Comments

Clive RobinsonNovember 9, 2016 12:10 AM

Well,

    Bubba "the can man" Jones

Does sound like a better "ali-ass" than 'Dho-gnarled "the dead cat hair man", who appears to be making unexpected mileage than the polsters thought...

DroneNovember 9, 2016 12:10 AM

Tyler Rogoway, head of the "War Zone" Blog (previously "Foxtrot Alpha", before Gawker put a gun to its head and pulled the trigger), posted this yesterday:

"It’s Only a Matter of Time Before Election Day Cyber Attacks Become the Norm"

www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5913/its-only-a-matter-of-time-before-election-day-cyber-attacks-become-the-norm

Tyler's piece is an interesting read in-all, however I noted this in-particular:

"Currently Oregon, Washington and Colorado all have postal only voting (you can still drop your vote at a drop box the day of the election), and the majority of states have some sort of a hybrid system. In Oregon, vote by mail has been a largely a fraud free success with positive turnout rates. If the majority of states were to break with tradition and adopt a vote-by-mail concept, it would harden the nation’s voting process against hacking and disruptions caused by cyber attacks on one single voting day where much of the voting is done on networked machines. Such a drastic move for many states will likely only come after an attack has been successfully executed. Being proactive, the US could deter future attacks with a relatively simple and convenient change in the voting process."

Corporate Media FailureNovember 9, 2016 12:14 AM

Intelligence agencies aren’t the only source of disinformation. Pollsters should be non-political.
The university designed automated pollster was consistently accurate yet was ignored by the establishment media.

From USA Today:
“Polls that consistently gave Clinton a comfortable lead in recent weeks included Bloomberg Politics, CBS News, Fox News, Reuters/Ipsos, USA TODAY/Suffolk, Quinnipiac, Monmouth, Economist/YouGov and NBC News/SM, according to RealClearPolitics.
Of 67 national polls tracking a 4-way race since the start of October, only four gave Trump the lead, according to RealClearPolitics. Of 61 national polls tracking a 2-way race during that period, six gave Trump the lead.
And all six were the L.A. Times/USC poll.
In the much-followed business of projections based on an average of polls and added methodology, Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com and the New York Times' Upshot each gave Clinton a strong chance of winning.
Silver was the most conservative, pegging Clinton's probability of winning at 71.4% in one of his last pre-election assessments.
One assessment, the Princeton Election Consortium, raised eyebrows with its projection that Clinton had a 99% chance of prevailing.”


The equivalent is transparent open-source software vs proprietary design with its hidden unstated objectives.
All this confirms putting trust in the American people, while blowing-off the always smiling corporations.

Clive RobinsonNovember 9, 2016 4:18 AM

@ Drone,

In Oregon, vote by mail has been a largely a fraud free success with positive turnout rates.

It's been tried in the UK by Tony Blair's Government, and it did not improve voter turnout very much.

Worse though it's been very much associated with fraud. It was one of the things that was talked about during Brexit.

The claim has been that in certain Asian Households "the head" would collect up the voting papers and cast the votes the way they wanted.

There have also been "houses of a thousand and one nights"[1] where extra people were registered at addresses and distorted the vote.

Then we have the sad and sorry story of the Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman who after clear evidence of postal fraud and other malpractice the authorities failed to investigate, finaly got his comeuppance and was sacked by a judge for 'corrupt practices',

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11559926/Muslim-mayor-is-sacked-for-corrupt-practices.html

If you want more info just google [uk postal vote fraud]

[1] A comment made by a Brexit supporting politician, comparing the fake voters issue to the "Arabian" stories[2]...

[2] Speaking of Brexit supporters you will find the one time leader of UKIP Nigel Farage got involved with supporting Trump, not a good person to be associated with if you lookup all of his and UKIPs goings on.

DroneNovember 9, 2016 5:17 AM

@Clive Robinson,

Interesting reply about mail voting in the U.K. Tyler Rogoway did not cite sources for his claim that in Oregon vote-by-mail is largely fraud free. However, I have read the same elsewhere regarding vote-by-mail in the U.S.

That leaves me wondering just how they statistically verify that vote-by-mail is reliable, especially when the ballots are secret and anonymous (provided a return address is not filled in). Finally, I think the reliability of the mail system should be considered. The U.S. government-run mail system today is essentially bankrupt; that must affect reliability in the long-run.

OmgNovember 9, 2016 6:37 AM

The Orange Lord rises.

What a depressing conclusion to the most depressing presidential race in living memory. America, and the world, can probably survive a Trump presidency? But its by no means certain. He could easily fuck things up that will take decades to undo (Supreme Court, health care, economy, NATO, letting Putin ravage unchecked) or even centuries (global warming). The world holds its breath.

Not surprisedNovember 9, 2016 7:36 AM

Anyone who finds Trump's victory surprising has clearly been out of touch with this country.

He didn't just win- he won big. And the House. And the Senate. A lot of people saw this coming- if they weren't trapped in the media echo chamber.

I have never seen so many people doing Chicken Little impressions. If this country survived Obama, it will survive Trump.

I just don't want to hear anyone complaining when Trump starts using all of those unprecedented overreaches of power that Obama ushered in. Can't wait for Obama's invented "office of the president elect" to be used against him.

Clive RobinsonNovember 9, 2016 9:22 AM

@ Not surprised,

Anyone who finds Trump's victory surprising has clearly been out of touch with this country.

It's not of any surprise to those living outside the US looking in where the MSM news services tend to be less politically aligned to US politoco's than they are inside the US.

It's been clear for some time that the two lead candidates were the worst of the bunch in many ways. But there is a truism about a link between how the US and UK citizens think politically. The UK just recently voted "out" in the Brexit referendum, due mainly to scare tactics of various people, as well as dissatisfaction with the current political incumbents (the Conservative Party).

An analysis on who voted "out" and where they are located in the UK will show quite a correlation with who the Trump voters are and where they are located in the US. Likewise their economic status etc.

Of real interest however will be when you draw a map of where "immigrants are" or more correctly are not and voting for Trump.

But the reality is Hillary Clinton was clearly a lame duck years ago and still continues to be, even her own party has repeatedly made that clear... Which is what has puzzeled many outside the US, why did they endorsed her this time, because it was fairly clear that many voters thought she was worse than a lame duck, and infact a real liability (Silicon Valley seniors have made that abundantly clear as well). In part it was her clear love of the much despised Wall St, in others she had no real plans to sort out the economic mess in which the much espoused "trickle down effect" was clearly not happening, nor would the lot of those at the bottom change under her self interested agenda. Also she was as it were tainted by her husbands brush, and many lay his failings at her feet. Then there are the many many questions about her competence originating from long before her Email Server issues.

But it was the fact that she thought herself above everything and everyone else that was probably the final nail in the coffin of her political chances. Trying to stir up "Reds Under the Bed" type scare stories to cover her own incompetence and trying to paint her opponent as some Russian aligned puppet, backfired on her. Because when it comes to US business intetests in Russia there are way way better candidates for Putin and Co to work with.

I guess the question arises as to what happens to the FBI Director on who no doubt Hillary and Co will try to put the blaim onto. The thing is Trump will have to take a political view on him, if he keeps the director then he is going to add fuel to the fire but if he aranges for him to go, that will be as bad in other respects...

All jolly good fun to start at a place near you real soon now ;-)

keinerNovember 9, 2016 9:27 AM

The way of "conversation" your new president has introduced into politics usually leads to death and violence. If you ever lived in another country as a foreigner you will understand what I mean. This is no fun. UK made the beginning, others will follow. We are on the brink of a global nightmare.

WaelNovember 9, 2016 9:27 AM

@Not surprised,

Anyone who finds Trump's victory surprising has clearly been out of touch with this country.

Nobody is surprised. Right, @Nobody?

As noted, Trump will not win. Clinton will win. Their strategy was entirely contingent on Trump winning. Their strategy was to aid Trump in winning. But, not only did they "bet on the wrong horse", they miscalculated how certain these activities were to backfire.

Who miscalculated and who placed bets on the wrong horse? How do like your crow cooked? :)

WinterNovember 9, 2016 9:55 AM

@Clive
"Which is what has puzzeled many outside the US, why did they endorsed her this time,"

Barbara Tuchman wrote a book called "March of Folly". Her definition of "foolish politics" was a ruling class that was unable to stop Clear and Obvious Fools in their undoings. Currently, the British and American political classes fit the bill. But I am afraid others will follow their lead.

Ukraine lead before, with re-electing Janokovitsch and then having to kick him out. Hungary and Poland are still under the rule of self elected dictators. Turkey just voted out democracy under Erdogan. Democracy in France, Germany, Austria, the low countries, and Denmark are all under heavy attack.

My picture of the future is very bleak, indeed.

Dr. I. Needtob AtheNovember 9, 2016 10:11 AM

Democratic Underground is currently displaying a page saying that they were hacked yesterday:

"Around 4:30pm on Tuesday November 8, Democratic Underground was hacked, apparently by a supporter of Donald Trump. This person clearly knew what they were doing, and despite our best efforts we have not yet been able to resolve the issues caused by the hack."

I have to question their assumption that a supporter of Trump knew what he was doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/503.php

Uncle Joe StalinNovember 9, 2016 10:35 AM

Yup, just like Bruce said, Putin hacked the election with Assange and successfully got a Democratic candidate who held campaign rallies in exclusive millionaire houses to run against a media savvy TV star whose campaign rallies filled stadiums to overflowing.

Then Putin told the commie media to endorse Clinton in all the papers and tell everyone the polls had Clinton winning odds of 99%-75% and paid off FBI Comey to whitewash Clinton as a saint, twice, in case anyone missed it the first time.

Then Assange published all the State Dept. cables, DNC mail and Podesta's Satanic Spirit Dinner emails to show just how Putin manipulated it all.

Those Rooskies really hacked that election so now you better learn the Russian national anthem so you can sing it along with me and Wen Ho Lee.

Definitely Not Count OlafNovember 9, 2016 12:14 PM

@Wael

That post reeks of typical disinformation campaigns launched by The Government.

While the media bombarded everyone over the heinous usage of a private email server by Clinton, the FBI, Assange, and Russian intelligence services worked tirelessly to elect the very best candidate.

The only reason Trump kept up his tirades about not accepting a failure is because he already knew they were going to hack the election. Now, it would sound absurd for anyone to complain.

@'Trump Winning', comments above

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

A few choice of reasons "why" some folks voted for Trump.

Below comments are taken from the below article and supposedly representative of why some voters voted for Trump:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/

An Anarchist Who Revels in Destruction––“Like the joker from The Dark Knight, I just want to see the world burn.”

‘I Just Want to Watch the Chaos...’––“I'm a young guy who is immature, a bit antisocial, and with no plans for kids or a wife ever. At some level, I don’t really care how things go with America as long as it’s fun to watch.”

Trump Embodies the Rage of the White Middle Class––“Politicians spend no time helping them. Black lives matter more and illegal immigrants who break the law get a free pass. Evangelicals in this country no longer feel they have the right to religious freedom and have watched what they perceive as a sacred institution in marriage gutted. All the while, politicians they voted for to represent them just plain don’t.”

Trump is the Lead in a Fabulous Mockumentary––“I’d vote for the candidate purely for the comedic value.”


Clive RobinsonNovember 9, 2016 1:23 PM

Just been listening to some satire about the election.

One joke was about the old "Red White and Blue" and the fact that Trump is not realy a Republican, and mentions a third party, that of course will need a colour. As the Republicans have the Red and the Democrats the "blues" perhaps this third party should have the white, but that would not be politicaly inclusive. "So either he could change the stars to orange or maybe the way is to look at the fringe benifits of the tassels and Go Go for gold".

Definitely Not Count OlafNovember 9, 2016 1:29 PM

In terms of computer security, of which "privacy" can certainly be said to be included as privacy is what you lose when you get hacked (!)... Trump had at least two very noxious sentiments out there.

One, was that he sided very strongly with the FBI over the Apple versus FBI incident, saying he would have crushed Apple. This clearly did him well for the election, however, surely winning many hearts within the FBI. And Trump has pointed out that he prides himself on deception to make wins in sales, in negotiations.

Two, he has claimed that he was all for killing Snowden. But, again, this would be telling the "intelligence military complex" along the lines of what they want to hear.

He definitely also curried favor with Russia, and we saw how, like the FBI, Russia really came to bat for Trump.

I would say both parties were suckers and should not have trusted him.

Trump has also claimed that what Clinton did with her email servers was a terrible crime. Which, again, of course, served his best interests.


A big question people should be asking themselves, however, is, "Can you take Trumps threatening statements seriously?"

Hitler also outlined outrageous plans to the world, effectively. So outrageous, few outside of Germany took him seriously. In fact, it could be pointed out that one of the biggest statements of those who fought to 'wake people up on Hitler' was simply, "He outlined what he would do, he said it all already, and he is doing it".

Godwin's law, or not, this is a question that must be asked when you are out there reading about his threatening promises on a very wide range of issues.

But, it is also true, the man prides himself on his capability to bluff. And this can be a very strong negotiating tactic.


ab praeceptisNovember 9, 2016 5:56 PM

Clive Robinson

"It's not of any surprise to those living outside the US looking in where the MSM news services tend to be less politically aligned to US politoco's than they are inside the US."

Depends on where one lives. In germany, for instance, the media were probably even more fixed on and running propaganda for clinton than across the ocean. Actually even virtually all major politician across all major parties joined in that, too, and even went so far as to serial-insult Trump.

But there is something I found way more interesting an telling, namely some graphics on the nyt elections page. Here's what I found:

2:00 am (german time, so about 8 pm ny time) -> chances of Trump to win 20% (clinton 80%).
About 90 minutes later it was evenly split and crossing over.
Yet another 90 minutes later Trumps chances were > 95%

Within a mere 3 hours it completely and extremely reversed!

Now, some might say tha reason was that results were coming in. Nope. Because, remember, officially all those prognoses were based on polls. So, clearly someone lied and bent the truth big time. Was it the citizens, was it the ordinary people who just again and again told the pollsters plain lies? Nope. It was the pollsters who told plain lies over and over again and who painted clinton as the coming winner no matter what. In fact, we find that view confirmed by emails from her own people who worked hard to have the pollsters tell lies.

Why? Psychology. Most humans have a very strong tendency to go with what is perceived as "most of os us", unless they have a very strong and well informed differing view.

In other words and I'm preaching that since years: political polls do *not* serve to find out what people think or want or will do. They rather serve to a) get some basic data to know how much one can bend the election results and b) to *direct and manipulate* the voters using above mentioned principle.

And that is exactly what we see in the above mentioned curves which inverted within 3 hours. We see what the media projected, acting as influencers and mindbenders, vs what people really wanted and what they would have told if they were really polled.

Usually it works with some less contrast, less obviously; usually those curves change slowly and inconspiciously, often explained away by some event (like a stupid or a good speech) but this time it was to important, so they kept the trumpets sounding to the last minute, hoping to manipulate some more people into voting clinton.

Sidenote: I don't care about politics over there. However, I do care about data being reliable or not and in ways to spoil or bend data.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 9, 2016 10:37 PM

@ab

This is a very good article on why trump won, and includes commentary on the polling

http://listverse.com/2016/11/09/10-reasons-trump-won/

It was a close race, but the serious irregularities were from hacking the dnc and fbi pushing bullshit charges.

The negatives on trump have severe merit, but not the same on Clinton. Just like the birther conspiracy was crap and the 90s investigations against Clinton. Which ended with the ludicrous Lewinsky scandal.

That was the best they could get.

Powell ran outside email in the same position. Who cares? I dont.

As someone who wants regime change in China and across Muslim nations... well, Trump is all for that.

He said as much, and means it.

Thanks for supporting this.

But as I see europeans actually buy into that bs about Clinton? Sorry, not true.

So would suggest really adjusting your own goggles before beginning to start looking at others eyesight problems.


ab praeceptisNovember 9, 2016 11:53 PM

Doctor Frankenstein

Funny how you respond. I didn't take a side, I merely stated facts.
clinton may be better or worse; that wasn't my point.

Fact, however, is that a) our media clearly propagandized clinton, b) painted Trump bad, and c) quite some of our politicians actually insulted Trump.

Fact also is that most people have a very strong tendency to go with the (real or perceived) majority, except on issues where they have deep expertise, are accepted, and care about.
An example: Most people follow the common line of praising ssl/tls. Those who don't (you'll find some of them here), meet the above three criteria: they have solid expertise, they are accepted as knowledgable, and they do care a lot about security.

The problem (in the given context) with elections is that next to nobody can actually *know* what the majority thinks. To "know" that they are depending on what the media and/or official entities (typically controlled by the incumbent) tell them.

In other words - and that's by no means new: The "reality" is what the media say it is. If the media trumpet over and over again that candidate X is leading, then a considerable part of the population will accept that to be the reality. And unless they are solidly knowledgable, accepted, and engaged, they will follow what they perceive as the majority.

Again, this is not new, nor is it polit talk. It's well studied and known science.

Second point:

Polls are, or pretend to aquiring and then distributing information about the reality out there. Hence, when clinton is said - until near the end of the election, to have a 80% winning chance according to up to date polls, then it is to be assumed that clinton will actually win, maybe by a big margin, maybe by a smaller one.

But she didn't. She lost and she lost by a big margin (about 310 : 235).

There are only 2 explanations. Somebody lied. Either millions of your people came together in a major conspiracy and consistently lied or else the media and/or the pollsters lied (or bent their polls, call it how you like).

If you see another explanation for clinton to change from 80% winning chance to < 5% within 3 hours the let us know.

And actually there are multiple hints pointing to the "pollsters and media colluded and lied". There are, for instance, podesta emails clearly showing collusion by both pollsters and media. Also there is plenty material to very clearly show that the media very extremely biased.

All in all it seems very plausible that clinton did what many politicians worldwide do. They (ab)use psychology and use "polls" as projectors rather than as sensors.

And once more: My point isn't that clinton is evil (or good) or that Trump is good (or evil). My point is that clinton clearly betrayed with massive media and pollster support.
Actually even that wouldn't be reason for me to comment on your elections, as I consider politicians to lie and betray as (unfortunately) "normal"; it would be a full time job to write about lying or betraying politicians.

The reason for me to write that, and to examine that issue in the first place, was the nyt (and others) very strange curve that simply couldn't be explained other than by fraud.

Clive RobinsonNovember 10, 2016 12:20 AM

@ ab praeceptis,

It was the pollsters who told plain lies over and over again and who painted clinton as the coming winner no matter what.

Yes we had that in the UK to. However I expect pollsters to lie, because it's ultimately in their financial intrest to do so, and there are little or no repercussions for them if they do get caught lying.

Which is why I tend to look at those with "real skin in the prediction game" the bookies or bet takers odds.

In the UK there was an advert from a major firm of "bookmakers" that were offering odds of 25:1 on Clinton in a "two horse race"... In other words they thought she had less than a 4% chance of winning...

But if you consider they also have to offset earlier bets etc what they were actually doing was giving "sucker bait" odds, so they realy did think from before November that she had absolutely no chance what so ever.

Like you I noticed that the MSM were not playing straight. Because in previous years the bookies odds got mentioned along with the polls, this time not at all...

WaelNovember 10, 2016 12:26 AM

@ab praeceptis, @Doctor Frankenstein,

There are only 2 explanations. Somebody lied...

There are three more explanations I can think of:

  • Sample space was poorly chosen / not large enough
  • Bad statisticians worked on it
  • A manifestation of the Simpson's paradox

"Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding." -- Hanlon's razor

ab praeceptisNovember 10, 2016 1:07 AM

Wael

You are right. Kind of. But: The all three fall into the pollsters realm. If either of the 3 is correct in this case then they are betrayers because they don't know their job (and should hence not sell it).

Which brings us back to my two possibilities.

Also keep in mind that we *know* of cases where pollsters had the (readiness and) *intention* of bringing desired results.

Also, let us keep in mind what Clive Robinson reminded us of: The "law" of "who pays, choses the music" is not by some magic invalid for pollsters.

Btw: One should read the fine printed part. I remember a friend of mine sometimes doing a quick study on polling. The trigger for his interest was the fact that "polls" shown in (largely biased national media in germany) quite consistently showed results that were very different from what both diverse online polls and personal observation showed. So he followed the trail.

And he found that in the fine print (obviously very nicely dressed up and formulation pimped) the major pollsters said something basically boiling down to "We take the actual results of the *last* election, then do some magic, and come up with current polls"

There are many other ugly factors. As an example it has been shown that many pollsters (the small part time employees actually doing the questioning on the road) explained that they are so lousily payed and not at all controlled that they fill in the questionaires themselves.

In a few cases my friend even found quite different, if not even contradicting results from different polls for different clients.

Statistics, bias avoidance, etc? Forget it. Pretty often just mumbo jumbo blabla.

ab praeceptisNovember 10, 2016 1:39 AM

Wael

Hey! "Do not assume evil intention when plain stupidity can explain it as well" is applicable to my utterings, too!

I have certain basic rights, after all!

WaelNovember 10, 2016 1:47 AM

@ab praeceptis,

I have certain basic rights, after all!

You've got no rights. They eroded away long time ago. Well, you have "some" rights: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, you have the right to a rookie attorney,...

But keep repeating that expression. You may actually end up believing it some day, nothing wrong with dreaming.

Bernard MarxNovember 10, 2016 1:45 PM

I wonder what the future holds for Snowden, considering how well Putin and Trump get along. Anybody?

Please ignore and excuse me if it seems off-topic.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 1:47 PM

@Ab

I am sorry, lol, I just scanned your response. Is it possible that Clinton's had something going on with the pollsters? Yes, it is. But, one thing we do know about the Clinton's is a lot of their secrets due to the hack performed on them by Russia.

We do not have the very same secrets from Trump and other parties. (Nor do I want them.)

You mentioned they had secret dealings with a pollster who mangled their public data set on their behalf. This is not true. She did have at least two in media, probably a few more, who did help her. I recall one probably helped her with some question in the debate, and another asked her to approve their story before it went live.

This kind of behavior, while unethical, does happen in the media and that line is often blurred. Journalist tamper with stories to try and hit the audience best they want to hit. For ratings, is the normal reason. They also are invariably select in their sources. Important sources are critical for them to maintain, and this can certainly mean they treat them as if they are privileged business clients.

Immediately after my post, I found a very good article on 'what went wrong with the polls' at the Atlantic. (Yes, the Atlantic is decidedly left leaning.)

But, nobody screwed with the polls to anyone knowledge.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/what-went-wrong-polling-clinton-trump/507188/

This article helps explain the situation.

But, there are many others you should read on the subject.


I think you jumped the gun because you are not well read on the issues, and bias has crept into you. I am sorry, but if you dig into the issues on Clinton, ultimately you would find there is nothing there.

At best she is 'too Washington', one could say.

But, Benghazi, the email servers... these really were non-issues.


As for polls, nobody knows what went wrong. Clinton did win the majority vote, but not the electoral.

So, as the Atlantic states, the direction was right, the magnitude was wrong.


I did not see the NYT display you saw. The Atlantic covered it and confirmed your opinion it was way off. The NYT certainly is left leaning.

What I saw, from CBS and Google, was Trump ahead the entire race, frankly.

However, that the polling was off over the past six months is agreed upon, and that there were some severe cases of this, also agreed upon.

Shaken, not stirred.November 10, 2016 2:02 PM

What went right, exceedingly, were the previously redrawn gerrymandering lines. It's amazing little resistance they have actually encountered since the redrawing.

If I were a Republican, I would be thrilled like Mr Ryan for this very reason. What did he say? Give this man a mandate?

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 2:09 PM

@ab, Wael, Clive

Okay, I briefly googled 'podesta' 'poll' 'clinton', and got back just a bunch of crap from zerohedge.com (extremely biased, sorry guys), and breitbart.com, etc.

I do believe it is possible in their fuzzy formulas, some pollsters corrupted the data with bad information. Where that bad information was subjective. And, it might be noted that, again, as I say above, the NYT results were especially bad. Which ab was exposed to. This was immediately confirmed to me as I left this site and found an article on theatlantic on the very subject, which happened to mention exactly that bad site, the NYT, and the bad returns, on that very night. See there how I put fuzzy, unscientific, "randomness" into a little formula here in order to persuade my own self as to the validity of a statistical problem.

And, yes, Wael, you were correct on black birds, I should add. However, I did not really believe Clinton would win, I was just saying that to see who we had in the audience. Even under that name I pointed out in another post "if Trump wins..." comments showing that I had well thought that out, as I considered it a very real possibility. I was not too surprised by the election results.

All of us are very "sarcastic", and certainly many very indirect.

I only state this, however, as I do really deal in an area where such conversations take place, such passwords are made, identities obscured, and the like. So, I like having some fun of it. Indeed, my job is highly fun and affords me enormous free time (these days). (When it does not drive me insane.)

Nothing quite like someone guessing something or making a subtle nod, and this not being shown back as being appreciated.


@Bernard Max

Bernard Marx • November 10, 2016 1:45 PM I wonder what the future holds for Snowden, considering how well Putin and Trump get along. Anybody?
Please ignore and excuse me if it seems off-topic.

Do not be silly.

This is a very, very good point, and very bad news for Snowden. He should move, immediately.

Many have escaped illegally from Russia over the years, he would do well to do the same.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 2:17 PM

@keiner

together with your biased police system a time bomb to explode in hate and violence.

Hopefully, people contain themselves. (I write, as there are rampages across the country...)

We saw what happened under merely Bush. So, this is bad.

Unfortunately, I do believe all nations continue to have biased police systems. Not that there are not many "good" police. But, I do have to say, the FBI really came out for Trump this election.

Now, were there forces behind that which were beyond "the FBI"? This can be assumed to be so. The FBI is actually but one division of the Department of Justice. A very, very big division, but still. They are down on a totem pole. And at their top, of both the FBI and the DoJ, there are people wired into all sorts of power structures.


It can be really hard to miss this bias, though it can be shown via many articles, and understood anecdotally: if you see your neighbor put in a police car and driven away under many flashing lights, while many serious faced cops bring out of their house many boxes of papers and such... does this not bias you as to their guilt?

And has no one here ever seen someone accused, and considered "guilty, until proven otherwise"? Sadly, the mere accusations, especially by such a deeply esteemed organization as the FBI, taints how people see someone. It mentally paints for them over the person: "Criminal", indeed, "Felon".


Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 2:24 PM

Here, btw, are some other excellent articles on Trump winning. These were, sadly, all connected to the listverse article I posted above. Unfortunately, both cracked and listverse are excellent sites. I have studied numerous articles from across the spectrum, on the subject, and have found these to be among the most illuminating.

the already posted article
http://listverse.com/2016/11/09/10-reasons-trump-won/

grin and bear it, well worth a read
http://listverse.com/2015/07/27/10-reasons-donald-trump-may-be-a-political-genius/


And, this article, especially:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169441/PIERS-MORGAN-m-sorry-Donald-Trump-winning-never-says-sorry.html


Many of the articles I have read, otherwise, come across many of the same points.

But these do seem especially quite good.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 2:43 PM

@ab

Hey! "Do not assume evil intention when plain stupidity can explain it as well" is applicable to my utterings, too!
I have certain basic rights, after all!

Very good, charming, humble sentiment. I apologize for being a bit hard in my response. I have never posted to you before, but have been posting here for a number of years, sporadically. I change my name frequently. Perhaps, you have done the same, though while I see "r" missing, and now find you... though "r", I do not recall getting cranky. I think you were a bit cranky with the pollster fraudster.

I do have technical accomplishments. I have worked in intelligence. I have created software or at least strongly influenced software which probably runs on a system you have, which is security software. Much more likely such influence is on the software your government runs, especially law enforcement, intelligence. And on security software your high priority target corporations run, such as corporations in energy, in cutting edge research fields, defense contracting, and the like.

However, I do enjoy this list because many of the posters are well read and make for excellent analysts of breaking news and political stories which have a scitech edge to them.

This, I have found, especially true with those who are accomplished at finding security vulnerabilities in systems. But, almost equally true with security minded developers, managers, and the like.

The, as Mr Robinson would say, "hinky" talented thinkers.

I do disagree with you that all politicians are the scum of the earth, though understand the sentiment. I believe true change happens from quiet, subtle influence where one does not have the luxury of leaving the fingerprint of one's own name. Much more gets done this way. Because people all want good ideas, and they usually have no idea where they get them from. My own self included. And those voices in my head... harharhar (a little implausibility note here, to downgrade attention).

Hacking is where the new intelligence is, I would add. Both are information technology centric. Not unlike journalism. However, unlike journalism, hacking and intelligence, be it information gathering or direct action operations, well, they are equivalent. And you can do today with hacking what you could never do in the 80s and before with even an vast army of moles and covert case officers.

(Or, in fbi parlance, informants and special agents.)

So, the world is changing, though people have not yet seen true power.

And it is certainly wise to pay attention and think on these matters. What does it mean, for instance, for Russia to have attempted to influence the US election in these ways? Does the US do it? China? North Korea? Your own state law enforcement?

And so on.

But, I would agree with the sentiment that the conspiracies of men are foolish, and weak. They are not gods, they have limited lives and very limited capabilities. Certainly, very limited capacities for managing their own egos, especially when tied up to "power".

Bong-Smoking Primitive Monkey-Brained SpookNovember 10, 2016 3:25 PM

@Doctor Frankenstein,

My own self included. And those voices in my head...

You have those too?

harharhar (a little implausibility note here, to downgrade attention).

Uh hmmm. That'll work real well!
Attention += 1500 :)

GrauhutNovember 10, 2016 3:27 PM

@Doctor Frankenstein: "Here, btw, are some other excellent articles on Trump winning."

I think its easier, Trump is simply a marketing pro and a gifted salesman. And he literally waited decades before he ran for presidency, but he is asked since the 80's. Thats a lot of time for making detailed plans.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCabT_O0YSM , its just a couple of minutes long.

Now the question is: Will his plans work, can he deliver what he promised?

EM bodiedNovember 10, 2016 3:43 PM

RE: projections,

The msm was seemingly caught entirely off guard, while abc seems to have suffered a major meltdown on camera PBS and CBS kind've had their petticoat showing.

If you want election humor find the video of the guy saying "this is bad, this is very bad."

I wish I'd have seen that live.

This is definitely something for Mr. Ed Wood to be worried about, especially with how excited the pubs are right now to be looking at an all expenses paid trip to the candy store.

Colbert visualized much of what I had been thinking about god answering hillbilly prayers or that perhaps somebody found one of those funny wish genies.

If it was a genie, I find myself wondering what the other two wishes were? Some only grant 1.

I still laugh at the orange Lord rising, I think I'm going to invest in Tropicana.

All seriousness aside, my family fled Germany in the 30s.

But I see he is pleasantly negotiating his selling points now that the orange Lord has wings, we can see on his website that Muslims have been politely removed from his public facing "most watched" list.

GrauhutNovember 10, 2016 4:25 PM

@EM bodied: Not WHPS? :)


White House Press Secretary Billy Bush?
— Scott Simon (@nprscottsimon) November 9, 2016

I guess Billy Bush will be our new press secretary.
— Tamara Mello (@Tamara_Mello) November 9, 2016

@RichLowry @benshapiro Billy Bush for Press Secretary.
— Arron A Fishbain (@AFishbain) November 9, 2016

Maybe Billy Bush gets his job back. Or maybe he will be #WhiteHouse press secretary. https://t.co/CEEVvAljk2
— Denise Ryan (@deniseoryan) November 9, 2016

Hey, since Billy Bush is currently out of work, could an offer of WH Press Secretary be coming his way? #ElectionNight #notmypresident
— caitlin (@MClarke88) November 9, 2016

Billy Bush is going to be the new press secretary for the Trump White House.
— Fred From Honolulu (@FredFromHon) November 9, 2016

ab praeceptisNovember 10, 2016 5:37 PM

Doctor Frankenstein

Pardon me, but I'll stop that discussion here. My interest is in observable facts and in mechanism. Yours is to spread a pro-clinton view. That's just incompatible.

Moreover you seem to know nothing about Russia (and, Pardon me, little about your own countries inner workings and power structures). If Putin is known for something then it's that he is a trained lawyer and "legality-obsessed". Often to the dismay of the more conservative russian security circles.

I don't say that there are no Russians, e.g. in the secret service who would play games with another countries elections. What I say is that those wouldn't dare to eben think about it because Putin as well as their agency bosses would quarter und draw them.

That whole "It's the Russians!" thing is but a mixture of paranoia, blunt stupiditiy, and a PR stunt from the clinton people.

In case you are interested: Actually very many Russians aren't happy with Trump. Simple reason: he is largely an unknown.

Well, whatever, my interest in that thing was the mechanisms behind it and not clinton or Trump. Have a nice day.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 8:55 PM

@Grauhut

I think its easier, Trump is simply a marketing pro and a

gifted salesman.

I would agree. Though these handful of articles state as much. Sales

was actually how I got into computer security and intelligence. I had

a direct relative in intelligence and picked up a job in the

newspaper they had pointed out to me indirectly. It was for training,

and the initial training was entirely indirect: hard core, door to

door "tin man" sales. I mention this because I appreciate the art.


And, back then, I read Donald's book cover to cover. Along with Zig

Ziglar, Bandler & Grinder, and many other such books.


This philosophy is to always be a "closer". You do not lie, but,

instead, communicate indirectly in order to get the best choice made.

If you play a role, the role is not a lie, but merely a

communicational vehicle to obtain a beneficial choice.


Two and a half decades later, I strongly appreciate the art of

closing, and Trump is definitely a salesman and a closer.

If you want to know, high school, was private and encouraged a lot of

risk taking, to say the least.


@Bong-Smoking Primitive Monkey-Brained Spook

Uh hmmm. That'll work real well! Attention += 1500 :)

A science you show your self as knowing well. :-)

So often we deal with people who are such horrible hypocrites,

judging people by standards they make no effort to even begin to try

and hold up their own selves. But, their 'do this' and 'do not do

this' laundry lists of instructions make them very poorly suited for

evading their detection and getting them to do what you need them to

do.


They make themselves robots, and you just have to know where their

instruction set is, in order to fly under the radar to give them

instructions you need them to take.

@EM Bodied

All seriousness aside, my family fled Germany in the

30s.

Trump could be a very Dark America, Dark Eagle rising... or not.

Often, today, what is very, very dark? Is quite good. And what

appears to be very "upfront" and good? Is quite wicked.


But, it is true. People can forget how they do not take the words of

persuaders more seriously. To persuade means to establish rapport,

first. Good or bad, many merely teach what others wish to hear. And

they die in their roles. They go down into the grave to teach, and

are stuck there.


Bad actors, indeed...


@ab

My interest is in observable facts and in mechanism.

Yours is to spread a pro-clinton view. That's just

incompatible.

If I were "pro-clinton", I would say as much.

Clinton is a non-player and completely meaningless at this juncture.


I did not vote for her.

Clearly, I was simply mistaken for believing you could handle

critical analysis. Critical analysis means you attempt to approach

problems from looking at it from many directions, even very

contradictory directions.

Playing your "opponent" as the strawman is as basic of a human flaw

in cognitive understanding as human beings can get, and reveals a

mind which is unaccustomed to intellectual security thinking.

Moreover you seem to know nothing about

Russia

This is a childish statement.

So, you are in your early twenties, and I am twice your age. You have

no experience in either computer security nor intelligence?

Seriously, try and avoid making a complete fool of your self.

(and, Pardon me, little about your own countries inner

workings and power structures).


"Country's", not "countries", in plural. Is this your sad attempt to

try and vet me? Lol. :-) My "birthdad" was MIA in Cambodia, which was

not acknowleged when he went missing. I was adopted by a family

member who was in the FBI, working under a very covert cover in a

very major front organization created shortly after WWII.

I have direct and indirect connections to many "three letter"

agencies through my several decades of a career. I was part of a very

small and exclusive program to create deep undercover officers

trained from their pre-teens to do this manner of work. A program

which was temporarily discontinued when the wall fell.

I can state all of this because there is no way anyone could ever

prove it.

China, Russia, Israel... have programs like these. But, the US does

not. At best, we have temporary contractors, usually from military.

Or covert folks whose faces were photographed at the career

chokepoints of langley or west point or the farm or quantico.


If Putin is known for something then it's that he is a

trained lawyer and "legality-obsessed". Often to the dismay of the

more conservative russian security circles.

Putin is a spy. Many lawyers are spies. Many in my family are both

lawyers and spies. I can go so far as to say. I respect Putin for

this. But, I find him and his intelligence services to be terrible at

what they do, so, at best, I can only tell you that they are stooges

for American and Western, Christian, interests.


I don't say that there are no Russians, e.g. in the

secret service who would play games with another countries elections.

What I say is that those wouldn't dare to eben think about it because

Putin as well as their agency bosses would quarter und draw

them.

The idea we do not have Russia entirely compromised and controlled

continues to be amusing to me.


In a muahahaha sort of way.

Believe me, I have a very difficult problem judging whether these

evil "muahahaha" laughs are more pleasurable then actual orgasms.

That whole "It's the Russians!" thing is but a mixture of

paranoia, blunt stupiditiy, and a PR stunt from the clinton

people.


Yet, we continue to poke you in the eye.

My supervisor, btw, by all appearances, is Russian.

How is that? Another fine game.


I have the utmost respect for Russian secret intelligence. I read all

of the Mitrokihn archives. Long ago. I studied both early leninist

and czarist intelligence services in middle school...

I knew Robert Strauss, personally, the ambassador to Russia, before

the wall fell.


Directorate S... wow. I really relate with these guys. Their stories

help my alternating PTSD so very much. But? They are children and

amateurs in comparison.

Russia barely made it out of bankruptcy last year.

Way, way back when, when the US Secret Service and Diplomatic

Services were thought very much NOT to be foreign intelligence... we

owned them.

Now, as we start to close the gap, shall I not give out a "villain's"

monologue, and perhaps without the joking warning of Ozymandias??

:-)

We knew that the turn coat of NY did not give us all the directorate

s agents, but merely throwaways they wished to recall anyway.

We have always been several steps ahead of Russia.

Indeed, both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were agents for the US.

Neither are truly in prison, anymore then either of those names are

real. Such simple minds Russians have.

In case you are interested: Actually very many Russians

aren't happy with Trump. Simple reason: he is largely an

unknown.


Which would appeal more to a young US millionare? To be a dupe of an

agent from Russia who comes from a Soviet Bloc nation... or to work

for the Company and try and really change things, to be a true

American Spy. Like Hunt.


Well, whatever, my interest in that thing was the

mechanisms behind it and not clinton or Trump. Have a nice

day.

I will only assure you that as I begin to take upon myself the glory

of my father, embracing his legacy, of this terrible underground,

invisible, "secret team"... that I will not play the game in the same

way, but adopt a total ruthlessness never seen in the world before.

This is exactly why we pushed Trump into the Presidency.

We are opening doors for Russia, to bring them along the maze into

our traps. A villain's monologue? Believe me. This stuff is quite

better then sex. To fuck nations and smash their faces... like

'pieces of pottery'.

I will state, insofar as Russia turns to their orthodox roots, I wish

to save them. China, Islamist nations, not so lucky.

A black and dark America is rising. And we will not be so nice to you

as we were before.

Or?


I could be totally just fucking with you, lol.

Definitely had quite a bit of wine tonight. Quite fun. Harararahar.


ab praeceptisNovember 10, 2016 9:49 PM

Doctor Frankenstein

I'm profoundly impressed. And frightened to the core. Shivering.

It must be a very, very powerful and intelligent mind that, while drinking (too much, it seems), writes in double spaced lines, has been in pretty much every 3-letter agency, and, just along the way, shows his eloquent superiority by correcting error by a non-native english speaker. If such a brillant mind that I'm retarded I take that very seriously; I'm even contemplating suicide.

And that's just the general part. I do not even dare to talk about the professional part because, certainly, an unworthy creature like myself shouldn't taint a place where someone like you pleased to drop some of his immense technical wisdom.

Stop wanking and show us what you've got. Code. Crypto. Know-How.

Doctor FrankensteinNovember 10, 2016 11:03 PM

@ab

I'm profoundly impressed. And frightened to the core. Shivering.

If you were in my domain you would be. But, then again, what would we do even if we caught you? Just let you free....

It must be a very, very powerful and intelligent mind that, while drinking (too much, it seems), writes in double spaced lines, has been in pretty much every 3-letter agency, and, just along the way, shows his eloquent superiority by correcting error by a non-native english speaker. If such a brillant mind that I'm retarded I take that very seriously; I'm even contemplating suicide.

Cute. Yet, here we are, where maybe I am trying to sell you on some idea, and maybe you are buying.

And that's just the general part. I do not even dare to talk about the professional part because, certainly, an unworthy creature like myself shouldn't taint a place where someone like you pleased to drop some of his immense technical wisdom.

This reveals to me, you do not know who I am.


But... you may be clever and confusing me.


So... I do not mind giving out many stars and stripes.


My bona fides... :-)


I created the technology behind Cylance and Fire eye. I created the technology behind Sentinel One.


In the early 2000s, Barnaby Jack started to look at home routers. He asked me what would be good exploit code, and I explained to him that you could compromise all systems behind the router if you searched for executable downloads in your router exploit... and trojanized them.


The US followed suit.


No small part, granted, because my family, blood, was heading the "sci tech" of the US intelligence.


In the late 90s, after I was activated and performed analysis of "the scene", I came to the conclusion that what would be called "watering hole" and "drive by" attacks would be the method of choice of foreign intelligence.


I helped Jamie Butler set up the farm for vulnerabilities for the DoD and CIA called "endgame systems". And, I managed, covertly, the foremost farm for the FBI at Accuvant Labs.

Many of these "SME's" from "the US", have been, actually? Spies. Spies whose job it has been to gain trust from industry leading minds via conference work.

"Barnaby Jack", "Dave Aitel", "Greg Hoglund", "David Litchfield", and so on? What about the "BBN'ers", like "Weld Pond" and "Mudge"?

These are not real people, but actors we have given words.... formulas.


...

What is the cutting edge technology for finding security vulnerabilities?? It is "greyboxing". Mixing white box analysis with black box analysis to truly automate vulnerability finding.


...


We mastered this well over a decade ago....

ab praeceptisNovember 10, 2016 11:56 PM

Doctor Frankenstein

Wow. But not as cool as me. I killed 14 sharks barehanded (to be fair: They didn't molest me. I just happened to be in a lousy mood), I sank the Titanic with but a table spoon (lousy mood again, sorry), I invented - and laid myself with bare hands - the first fiber across the Atlantic (good mood that afternoon as you might guess), I also invented the moon and put it in place and, probably most impressingly, I invented and built a float processor with 17.500382771 bit registers which was useful for certain Pi-related calculations (it was my family who inventet Pi).

But granted, I had a slight advantage with einstein being my father and Lady Ada Lovelace, the queen of Saba, and Q'' (the sister of Q) being my mothers.

I btw also composed Beethovens 9th but I gave it to him because I thought I might gain some advantage from being so obviously modest.

I'm very glad to have found you again, mom.

GrauhutNovember 11, 2016 3:20 AM

@ab: "I sank the Titanic with but a table spoon"

This Doctor would only need lips! :D

Bare TrapNovember 11, 2016 10:58 AM

Lip syncing, interesting.

How's that work? Lore everyone to one side of the ship Grauhut?

ab praeceptisNovember 11, 2016 8:18 PM

Grauhut

Don't be so picky. Ships, thermostats, yahoo, what's the big difference? *g

YawnNovember 15, 2016 2:46 AM

If you reasonably assume the debates were scripted or fed, then Mrs. Clinton's intentional or not (I'd say 50/50) response to the last debate question all but conceded her defeat in advance.

Bong-Smoking Primitive Monkey-Brained SpookNovember 23, 2016 4:18 PM

I'm at a loss why anyone could be surprised! It was known a very long time ago! So it shall be written, so it shall be done!

And He will send forth His angels with a great Trumpet and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Mat 24:31)

24:31 ??? Hmmm. It means: 2431(verse number) - 2016 (year of election) = 415.
He will rule for (buckle up) 415 years :)

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.