Wanted for Murder” (which was not the case and a gross over-dramatization of McAfee, who was a person of interest at the time — meaning the authorities wanted to speak with him). The sensational headline got picked up by more media and McAfee was instantly guilty before being proven innocent. Turns out Wise isn’t a reporter in this case, he pretty much wrote the script for Showtime: “John McAfee: Guilty of Murder, Part II”.

    If anyone thinks I have some sort of ties to McAfee and write to make him look good, they’re wrong. I have a high regard for John McAfee, cybersecurity expert. So much that I (only recently) asked him to join my firm’s informal board of advisers — which is an uncompensated and unofficial role and is limited to feedback on our cybercrime and cybersecurity reports. In terms of his personal beliefs, we are very different people. We do not share the same moral compass when it comes to many topics. I believe in God, he does not. I could go on with a long list of differences.

    So, why am I writing this?

    It is not to share McAfee’s secrets. He knows what they are and might decide to share them with another biographer one day. I’ll keep his secrets to myself. I was not hacking for notoriety or financial gain. I was supposed to be writing a book. Who knows… maybe McAfee won’t find another biographer and I’ll write the book one day after all.

    Rather, I’m writing this to tell Showtime viewers that while McAfee is a prankster who enjoys media attention (and rankling reporters!), he tells the truth. In fact, the truth is so important to him that he had a shouting match with me after disagreeing on what a family member shared about him. It was something that wouldn’t have even made it into the book. But McAfee wanted the truth printed, or nothing.

    McAfee shared numerous secrets and indiscretions from his life — during his pre-teen years, adolescence, early adulthood, employers prior to busting out with his anti-virus success, the early days at McAfee Associates — which could have been embarrassing or made him look bad. He shared stories that were not required for the book. But the truth was important to him.

    I’ve also experienced an honest McAfee while wearing my hat as a reporter. In a blog on my firm’s site titled ‘WhatsApp Message Hacked By John McAfee And Crew‘, I wrote about McAfee hacking a WhatsApp message. What I wrote was short and sweet, and kept to the facts. McAfee was able to read a WhatsApp message (that he shouldn’t have been able to read). When he reported the feat — he went out of his way to say that he did not break WhatsApp’s encryption or otherwise hack WhatsApp’s software… and he pointed out a design flaw in the Android operating system. McAfee even engaged a third party forensics firm to authenticate his accounting of the hack. Anyone can fact check the story. And yet, one media property pounced hard on McAfee – starting out by calling him a liar in general and then criticizing him for saying he hacked a WhatsApp message. Numerous additional media chimed in — some throwing stones at McAfee — and some who backed him and corroborated his hack. McAfee was vindicated when a top cybersecurity firm put his hack up for an award — for best stunt hack of the year. A hack to draw attention? Yes. McAfee never said he doesn’t like to generate media attention.

    The Showtime piece — maybe call it a Shockumentary — failed to provide its audience with fair and objective reporting, period.

    McAfee posted this blog — ‘Showtime: Send The Money To This Address‘ — telling his side of the Belize story in response to the Showtime documentary.

    I have nothing further to write or say about John McAfee in connection to his time in Belize.

    Watch for my upcoming blog series ‘McAfee Unplugged’. I’ll be sharing some interesting stories covering McAfee… but they will be limited to cybersecurity. Did McAfee actually write the first McAfee anti-virus software program himself? Stay tuned.

    — Steve Morgan

    Visit SteveOnCyber.com to read all of my blogs and articles covering cybersecurity.

    http://cybersecurityventures.com/how...ue-life-story/

    John McAfee has a say

    The absurdity of the “documentary” produced by Showtime defies belief for anyone not acquainted with my relationship to its executive producer – Jeff Wise. I will explain this relationship in detail later; it involves a woman named Allison Adonizio, who, in 2010, was unceremoniously fired by myself from managing a lab we had jointly started in Carmelita village in Belize and who is featured in Jeff’s movie. For now let’s just say that hatred is an insufficient word for what Jeff has felt for me over the past six years. Hatred drives people to extremes, and Jeff’s extremes were Olympian in scope. He has written article after article demonizing me in any and every outlet willing to publish him. Three parts continued here:
    John McAfee Issues Response to SHOWTIME Gringo Farce – Part 1
    Last edited by Maggie, 23rd March 2017 at 22:39.

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (23rd March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (24th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Margueritebee (23rd March 2017), modwiz (23rd March 2017), Myst (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    6,062
    Thanks
    36,981
    Thanked 38,777 Times in 6,034 Posts
    There is a reversal of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is "the friend of my enemy is my enemy too".
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (24th March 2017), Greenbarry (23rd March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  5. #3
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    9th July 2015
    Location
    The Bluegrass State
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    1,732
    Thanked 1,216 Times in 266 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    There is a reversal of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is "the friend of my enemy is my enemy too".
    that is SO messed up and psychopathic.

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Greenbarry For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (24th March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  7. #4
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,662 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    There is a reversal of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is "the friend of my enemy is my enemy too".
    Who is the enemy?
    Who is the friend?

    In case anyone has not heard what John McAfee has to say


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKG3NJO0-g



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqSHP4cDNss
    Last edited by Maggie, 24th March 2017 at 01:14.

  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (24th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Margueritebee (24th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), Novusod (26th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017), TargeT (24th March 2017)

  9. #5
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,662 Times in 1,264 Posts
    John McAffee may be perfectly situated through his genius for coding and his acute sensitivity to the fundamental issue of privacy. Transparency from the RULERS like government and right of the RULED to one's own realm of private life have been reversed in 6000 years of an Orwellian state. This is one of his refrains. Another is that we BELIEVE we need to give up freedom for security. It would be SOOO productive to all be on the same page about the fundamentals of state craft such as these issues.

    I think we are NOT going to see social transparency until everyone in my generation is dead. One reason may be old inflexible ways of an age of hypocrites who will NEVER openly reveal their own indiscretions for FEAR of what others think. The projection of own hidden motivations, lying, cheating and attempts to manipulate others ends up painting an external world of believable evil.

    WHAT IF service to others is NOT EQUAL to certain sociable behaviors? What IS the service to self agenda? I don't think we have this all figured out? Maybe we might look underneath the external representations of behavior to discover our friends. Maybe WE need to own up to wherever we hide our true intentions to see IF we are enemies of our own real selves.

    JOHN McAFEE: Here's what really happened in Belize

    John McAfee, Contributor

    May 12, 2016, 8:58 AM

    John McAfee (was) running for US president as a member of the Libertarian Party. This is an op-ed he wrote and gave us permission to run.

    We never escape our past. It is the foundation of who we are. For most people, their past is a selected set of thoughts, actions and feelings that they choose to divulge to others, and that set of disclosures varies depending upon their relationship to those "others."

    A stranger in the street may receive a virtual null set, a spouse may receive everything that the person can remember. It is a choice that most people have a right to exercise. That right is the right to privacy.

    However, for most of us in the public eye, we give up that right by choosing to be in the public eye. It is one if the drawbacks of fame, notoriety or prominence.

    In no area of life do we we give up that right to privacy more than in the field of politics, and to me this seems just and right. The people need to know, at the deepest level, the people that they choose to represent them.

    One of the most strenuous parts of my entry into politics has been disclosing a life that has been lived entirely out of the box. It is not a simple matter of disclosing the life of a businessman who has lived within the norm and has transgressions, such as marital infidelity, lies, etc., which must be scrutinized and explained. That would be a simple task.

    But my life, influenced by minds such as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson while I was in college, has been a non-stop experimentation into the meaning of freedom, responsibility and our true relationship to the human structures and the living world within which we live.

    It is not easy for the average person to gain a reference point for the evaluation of my life.

    Up until the age of 38, I experimented with drugs of every kind. I became addicted to some, was scarred by others and was astonished by a few. I have discussed this in the national and world press more times than I can count.

    I am currently married to an ex-prostitute. The details of of how this came about have also been divulged by me many times.

    I have been jailed multiple times, and have had brushes with law both here in America and abroad, and it is in this aspect of my life that the average person cannot find a reference point for understanding. I cannot blame them. I myself have difficulty, sometimes, believing that what I have experienced actually happened.

    In every case of my brushes with the law, with the exception one - caused by pure stupidity; a DUI - I can attribute to my belief that every one of us possesses the fundamental right to civil disobedience. This right, articulated so beautifully by Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience”, declares that laws that are unjust, immoral or unconstitutional can be protested through our actions.http://www.businessinsider.com/john-...-belize-2016-5
    Last edited by Maggie, 24th March 2017 at 15:52.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  11. #6
    In Memoriam
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,287 Times in 688 Posts
    Good Morning!

    Wow! I'm in ad hominem jail now!?


    In some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument —rather than known facts —then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

    An admitted liar is still a liar.

    https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/john...one-apple-fbi/


    http://gizmodo.com/john-mcafee-appar...-th-1776765480


    ~


    But here's a hot tip! I used to play the stock market back in the day and a good penny stock often reap rewards!

    Financial institutions don't care about truth.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MGTI?p=MGTI

    http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MGTI/profile?p=MGTI

    ~

    [...] And you guys want me to do a round table on Russia? Are you Sirius? Think I'll have to pass on that. But I do urge you... since Steve Morgan was brought up and is ranked number four of the cyber security top 500 firms to see if he agrees with the lack of Russian hack. Because a firm of that magnitude if they thought it was not so...would be willing to come forward with some kind of opinion. So far this firm has not taken the stance of John McAfee.

    Why would I honestly debate when you've already made up your minds and before doing any kind of deep diving research decide I'm simply attacking his character which is highly in question in the first place? On this matter as well...and long before the Showtime documentary came out...but you would know that right?

    Forsooth I am in my ad hominem deduced prison and will crawl into my corner now...

    Here's the deal....if it feels good run with it I always say...he's a legend for sure! Of what is another matter altogether.

    Last edited by Shadowself, 24th March 2017 at 15:59.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  13. #7
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,662 Times in 1,264 Posts
    So

    Wow! I'm in ad hominem jail now!?

    In some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument —rather than known facts —then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

    Forsooth I am in my ad hominem deduced prison and will crawl into my corner now...
    why do you assume it is a personal jab IF you are not just being humorously sarcastic?

    Why would I honestly debate when you've already made up your minds and before doing any kind of deep diving research decide I'm simply attacking his character which is highly in question in the first place? On this matter as well...and long before the Showtime documentary came out...but you would know that right?
    It is the very point about his "personal character" that everyone is NOT clear about IMO. It reminds me in a way of what was said of "Good people don't smoke marijuana"...all kinds of ways we get pigeon holed. And as far as allegations against John McAffee, we should consider the sources' motivations IMO. For example, apparently the rape claim in the documentary against John McAffee was a later offering by the so called victim with a possible ax to grind.

    You suggested we not pay attention to him BECAUSE of the Showtime piece (that may have been manufactured for its ratings appeal) when maybe we SHOULD pay attention based on what he says (OR NOT)?

    He may be a trickster?
    Does that mean he is not onto something important? Steve Morgan gave an alternate view of his veracity.

    He may have been a victim of ad hominem attacks that you bought in on also.
    There are PLENTY of comments on youtube from viewers about his personal issues that suggest we ignore him.

    The question is SHOULD we ignore him?
    My answer is "not based on what he has been accused of doing".
    Last edited by Maggie, 24th March 2017 at 17:03.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  15. #8
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    12,303
    Thanks
    62,206
    Thanked 54,211 Times in 12,215 Posts
    Lying for a good cause is BS unless you're directly and immediately saving a life or something very close.

    I've heard dozens of people talking about how if they're fighting for a moral cause they'll "do anything". That's not actually good or noble.

    John seems to admit lying with the purpose of a higher good. A pretty simple metric I was raised with is "Two Wrongs don't Make a Right".

    Cybersecurity Ventures has last quarter's breakdown of Russia and cybersecurity issues.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  17. #9
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,662 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    Lying for a good cause is BS unless you're directly and immediately saving a life or something very close.

    I've heard dozens of people talking about how if they're fighting for a moral cause they'll "do anything". That's not actually good or noble.

    John seems to admit lying with the purpose of a higher good. A pretty simple metric I was raised with is "Two Wrongs don't Make a Right".

    Cybersecurity Ventures has last quarter's breakdown of Russia and cybersecurity issues.
    This is a valid point. "The ends do not justify the means" is something I think is true.
    I am not a fan of the use of "entrapment" either, where people are set up deliberately to do something illegal.

    It IS clear to me that John McAfee is tricky and the controversy that swirls around him is something he likes to generate.
    I've pretty much completed my point about listening to what he says AND EVALUATING THAT.

    Thanks so much for the discussion.

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (24th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017), TargeT (24th March 2017)

  19. #10
    Senior Member Virgin Islands
    Join Date
    23rd March 2017
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    1,213
    Thanked 2,256 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    [...] And you guys want me to do a round table on Russia? Are you Sirius? Think I'll have to pass on that. But I do urge you... since Steve Morgan was brought up and is ranked number four of the cyber security top 500 firms to see if he agrees with the lack of Russian hack. Because a firm of that magnitude if they thought it was not so...would be willing to come forward with some kind of opinion. So far this firm has not taken the stance of John McAfee.

    Why would I honestly debate when you've already made up your minds and before doing any kind of deep diving research decide I'm simply attacking his character which is highly in question in the first place? On this matter as well...and long before the Showtime documentary came out...but you would know that right?
    I agree with his assessment completely, for the past 10 years I've been working Network penetration testing (RED TEAM) or CND (Computer Network Defense) team; Mr mcafee is 100% right in regards to this specific matter; steve morgan's conclusion is highly questionable on this specific matter.

    What was reported can be thought of "orgy of evidence", obviously too much.. I'm not a professional hacker by any means but I can cover my tracks better than that, hell there are botnets for hire, or unsecured wifi all over, you could mail a cellphone to a neighborhood that has open wifi and launch an attack from the mail box routing through the house with open wifi (yep, done this before as a part of a red team exercise) there are literally THOUSANDS of VERY VERY effective ways to obscure your origins..

    This is an obvious red herring, for those in the industry, far too obvious.

    We have literally thousands and thousands attacks to build profiles off of, they are happening all the time. Nothing new in this arena... and obvious moves stick out quickly (leaving Russian language in the code???)
    Last edited by TargeT, 24th March 2017 at 18:48.

  20. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), Myst (26th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  21. #11
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    9,056
    Thanks
    37,242
    Thanked 31,094 Times in 8,067 Posts
    Appears difficult for one to control the cyber narrative, yes ?.

    ps At Target T

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), modwiz (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  23. #12
    Senior Member Virgin Islands
    Join Date
    23rd March 2017
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    1,213
    Thanked 2,256 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aianawa View Post
    Appears difficult for one to control the cyber narrative, yes ?.

    ps At Target T
    depends on the target audience.

    For joe 6pack? say anything you want, as long as it's from some sort of talking head and it (the cyber narrative) will be easily directed.

    But the 80/20 rule applies right? (only have to fool 20% to be 80% effective....)

    Lets look at voter turn out (if votes even matter) when only around 55% show up, it's a lot easier to each that 20% number (hell you can chalk that up to a D or R majority, and I think that speaks a lot to how we alternate parties every 4/8 years) and then how much of that 55% is actually technically capable of understanding "cyber warfare" or even exposed to those who are..

    I think we are much more malleable in mass than we'd like to think.

    so yes, I agree; it is difficult to control the cyber narrative with in the technical community. But that community is small and probably meaningless in it's support or dissent to the ultimate goal of these types of "narrative shaping" thrusts.

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th March 2017), Aragorn (24th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Maggie (24th March 2017), pointessa (25th March 2017)

  25. #13
    In Memoriam
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,287 Times in 688 Posts
    Good evening!

    Just got off work and have a busy day tomorrow....but against my better judgement I'm going to address this video monologue from John McAfee.

    His basic premise is...and I will quote TargeT's assessment thus:

    What was reported can be thought of "orgy of evidence", obviously too much.. I'm not a professional hacker by any means but I can cover my tracks better than that, hell there are botnets for hire, or unsecured wifi all over, you could mail a cellphone to a neighborhood that has open wifi and launch an attack from the mail box routing through the house with open wifi (yep, done this before as a part of a red team exercise) there are literally THOUSANDS of VERY VERY effective ways to obscure your origins..

    This is an obvious red herring, for those in the industry, far too obvious.
    Okay then....before I get to that I mentioned that around late 2015 I started seeing all this pro Putin stuff all over the internet and the forums here:

    https://jandeane81.com/showthread.ph...#post841966380

    In that search I ran into this Swedish Defense Analyst who had published much on a subject that has nothing to do with Hacking our election because it had not happened yet.

    The John McAfee video and the assessment of TargeT is; that If Russia actually hacked the election...they would have covered their tracks much better so as not to get caught. Is that about it? I think so.

    But here's the thing...Who said they didn't want to get caught?

    My understand of all of this goes back much further than the Election hacking. This was never about hacking elections. But if you follow the flow of information...especially on social media and that includes forums this is a much broader based subject. Intelligence knows this as well. Cyber security is at the top of the list but it's far from the basis of what this is all about. It's just a key.

    As I said back in 2015 with all this pro Putin stuff I was seeing on social media and forums I was quite frankly shocked. Mind you Trump was the furthest thing from my mind as well when I started researching this phenomenon I was witnessing.

    Simply put...This is about Information warfare.

    So I did a study on it. I do that you know. I review all sides of the subject and most importantly I source the information. When I see information coming ONLY from obscure media sites I research the site and it's owners as well. I started seeing a trend. That trend led me straight ...mind you no left turns....to again:

    Information Warfare.

    Let's see...what's transpired.

    A lap top is found with Russian signatures on it at an Electric company in Burlington Vermont. Note; having nothing to do with elections. That is infrastructure.

    Yahoo is hacked...Russian signature with two kid hackers as accomplices. That is information gathering.

    Now if you watched the House Intelligence meeting with Comey on Monday....one of the things that came out of that meeting was the fact that the Russians WANTED them to see what they were doing.

    https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chic...81904478002292

    If they wanted the US to see what they were doing of course they would leave a signature....Or "loud noise" as Comey called it.

    But this was not just about hacking elections by a long shot. And if I really had the time to break it down to you they left a deliberate trail yet can still claim plausible deniability of course.

    Now I invite you to gains some understanding not from an American liberal or republican politician....but as I mentioned earlier a defense analyst from Sweden who works closely with NATO and has been following this and other Information Warfare states of issuance.

    I can't say it any better than she can.

    https://www.academia.edu/24846469/Ru...s_from_Ukraine

    This one caught my eye first and you might have some interest given we are all involved in Social Media

    https://www.academia.edu/24845788/Th...f_Social_Media

    https://www.academia.edu/24846362/Ru...arfare_of_2014


    https://foi.academia.edu/MargaritaLevinJaitner


    Before Comey announced it Monday... almost a year ago this source said that same thing.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...caCHPKTRTDdDuQ

    The funniest thing about this is ...Rachel Maddow sited this week the very thing I researched over a year ago. But I know you will not watch it.

    So there you have it.

    YES! I stand with my ad hominem which I clearly stated...I would not put much weight into this guy and his information is lacking two very important factor...they wanted to get caught...and most importantly....Information Warfare and how it actually works.

    Against my better judgement I now put this Russian thing to bed. You all figure it out...I got my answer.

    Last edited by Shadowself, 25th March 2017 at 07:31.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (25th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), Maggie (25th March 2017), TargeT (25th March 2017)

  27. #14
    Senior Member Virgin Islands
    Join Date
    23rd March 2017
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    1,213
    Thanked 2,256 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    A lap top is found with Russian signatures on it at an Electric company in Burlington Vermont. Note; having nothing to do with elections. That is infrastructure.

    Yahoo is hacked...Russian signature with two kid hackers as accomplices. That is information gathering.
    seriously.. this is nothing..

    check this out: http://hp.ipviking.com/

    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    Now if you watched the House Intelligence meeting with Comey on Monday....one of the things that came out of that meeting was the fact that the Russians WANTED them to see what they were doing.
    logically, that makes sense, how?

    If they wanted the US to see what they were doing of course they would leave a signature....Or "loud noise" as Comey called it.
    I've done this over a decade... this is stupidness... how does this logic? WHY show your hand? this is strategic suicide.. this is the dumbest move ever.. seriously why???


    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    Against my better judgement I now put this Russian thing to bed. You all figure it out...I got my answer.
    what was the motive? I have trouble reading through that many talking ponts, what; exactly would the motive be; for a country to give up nearly every strategic advantage?

    AND, if it IS true that they did that, why would you not think that this is NOT a multi national front? (I'm sure it is, though I've felt the same about the every prez since JFK).

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (25th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Maggie (25th March 2017)

  29. #15
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,117
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked 6,602 Times in 1,118 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    Now I invite you to gains some understanding not from an American liberal or republican politician....but as I mentioned earlier a defense analyst from Sweden who works closely with NATO and has been following this and other Information Warfare states of issuance.

    I can't say it any better than she can.
    https://www.academia.edu/24846469/Ru...s_from_Ukraine

    Interesting piece. She may not be American Left or Right, but working closely with NATO she is necessarily partisan in favor of West vs. East. The whole way through I was nodding to myself yes, except that I was thinking I have serious doubts they have any superiority to IW tactics in the West. The conclusion ties it up with a nice pretty bow, I see the tell tale signs whether watching the news, surfing the internet, or even looking at more fringy things like Disclosure, or shadowy "insiders" telling us what's really going on...

    5 Conclusion

    The global internet offers military and intelligence agencies the opportunity to expand and enhance IW, and it simultaneously presents their targets and victims with novel challenges. Russian IW – both in traditional media and in cyberspace – tangibly contributed to the successful annexation of Crimea, and is playing an important role in the ongoing crisis in eastern Ukraine. On balance, this author believes that Russia, and not the West, currently has the lead in contemporary IW.

    Unlike propaganda in Soviet times, which was largely a unidirectional, top-down phenomenon, today’s IW encompasses a worldwide audience that is both narra-tive-bearing and narrative-developing. Domestic, diaspora, and foreign audiences interact with current events in real time as they travel through online platforms such as social media. This dynamic makes it more challenging for propagandists to predict how and where the narrative will evolve, but to some degree it is possible to presume how certain political groups will interpret the narrative and how they will describe it to their followers.
    Linda Moulton Howe described it perfectly, even though she was only describing the murky disinformational memes of the UFO field: "A fractured hall of mirrors with a quicksand floor".

    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    YES! I stand with my ad hominem which I clearly stated...I would not put much weight into this guy and his information is lacking two very important factor...they wanted to get caught...and most importantly....Information Warfare and how it actually works.
    Wanting to get caught doesn't make any sense to me either.

    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    Against my better judgement I now put this Russian thing to bed. You all figure it out...I got my answer.
    Can we cut the snarkiness now? I value your opinions and research, but you weren't that mortally offended.

  30. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (25th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th March 2017), Elen (25th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Maggie (25th March 2017), Myst (26th March 2017), TargeT (25th March 2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •