who's NOT heroic?
i thought the H word at LRC had been drained dryer than a death valley parking lot. nope! tommy D stepped up today (for — shocker — self promotional purpose) and pronounced the less than worthless snot-nosed chris brunner... well... it.have a look at this alleged heroism in action:PIG on C-SPAN, on Google Video
Posted by Thomas Woods at September 8, 2007 11:55 AMThe heroic Chris Brunner just posted my most recent appearance on Book TV.
Former Chief of CIA Bin Laden Unit: Internet Video Can’t Be Tracked
Posted by Chris Brunner at September 8, 2007 02:49 AMLast night Fox News announced the existence of a new Bin Laden video. During the Hannity & Colmes show, just after the news broke, Michael Scheur (former chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit) was featured as an expert commentator. Here's an excerpt of the conversation that transpired:
Allen Colmes: If [Bin Laden] can get tapes to us, could we trace that back to get to him?
Michael Scheur: You know sir... that's, uhh... alot of people have raised that criticism of the agency and of other intelligence groups, but as you know working in communications as you do, you can send a packet of electronic information from Bolivia to Uruguay to Sweden and the track is just can't be found because there's so much material out there.
What?? You can't track the source of the video because there's too much material on the Internet?
Anyone who has so much as a technical-school level of computer-related education can tell you that every device connected to the internet has an IP address. Tracing the source of a video on internet is as simple as setting up a packet sniffer upstream of the server the video is being posted to. This will give you the IP address of the device from which the video is being posted. Even if this reveals an IP address of a proxy or shell server in Bolivia, Uruguay, or Sweden, an additional packet sniffer could be set up to reveal the source of that connection. This can easily be done using free software that is available to everyone. Furthermore, it would be even easier if any of the servers involved keeps goods logs as no packet sniffer would be required. You can't tell me that our government has the resources to take over a country but somehow can't run a few packet sniffers. That makes no sense at all.
as i wrote on his stupid YouTube video (comment unposted, apparently because pussy chris brunner's riding herd on dissent):I think it's also worth noting that the user who posted the original announcement had made over a hundred prior posts on the forum. Shouldn't that be over 100 opportunities to track the source? Suppose the user was using public computers. The SITE Institute has been watching this forum for several months. That should be plenty of time for the US government to setup cameras around the public computers that were being used.
From the AP article:
American officials said the U.S. government had obtained a copy even though the video had not been posted yet by al-Qaida — and intelligence agencies were studying the video to determine whether it was authentic and to look for clues about bin Laden's health.I guess the best question is, how is the CIA capable of obtaining the tape before it gets posted on the internet, but is not capable of tracking the source?
(original article)
read your LRC post on this. you've apparently invented a new flavor of sniff — the ex post facto. to start, please explain how someone is to install packet sniffers around the world to trace packets already sent. michael scheuer not using the correct wording in a live interview does not an internet expert of you make. your unstated conclusion is that it's impossible to send something on the internet that can't be traced all the way back to the sender. shameless, ignorant baloney.LRC has a dense recent history of morons making claims regarding technology they don't know shit about — probably the most prominent being multiple assurances from newbie igno-ass that it's impossible to spam self-selected internet ron paul popularity polls.
chris brunner's claim to fame in "liberty" circles? he's one of the chief young punks responsible for encouraging other morons to consider the state our last hope for freedom. the state! pure insanity.
speaking of which, i've discovered a new sport on the internet; find skypecasts touting ron paul, go in there, and then destroy the motherfuckers. last night one of the loopy turds (a self proclaimed lover of bill clinton) was screaming at me for about 3 minutes straight. a thing of beauty. he was calling me "unamerican", a "commie" (that's rich), and all sorts of other examples of purest psycho projection. these lovers of the state — worshiping a man who's lived for decades on stolen wealth — consider it a "moral obligation to vote" (that's a quote). when cornered by one who truly lives and espouses the principles they only nibble at for show, these posers are even worse than stereotypical "conservatives" in the usual (and always fun and informative) outconservatived moment. put me in a room with the usual american "conservative", and within 10 minutes he'll be defending socialism overtly — honesty mined from even the darkest pit.
Labels: derailleur, emperor factory
posted by saltypig @ 14:25
I like how you edited my post. I never suggested that the CIA setup packet sniffers to sniff packets already sent.
If you read my *entire* post you'll see that I pointed out that the original forum user who announced the Bin Laden video had over 100 prior posts. The SITE Institute claimed they've been watching the posts for months. That represents several dozens of opportunities to sniff packets over many months time.
Furthermore, I'm sure Tom didn't call me heroic because of my post on the LRC blog... He's just thankful for my help and is going overboard
Regarding YouTube, I'm not sure why you're comment didn't show up, but I assure you it that it had nothing to do with anything I did.
For someone who claims to hate the state, you seem to have a very hard time accepting criticism of the CIA.
if you weren't fucking with YouTube comments, good. you remain an asshole regardless.
I like how you edited my post.
considering that your entire post was pasted directly from the LRC html into this post, without any text editing, that's an odd, false claim. my posts are notable for strenuous use of ellipses (in brackets) when there's even the slightest chance of misunderstanding. none was required or used for your post, because nothing, including the link to your site at the end, was cut. wake up, retard child.
[...] I pointed out that the original forum user who announced the Bin Laden video had over 100 prior posts.
i didn't explain exactly how moronic your post and its assumptions are, because the people who regularly stop by here can figure it out without the help. but since you bring it up, pull up a chair, cretinous, unbrained bastard slurper of the state:
watching posts — for months, years, whatever — doesn't mean shit. was there some post that said, "hey, everybody. BTW, i'm gonna be posting a bin laden video here soon, so get those sniffers ready!"?
you are taking your current knowledge of what happened and pasting on the idjit anti-reality that since you now know a bin laden video was submitted by that poster, everyone should have predicted it.
take that pea brain and put it into super high gear for a moment. how many significant allegedly new bin laden vids are released annually? one? three? what you're implying is that for every potential releaser of bin laden vids, a full scale sniffing snare should be built. just in case. your ninny "reasoning" isn't far from insisting that there's no reason we can't have photos of each lighting strike — all that needs to be done is to install cameras wherever it may happen. that's an analogy whose flaws go in your favor, since, more advanced techniques aside, the video and all previous posts could've been sent via drive-by wi-fi with an untraceable laptop, which requires 300' radius continuous x-ray video surveillance of all potential hotspots, for every poster of jihad drivel. beyond that, the "logic" of your posts (at LRC and your pea-brained site) also rests on the full cooperation and integrity of the logs from every server in the chain, and the dainty assumption that IP addresses can't be spoofed beyond proxy servers.
you don't know fuck all about tracing internet comm, and — like most of the ron paul heretics at LRC — you have one standard for truth where you buddies are concerned, and another where they aren't. classic example:
For someone who claims to hate the state, you seem to have a very hard time accepting criticism of the CIA.
my only allegiance is to truth and liberty. if you're going to make up untenable bullshit about the CIA or anything else, fuck you. your loudmouthed ineptitude does not go unnoticed simply because you're lying about goons. neither you nor any of the other outrageous dumbfucks at LRC get a pass. the standard for your output should be higher, not lower. now go blow brother moron max raskin, boy.
“watching posts — for months, years, whatever — doesn't mean shit. was there some post that said, "hey, everybody. BTW, i'm gonna be posting a bin laden video here soon, so get those sniffers ready!"?”
That's an absurd statement. The user had several prior posts claiming ties to As-Sahab and Bin Laden... If the state claims Bin Laden is enemy number one, they ought to be checking this guy out long before he starts announcing videos.
“what you're implying is that for every potential releaser of bin laden vids, a full scale sniffing snare should be built.”
Another absurd statement. You obviously don't understand what I posted. This was one guy who claimed to have ties to the state's biggest enemy. No need to sniff the entire internet, nor sniff anything in advance... just the one guy.
“all previous posts could've been sent via drive-by wi-fi with an untraceable laptop”
True enough, but he would have to be using over 100 different access points to completely destroy the CIA's ability to catch him the next time around. Even before he hits the same AP twice, they could have a great idea of where he is based on the pattern of APs he used before.
“also rests on the full cooperation and integrity of the logs from every server in the chain”
No, it doesn't at all. A packet sniffer upstream of any device on the Net requires no logs... Of course, logs would make it easier.
“you don't know fuck all about tracing internet comm”
Except that I used to assist the PA cybercrime unit in forensics investigations for a few years and have been programming TCP/IP applications in a professional capacity for the better half of my life. What were your credentials again?
“neither you nor any of the other outrageous dumbfucks at LRC get a pass”
Why the fuck would I need a pass from you?
Just curious... why the hell, if you are repulsed so much by LRC, do you seem to follow everything that goes on there?
i figured the "credentials" would be along soon. your credentials are the problem, dumbass. you consider yourself an expert in IP tracing, yet your logic unskills prevent you from being a halfway decent car mechanic. you overreacted to a spontaneous (and wrong) pronouncement by michael scheuer. that is the primary problem in this protracted nonsense where you attempt to defend your ninny view against an apparent horde of people calling you out with good cause.
the reason people accuse you of implying ex post facto sniffers is because the logic demands it. some anonymous fucker out of nowhere, claiming to have ties to whoever, doesn't mean shit. watch:
i, charley hardman, am in league with bin laden!
catch that? i'll do it again:
i, charley hardman, am in league with bin laden!
according to your stupid "just the one guy" ass, the CIA must now set up sniffers along whatever chain(s) i've managed to construct for my messages. get real, you fucking moron. the problem is you and your hair-trigger desire to show the world what a goddamned super-geek you think you are. scheuer misspoke, but his conclusion's probably correct in the long run. you made far too much of it, because you're a snot-nosed little fuck lew mistakenly gave LRC blog access to, apparently because of his RP hard-on. enjoy. oh, and learn to write/understand english:
Furthermore, it would be even easier if any of the servers involved keeps goods logs as no packet sniffer would be required.
if no sniffers are "required", your baloney, just as i wrote, "rests on the full cooperation and integrity of the logs from every server in the chain".
What were your credentials again?
retired at 40 from IT, and more logical in my sleep than you'll ever be awake, snot-nose. love this bit: "for the better half of my life".
what's the better half of a snot-nose's life, child? you gonna tell me next how you assisted the CIA in catching bin laden? maybe they read LRC.
and here's my favorite: "Just curious... why the hell, if you are repulsed so much by LRC, do you seem to follow everything that goes on there?"
if there's even the slightest substance to that question, it's one you should first ask of your pals at LRC, who apparently spend more time at FOX news than i do at LRC. there's nothing wrong with it, though you'd like to pretend otherwise. again, your logic is in the toilet. pure fallacious ad hominem via chickenshit implication. the worst.
"you attempt to defend your ninny view against an apparent horde of people calling you out"
There is no horde of people. There were a few people who knew little about the technical details of what I was talking about and asked questions. Every single one of them responded with agreement and thanks in the end. You are the only one who has tried to "call me out"
"i, charley hardman, am in league with bin laden!"
The difference here is that you're posting this, in English, to a website that nobody visits and has no chance of having real associatation with al qaeda.
"...lew mistakenly gave LRC blog access to, apparently because of his RP hard-on"
Why wouldn't Lew support Ron Paul? They've been friends for ages and most of the people who are supporting him now are a) being exposed to ideals of liberty for the first time and b) being exposed to exactly how biased our media is for the first time...
"retired at 40 from IT"
Oh, wow, you were an IT guy. That's *really* impressive.
You've still failed to answer why you are so interested in a site that you claim to hate so much.
There were a few people who knew little about the technical details
"a few people" requires a "FAQ"? make up your mind, asshole.
Oh, wow, you were an IT guy. That's *really* impressive.
as i've stated here and plenty of other places, "credentials" don't mean shit. i did not bring it up; you did. no surprise that after i explain that i retired from a field you pretend is essential knowledge to discuss this subject, you get sarcastic. why? because you're a dishonorable newbie dumbass who can't just fucking admit he overreacted to the bullshit language of a layman on a live TV show. your credentials ploy backfires, so you basically admit it doesn't matter. had i ignored your moronic question, you've have been yammering on about that.
You've still failed to answer why you are so interested in a site that you claim to hate so much.
although answered well enough (contrary to your idjit assertion), that subject, just as with your "credentials" wank, has nothing to do with my post, and, as with your repeated "no traffic at your site" bilge, is a pathetic attempt by you to divert from your fuckup.
oh, BTW: i am in league with bin laden. get those sniffers installed, pronto! i'm shopping for a crop duster!
<< Home