The New Yorker profiles “Spyder,” the phony “cybersecurity expert” behind Sidney Powell’s nonsense claims of election hacking. newyorker.com/news/american-…
My only beef with the profile is that you could come away with the impression that this guy actually has some clue what he’s talking about; I wish they’d interviewed a few real cybersecurity experts to explain how ridiculous & amateurish his analysis was.
The author makes clear this guy has a penchant for conspiracy theories, but there’s almost nothing on the substance of his incompetent dream-logic affidavit.
If you’re going to paint the guy as a crank—which he absolutely is—you’re under some obligation to establish that he’s actually wrong, not just a weird dude, which… well, that’s plenty of real cybersecurity experts too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is just a bizarre argument on multiple levels. (1) Snow Crash is a pretty late arrival in terms of fictional portrayals of virtual networked spaces, a decade after Vernor Vinge’s “Other Plane” & 8 years after Gibson’s “Cyberspace”.
(2) The fictional “metaverses” are jazzed up sci-fi versions of actual MUDs that were emerging around the same time, and which most people don’t consider “dystopian.” (3) Fictional cyberspaces were dystopian to the extent *the cyberpunk genre* was dystopian.
(4) Successful scifi is, you know, usually about tech going wrong in some dramatic way. Utopias are boring. That’s why Star Trek isn’t set on Earth with everyone celebrating post-scarcity life in the Federation.
Fascinating story on several levels. One is that the specter of some nebulous link to “CRT” is galvanizing opposition to ideas that parents either wouldn’t object to otherwise, or wouldn’t want to admit to objecting to.
Another is that nobody seems to question whether or when it’s the role of the school to address despicable behavior by students outside of school—that part seems to be taken for granted.
The article notes that a vile Snapchat group in which students conducted a mock slave auction prompted "investigations from Traverse City Area Public Schools and the Grand Traverse County prosecutor’s office” culminating in a recommendation the students receive counseling.
NSA review reportedly finds Tucker Carlson wasn’t even incidentally collected on—they picked up Russians discussing his interview request. therecord.media/nsa-review-fin…
Which, incidentally, I wrote a while back was the most likely explanation. cato.org/blog/tucker-ca…
If that report is accurate, then (a) NSA didn’t do anything obviously improper here, and (b) Tucker has (presumably inadvertently) provided Russia with valuable intelligence about which of their communications facilities NSA is actively monitoring.
The thread is sort of fascinating because you can tell McNally knows Forrest is indefensible—he just falls back on “…but they’ll come for Washington next!” Also sort of a sad admission that everyone else the state venerates is repulsive. Maybe you need new heroes.
FWIW, the “redemptive arc” is that at the very, very end of his life Forrest made a speech that contradicted the racist ideals he’d fought for his entire life. But all the actual achievements he’s honored for were in service to slavery and white supremacy.
If the best defense someone can offer of you is: “Well, on his deathbed he seemed to recognize that his entire life’s work had been devoted to evil,” maybe… you don’t get a statue for that?
NSO’s own denial is internally incoherent. If they don’t have access to client data, how could they know whether or not this is a list of Pegasus targets?
I mean, unless I’m missing something… you have to pick one. If you’re claiming you don’t have visibility on targeting & these numbers have “nothing to do” with NSO, then for all you know it might be a list of targets.
You can’t be all: “I know nothing of this murder or the victim. Also I was nowhere near 327 Spruce Street at 8:57 on the night of the 12th, and have never purchased Mapes brand 13.5 piano wire.”
There is literally a Supreme Court on precisely the question of whether the First Amendment protects the right to use the word “fuck” in a publicly visible political slogan. They said it does. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._…
Cohen v. California was actually a closer call, because it involved wearing a “Fuck the Draft” jacket into a public courthouse, where the government has some extra latitude to set rules of decorum. The sign in this case was on the woman’s own property.