I appreciate security is a hard game where you get grief no matter what, and @defcon isn't the easiest con to manage security for because folks bring weird stuff, but this is just overkill and bad management.
We also know 2FA based on codes (eg SMS based 2FA) aren't strong against phishing attacks that trick you into revealing your passcode, because the phisher can also trick you into revealing your 2FA code.
E.g. see this graphic here describing APT28 (Russian Intel) doing that:
"And I say to you, the jury, this is obviously money laundering. Nobody can possibly be so stupid to pay that kind of cash and still look so bad without something super sketch going on. And so, on behalf of the United States, I ask that you return a verdict of guilty as charged."
At least these exhibits have pictures. Hooo boy is it going to be rough keeping the jurors awake when they hit tax fraud document time.
Fun fact: the first piece they did was specifically a whole post of disinformation *about me*. But also these are the folks who invented the whole nonsense "network speed" theory of why the DNC hack couldn't have been hackers.
That was the nonsense theory that tripped up Binney and the VIPS crew into writing a letter that became a piece in The Nation, and traveled around the press a bit, including the President insisting that then Dir CIA Pompeo meet with Binney to see it it was true (it wasn't)
Congressman who claims secret documents show scandal for millionth time after each previous time turned out to be a hoax when documents were revealed asks America to fall for it yet again on this million-plus-oneth time.
This thread is garbage, but for the record there are *dozens* of these types of stories that don't make it into real newspapers because real journalists talk to real professionals and the eventual considered opinion of both is it's wrong and unreportable.
This story wasn't new. Real journos looked at it back when it was on even tinier conspiracy blogs, and asked experts about it. I know. I was one of them. By multiple journos at different places. And not just this story. Dozens.
And each time you go away and look at it to see if there's something there. This time it's "omg votes changed over time". Some other time it's "USB sticks something something Seth rich". Another time it'll be some nonsense involving DNS records or whatever.
Here is the Articles of Impeachment just filed to try and remove Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by House Republicans Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4618…
I: For failing to appoint a 2nd special counsel to investigate DOJ and Clinton for alleged misconduct during 2016 campaign and the signing of the Carter Page FISA application.
II: Refusal to comment on or turn over FISA documents against other Trump or Clinton associates
III: Over-redaction of certain documents tendered to Congress.
IV: Refusal to turn over documents relating to the exact scope of Mueller's investigation
V: For having oversight of FISA surveillance approvals during a period of general alleged deficiencies in their applications
Finally finally finally ditching the old garbage DOD PKI certs that you need to manually install.
For those not following, DOD didn't trust public HTTPS certificate authorities, and their terrible solution solved this problem in a way that basically trained the entire DoD workforce to be OK installing certs or train to click thru HTTPS warnings. So good riddance to all that.
So. A mini thread on one of the big conspiracy theories going round about the FISA application, specifically complaining that it contained a Yahoo article by Isikoff based on Steele's reporting.
Remember that? It's this underlined claim in the Nunes memo if you need a refresher
It's referenced like this in the FISA application.
Two fun facts.
Fun Fact about this #1: the FBI openly calls out that they think Steele is the ultimate source behind the information. Which is *the exact opposite* of asserting the Yahoo article to corroborate the Steele dossier, which the Nunes memo claimed it was trying to do.
By contrast, a lot of Nunes' supporters this morning are at the "ctrl+f for claims unsupported by context of the document and hope nobody notices before the news cycle has moved on" stage of proceedings
I know it's a little thing, but the FOIA that led to this FISA release was from @bradheath and @JMadisonProject, not Judicial Watch. JW sued for the FISA application later, but it's the JMP/BH one that led to the release order bc Nunes' memo counted as a prior official disclosure
Specifically it was this case, with citing specifically the Nunes memo as an official prior disclosure that forced the government to retract their prior GLOMAR response.
Kind of boring I know. But if you're going to say who sued to get the documents at least get it right.
The full 412 page FISA application for surveillance directed against Carter W. Page, pursuant to Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, released under FOIA. assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614…
OK. Kinda derailed my reading plans for this evening. But let's do this I guess.
First things first: this is a FISA Title I application and order. FISA was created in 1972, but this is the first time ever that one has been released in any form. Not even redacted ones have been released before.
One of the most shockingly egregious leaks in recent years. This is just a pile of sources and methods that are gone now. And for what? To find ut Trump knows Russia interfered and is lying? Congratulations on this big reveal. nytimes.com/2018/07/18/wor…
I hope whoever leaked this at least sends this source's family some flowers for the funeral
Whoever leaked this is going to go to jail, and the fact they leaked it and will end up going to jail will be a far bigger story in Trump's favor than the story will be against him. Not only blows sources, but the people doing it are harming their own cause by doing it.
OK so a lot of misdirected attention on the Russian request to "arrest/question former US ambassador to Russia McFaul" -- perhaps worth a quick thread
1. This is Russia doing their standard tactic of "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" thing. They don't (and didn't) expect the U.S. to turn over a former ambassador for questioning. That's *why* they asked.
2. The whole thing is a response to request from various folks to turn over serving GRU officers for questioning by Mueller. Russia's response? "Sure, but only if you turn over Steele, McFaul, Browder, and half a dozen serving NSA officers".
There is value to open expression of views—even obnoxious ones—as part of the debate on policy or ideology. But Holocaust denial is not a policy viewpoint. It is hate-driven gas-lighting to justify violence.
It's completely backwards.
The whole premise of the "marketplace of ideas" is that ideas compete and bad ideas get killed off by good ones through open debate. But things like Holocaust denial are not debates and they derive legitimacy through being able to air their hate openly
"you know what would really trigger the libs and make us bestest best friends is if you doused your presidency in gasoline and threw a match on it, but ssssh this is our secret don't ruin the surprise by spoiling it on hannity"