Seth Rich

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Tue May 22, 2018 1:08 am

The Untold Story of Japan’s Secret Spy Agency

(NOTE: The third photo down the page (link) shows a MF Wullenweber Array, in the larger bottom circle. If any of you recognize any of the non raydomed antennas, I would be interested. There was a Wullenweber at Coronado but, I think it's been taken down. There aren't many left. kd)

From The Intercept

Every week in Tokyo’s Ichigaya district, about three miles northeast of the bright neon lights and swarming crowds in the heart of Shibuya, a driver quietly parks a black sedan-style car outside a gray office building. Before setting off on a short, 10-minute drive south, he picks up a passenger who is carrying an important package: top-secret intelligence reports, destined for the desks of the prime minister’s closest advisers.

Known only as “C1,” the office building is located inside a high-security compound that houses Japan’s Ministry of Defense. But it is not an ordinary military facility – it is a secret spy agency headquarters for the Directorate for Signals Intelligence, Japan’s version of the National Security Agency.

The directorate has a history that dates back to the 1950s; its role is to eavesdrop on communications. But its operations remain so highly classified that the Japanese government has disclosed little about its work – even the location of its headquarters. Most Japanese officials, except for a select few of the prime minister’s inner circle, are kept in the dark about the directorate’s activities, which are regulated by a limited legal framework and not subject to any independent oversight.

Now, a new investigation by the Japanese broadcaster NHK — produced in collaboration with The Intercept — reveals, for the first time, details about the inner workings of Japan’s opaque spy community. Based on classified documents and interviews with current and former officials familiar with the agency’s intelligence work, the investigation shines light on a previously undisclosed internet surveillance program and a spy hub in the south of Japan that is used to monitor phone calls and emails passing across communications satellites.

According to the current and former officials, the Directorate for Signals Intelligence, or DFS, employs about 1,700 people and has at least six surveillance facilities that eavesdrop around the clock on phone calls, emails, and other communications. (The NSA, in comparison, has said it has a workforce of more than 30,000 and Britain’s signals intelligence agency claims more than 6,000 staff.) The communications collected at the spy facilities are sent back to analysts who work inside the C1 building, which has four underground floors and eight above ground.

“Very few people know what the DFS is doing and can enter the building,” according to an active-duty official with knowledge of the directorate’s operations, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The official agreed to share details about the directorate after The Intercept and NHK last year revealed that the spy agency had obtained a mass surveillance system called XKEYSCORE, which is used to sift through copies of people’s emails, online chats, internet browsing histories, and information about social media activity. The official said that they believed the directorate’s use of XKEYSCORE was “not permissible” under the Japanese Constitution, which protects people’s right to privacy.

The directorate – known in Japanese as the “Denpa-Bu,” meaning “electromagnetic wave section” – currently has 11 different departments, each focused on a different subject, such as information analysis, public safety and security, and cryptography. However, the departments are kept separate from each other and there is limited communication between them, the active-duty official said. Each department in the C1 building has a different lock installed on the rooms it uses, and these can only be accessed by a select group of people who have the appropriate security clearance, access codes, and identification. The directorate operates as the largest arm of Japan’s Defense Intelligence Agency, which has other divisions focused on, for example, analyzing satellite imagery, sources said.

Atsushi Miyata, who between 1987 and 2005 worked with the directorate and the Ministry of Defense, said that his work for the spy agency had involved monitoring neighboring countries, such as North Korea, and their military activities. But the agency’s culture of intense secrecy meant that it was reluctant to share information it collected with other elements of the Japanese government. “They did not share the data inside of [the] Defense Ministry properly,” said Miyata. “Even inside of the Defense Ministry, the report was not put on the table. So the people did not understand what we were doing.”

The directorate is accomplished at conducting surveillance, but has a tendency to be excessively secretive about its work, according to classified documents The Intercept disclosed last year. A 2008 NSA memo described its Japanese counterparts as being “still caught in a Cold War way of doing business” and “rather stove-piped.” The U.S. continues to work closely with Japan’s intelligence community, however, and collaborates with the country to monitor the communications of countries across Asia.

About 700 miles southwest of Tokyo, there are two small towns called Tachiarai and Chikuzen, which have a combined population of about 44,000 people. Japan’s military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, has a base situated on a patch of grassy farmland in between the towns. But the base is not used to train soldiers. It is one of the country’s most important spy hubs.

For years, the large antennae inside the secure compound, which are concealed underneath what look like giant golf balls, attracted concerns from local residents who were worried that the powerful radio waves they emitted might damage their health or interfere with their televisions. The Japanese government sent senior officials to reassure the locals that there would be no problems, and the government began paying the Chikuzen council an annual fee of about $100,000 as compensation for the disturbance caused by the base. But the function of the antennae was never revealed.

A top-secret document from the directorate offers unprecedented insight into some of the Tachiarai base’s activities. The document – an English-language PowerPoint presentation – appears to have been shared with the NSA during a meeting in February 2013, at which the Japanese spy agency’s then-deputy director was scheduled to discuss intelligence-gathering issues with his American counterparts. The presentation was contained in the archive of classified files provided to The Intercept by Edward Snowden. No internal documents from Japan’s surveillance agency have ever been publicly disclosed before.

According to the presentation, Japan has used Tachiarai for a covert internet surveillance program code-named MALLARD. As of mid-2012, the base was using its antennae to monitor communications passing across satellites. Each week, it collected records about some 200,000 internet sessions, which were then being stored and analyzed for a period of two months. Between December 2012 and January 2013, Tachiarai began using the surveillance technology to collect information about potential cyberattacks. As a result, its data collection rapidly increased, and it began sweeping up information about 500,000 internet sessions every hour – 12 million every day. Despite this, the directorate indicated that it was only able to detect a single email that was linked to an apparent cyberattack. It struggled to cope with the amount of data it was harvesting and asked the NSA for help. “We would like to see processing procedure which the U.S. side employs in order not to affect traditional SIGINT collection,” the directorate told the NSA, “and would appreciate your technical assistance.”

Chris Augustine, a spokesperson for the NSA, declined to answer questions about the agency’s cooperation with Japan, saying in a statement that he would “neither confirm nor deny information concerning potential relationships with foreign intelligence services.” He added: “Any cooperation among intelligence services is conducted lawfully, in a manner that mutually strengthens national security.”

The directorate’s work at Tachiarai appears to focus on monitoring the activities of foreign countries in the region. It is unclear whether it collects Japanese citizens’ communications, either deliberately or incidentally, through dragnet programs like MALLARD. The law in Japan prohibits wiretapping landlines without a court order, but monitoring communications as they are being transmitted wirelessly across satellites is a gray area, Japanese legal experts say, because there are no legal precedents in the country that place limitations upon that kind of surveillance, though there is a general right to privacy outlined in the constitution.

According to Richard Tanter, a professor at the University of Melbourne who specializes in researching government surveillance capabilities, more than 200 satellites are “visible” from Tachiarai, meaning the base can intercept communications and data passing between them using its surveillance systems. Of the 200-plus satellites, said Tanter, at least 30 are Chinese and potential targets for ongoing surveillance. Moreover, he added, “satellites owned or operated by Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and even the United States or European states may be targeted” by the Tachiarai facility.

Snowden, who worked at a U.S. military base in Japan as an NSA contractor between 2009 and 2012, told The Intercept that Japanese spies appeared to have targeted “entire internet service providers, not just any one customer.” Referencing the MALLARD program, he said that there were not “500,000 terrorist communications happening in one year, much less one hour. … Is this authorized in law in a way that’s well-understood, that’s well-regulated, to make sure they are only targeting bad guys and not simply everything that they see?”

A spokesperson for Japan’s Ministry of Defense refused to discuss MALLARD, but said that the country’s “information-gathering activities” are necessary for national security and “done in compliance with laws and regulations.” The spokesperson acknowledged that Japan has “offices throughout the country” that are intercepting communications; however, he insisted that the surveillance is focused on military activities and “cyberthreats” and is “not collecting the general public’s information.” When pressed to explain how the country’s spy systems distinguish ordinary people’s communications from those related to threats, the spokesperson would not provide details on the grounds that doing so “may be a hindrance to effective future information activities.”
In October 2013, the Directorate for Signals Intelligence was planning to launch an operation aimed at what it described as the “Anonymous internet,” according to the 2013 presentation. This suggests that the directorate wanted to collect data about people’s usage of privacy tools such as Tor, which allows people to mask their computer’s IP address while they browse the internet. Tor is often used by journalists and dissidents to evade government surveillance; however, it is also used by child abusers and other criminals to plan or carry out illegal acts. In April 2013, it was reported that Japanese police were urging internet service providers to find ways to block people who were using Tor to commit crimes. In 2012, the country’s police investigators were repeatedly thwarted by a hacker known as the “Demon Killer,” who posted a series of death threats online. The hacker used Tor to successfully evade detection for seven months, which was a major source of embarrassment for Japanese police — and likely fueled demand for new surveillance capabilities.

Snowden told The Intercept that Japanese spies appeared have targeted “entire internet service providers, not just any one customer.”

The directorate’s activities at Tachiarai and elsewhere are aided by an organization called J6, which is a specialist technical unit connected to Japan’s Ministry of Defense, according to sources familiar with its operations. However, the cooperation between the directorate and J6 has been inhibited by the extreme secrecy that is pervasive within the Japanese government, with each agency apparently reluctant to open up to the other about its respective capabilities. In the 2013 presentation, Japanese officials from the directorate described J6’s role to the NSA, but admitted that they had relied on “assumptions” to do so, because “J6 function is not disclosed to us.”

According to the presentation, the directorate’s role is to carry out surveillance and analyze intelligence. The role of J6 includes analyzing malware and developing countermeasures – such as firewalls – to prevent hacks of Japanese computer systems. A third organization, called the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Organization, or CIRO, is the ultimate beneficiary of intelligence that is collected. Headed by a powerful figure named Shigeru Kitamura, it oversees the work of both the directorate and J6 and is connected to the prime minister’s office, based out of a building known as “H20,” a short walk from the prime minister’s official residence in Tokyo’s Chiyoda district.

Between 2000 and 2005, prior to development of the MALLARD internet surveillance program, expansion work took place at the Tachiarai facility. At that time, the then-town council chair, Hitoshi Miyahara, was shown a map of the construction plans, which revealed that a tunnel was being built below the base. Miyahara was allowed to visit the construction site, he said, but was prevented from entering the underground area. The current town council chair, Tsutomu Yano, had a similar experience. He visited the facility about four years ago and was shown around a gymnasium, a cafeteria, and a conference room. He was prevented from accessing the underground tunnel and a space he was told was used for “communications.” Yano said he repeatedly questioned the Self-Defense Forces about the Tachiarai facility’s function. But he never received any answers.

Ed Noguchi contributed reporting and translation.

Great Photos at the link.
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/jap ... ce-agency/
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Wed May 23, 2018 1:42 pm

Witness Said Awan Wiretapped Her, Then Bank Account She Controlled Was Drained

The Daily Caller | 8:56 PM 05/21/2018

After former Democratic IT aide Imran Awan allegedly threatened his stepmother not to talk to police, her email account was accessed in suspicious ways and a lawyer for one of Awan’s brothers found out she emailed the FBI on specific dates and lashed out at her: “You’re a liar, aren’t you?”

Days after that, a bank account the stepmother controlled was almost completely drained through a payment to Imran’s brother, Abid Awan, bank records show — but she said she is too afraid to press criminal charges because she claims he has threatened her. The stepmother, Samina Gilani, also previously said Imran stole two laptops from her.

Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan — along with Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and a friend — worked as IT administrators for 1 out of every 5 House Democrats and could read all their emails and files until police banned them from the network in February 2017 for “numerous violations of House security policies.”

Months later, none of the family is in jail, and the stepmother and other witnesses have said Imran and Abid have used their freedom to try to steer the outcome of the case since, including by threatening them not to cooperate with authorities, TheDCNF previously reported.

In April 2016, the House’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) detected allegedly falsified purchase orders, and the Inspector General quickly expanded the scope to investigate cyber violations, finding that members of the Awan family improperly accessed congressmen’s servers and the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times.

Though House officials suspected that equipment was being stolen, the Capitol Police did not search their homes, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned, and did not ban them from the network until nearly a year later. In the meantime, evidence appears to have been compromised: In December 2016, the CAO notified congressmen that the caucus server had physically disappeared.

Though Abid played a prominent role in the late-2016 IG report, he has not been arrested, with congressmen saying a criminal investigation is ongoing.

In January 2017, in the days around his father’s death, Abid removed Gilani as the beneficiary of his father’s life insurance and replaced her with himself, which led to a lawsuit, TheDCNF previously reported.

Abid’s attorney, Jim Bacon, used the life insurance lawsuit to force Gilani to sit for a sworn deposition Oct. 4, 2017 in which he told her to reveal what she told the FBI about the congressional criminal probe and tried to get her to find out details from investigators.

In one exchange, Bacon knew that she had emailed with the FBI.


BACON Q: [redacted] is your email address, isn’t it? And you send emails from that address including two emails to the FBI, didn’t you?
GILANI A: Yes, a long time ago.
Q: No, not a long time ago. March 5th, 2017. March 6th, 2017. Ma’am, you lied to me, didn’t you? You lied to me, didn’t you? You’re a liar, aren’t you?
A: I forgot about that. It was not in my mind.
BACON: Ah. I think we need to take a break before I explode.

Bacon did not respond to questions from the TheDCNF about how he knew Gilani had emailed the FBI on those dates.

Gilani previously said in court documents that “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again [he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan.”

Gilani testified in the deposition for that lawsuit that Imran wiretapped her.

“He has connected my phone, my house phone, with his own phone,” Gilani testified. “Whenever I talked to someone in Pakistan, he told me later on that ‘you told this, you said this.'”

Those allegations underscored fellow House IT aides’ concerns that the Awans could have used House members’ emails for blackmail.

Gilani said in court documents that Imran acknowledged surveilling her, that she saw him remove a device from behind her printer and that Imran took two laptops from her.

To test whether surveillance might also extend to her email, TheDCNF sent emails to Gilani with a tracker that reported where the messages were opened. The emails were opened in London, Pakistan and Texas.

Gilani’s sister, who lives in Pakistan, said she manages Gilani’s email since Gilani does not speak English. Gilani’s sister also said there is no reason the emails should have been opened in the other locations.

TheDCNF later emailed Gilani to ask for comment on this story, but she did not respond. The email was opened in London and Independence, Kansas, but never in Virginia or Lahore, Pakistan.

Two weeks after the deposition, on Oct. 19, 2017, an account Gilani controlled was drained of $5,952 — nearly its entire balance — via a transfer to Abid Awan, bank statements obtained by TheDCNF show. On Feb. 21, 2018, Bank of America credited the amount back to the account as a “claims processing transaction” — phrasing banks typically use when returning fraudulent transfers.

Gilani’s attorney, Michael Hadeed, said that was because the bank recognized that Abid had taken the money without authorization.

Gilani told TheDCNF that Abid used a computer to make the transfer. “He used the online method and the PIN,” she said. “It is another fraud of Abid Awan.”

“Abid Awan is threatening me,” Gilani continued, noting that she was too afraid to press criminal charges. “They can hurt my relatives in Pakistan.”

The account is registered to a nonprofit, the International Sufi Educational Organization, and only Gilani and her deceased husband were authorized to make withdrawals, according to bank account documents. The transaction occurred after Abid’s lawyer forced Gilani to disclose personal details, including her Social Security number, in the deposition.

Bacon did not respond to questions about the email usage or the funds drained from the bank account.

Imran was arrested at Dulles airport in July 2017 and he and Alvi — who both worked for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — were indicted for bank fraud for money moves that allegedly occurred six months earlier. Prosecutors said they believe the dual Pakistani-American citizens had learned of the House investigation shortly before they made the money transfers and that given Imran’s “attempt to depart to Pakistan while knowing he was under investigation, the government asserts that Awan is a flight risk.”

Imran’s attorney said at the time that he thought the bank fraud charges were a “placeholder.” But no additional charges have been brought.

Even as Democrats have frequently talked about the important of enforcing cybersecurity and dedicated significant monies for that purpose, prosecutors said this month that they are negotiating a possible “resolution” with Awan and for months have said they are turning over “voluminous discovery” to Imran’s attorney, despite his not having been charged with anything related to the House investigation.

Meanwhile, House IT aides have told TheDCNF they have knowledge of misconduct but fear retaliation from Democrats if they come forward to law enforcement, and tenants of a rental property Alvi owns who were mentioned in an FBI affidavit told TheDCNF Imran ordered them not to cooperate with police.

Another witness who turned over hard drives to the FBI, Andre Taggart, received a letter from Imran’s attorney demanding money, and Alvi filed a lawsuit in Pakistan saying her husband threatened her with violence, TheDCNF previously reported.

In April 2017, police found a laptop with the username RepDWS that Imran left in a phone booth. Wasserman Schultz subsequently threatened the Capitol Police chief with “consequences” if he didn’t relinquish the evidence. Imran is in possession of a copy of the laptop’s hard drive.

Wajid Ali Syed contributed reporting.

© Copyright 2010 - 2018 | The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/21/awan- ... urveilled/
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Wed May 30, 2018 9:01 pm

As Republicans are kept in the dark, the DOJ appears to be sharing details about Imran Awan in real time with Democrats, who appear to be leaking them to the lawyer of a hacking suspect http://pllqt.it/ukdP1y

https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/9 ... 5243292677
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:46 pm

U.S. Special Operations Command's Elusive Mothership Is Packing Stealth Speedboats

We finally have high-quality images of the entire ship in its completed state.


By Tyler Rogoway

The Drive | June 2, 2018




Ever since we posted the first known picture of the Pentagon's full outfitted special operations mothership—a vessel that is truly designed to hide in plain sight—more information about the shadowy ship's activities has been trickling in. We recently got another fragmented view of it, taken during a port call in Seychelles just two months after it popped up at a dry dock facility in Oman in early January of this year. In the year and a half before its arrival in Oman, it seems to have spent a good amount of time in the Mediterranean and possibly the Baltic Sea as well. But before it left on its maiden voyage in mid-2016, it stopped off in Norfolk, Virginia where it was loaded up with personnel and gear, including what a squad of stealthy special operations fast-boats.

We have wondered what types of craft would fill the now ironically named M/V Ocean Trader's four launch and recovery bays located on the ship's starboard side. The most likely option seemed to be rigid-hull inflatable boats, like the 11 meter Naval Special Warfare RHIB. But it turns out the ship totes around far more advanced vessels in the form of the stealthy Combat Craft-Assault (CCA).
You can read all about the CCA in this past War Zone feature and you can even watch one being tossed out the back of a C-17 in this recent article. But suffice it to say, the type has become a favorite of special operators, and they have been especially active in the Middle East area of operations in recent years.

And yes, this definitely comes to mind when you look at the CCA:

These new images of Ocean Trader came to us from David Kozdron, who was visiting Norfolk in early May 2016. He was on a tour cruise of the bay at the time and thought the vessel looked interesting. After reading our article about it he remembered seeing the ship from that day and had pictures to show for it.
images are by far the best of the very few photos we have seen Ocean Trader in its finished state. In addition to spotting the types of boats it carries, the photos offer a better view of its massive communications suite and they give a better idea of the overall size of its hangars in relation to the vehicles on its deck.

There also appears to be a launcher for Insitu drones on the ship's stern flight deck area. This makes total sense as those efficient and compact remotely pilot vehicle systems are a favorite not just of the U.S. Navy, but also of special operators. The layout of the ship is also ideal for drone operations as its primary flight deck doesn't have to be fouled during their launch and recovery evolutions, as is the case on many surface combatants and helicopter-carrying vessels.

Even though we have finally seen full high-quality exterior shots of the Ocean Trader, who knows when or where it will pop-up next. The vessel is not trackable via its standard Automatic Identification System transponder. But considering the amount of information we have gleaned just in recent weeks following a long period of time when the ship seemed to of all but disappeared, it probably won't be the last time we will be hearing of this phantom-like vessel.

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

Good photos at the link.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21 ... speedboats
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:30 am

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages


Ferris Jabr

Scientific American




In a viral YouTube video from October 2011 a one-year-old girl sweeps her fingers across an iPad's touchscreen, shuffling groups of icons. In the following scenes she appears to pinch, swipe and prod the pages of paper magazines as though they too were screens. When nothing happens, she pushes against her leg, confirming that her finger works just fine—or so a title card would have us believe.

The girl's father, Jean-Louis Constanza—a Jane Goodall among the chimps moment——that is, for people who have been interacting with digital technologies from a very early age.

Perhaps his daughter really did expect the paper magazines to respond the same way an iPad would. Or maybe she had no expectations at all—maybe she just wanted to touch the magazines. Babies touch everything. Young children who have never seen a tablet like the iPad or an e-reader like the Kindle will still reach out and run their fingers across the pages of a paper book; they will jab at an illustration they like; heck, they will even taste the corner of a book. Today's so-called digital natives still interact with a mix of paper magazines and books, as well as tablets, smartphones and e-readers; using one kind of technology does not preclude them from understanding another.

Nevertheless, the video brings into focus an important question: How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read? How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among us, but to just about everyone who reads—to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely. As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading—but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper? Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin?

Since at least the 1980s researchers in many different fields—including psychology, computer engineering, and library and information science—have investigated such questions in more than one hundred published studies. The matter is by no means settled. Before 1992 most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early 1990s, however, have produced more inconsistent results: a slight majority has confirmed earlier conclusions, but almost as many have found few significant differences in reading speed or comprehension between paper and screens. And recent surveys suggest that although most people still prefer paper—especially when reading intensively—attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common. In the U.S., e-books currently make up between 15 and 20 percent of all trade book sales.

Even so, evidence from laboratory experiments, polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done. A parallel line of research focuses on people's attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.

Maryanne Wolf—

Navigating textual landscapes
Understanding how reading on paper is different from reading on screens requires some explanation of how the brain interprets written language. We often think of reading as a cerebral activity concerned with the abstract—with thoughts and ideas, tone and themes, metaphors and motifs. As far as our brains are concerned, however, text is a tangible part of the physical world we inhabit. In fact, the brain essentially regards letters as physical objects because it does not really have another way of understanding them. As Wolf explains in her book Proust and the Squid, we are not born with brain circuits dedicated to reading. After all, we did not invent writing until relatively recently in our evolutionary history, around the fourth millennium B.C. So the human brain improvises a brand-new circuit for reading by weaving together various regions of neural tissue devoted to other abilities, such as spoken language, motor coordination and vision.

Some of these repurposed brain regions are specialized for object recognition—they are networks of neurons that help us instantly distinguish an apple from an orange, for example, yet classify both as fruit. Just as we learn that certain features—roundness, a twiggy stem, smooth skin—characterize an apple, we learn to recognize each letter by its particular arrangement of lines, curves and hollow spaces. Some of the earliest forms of writing, such as Sumerian cuneiform, began as characters shaped like the objects they represented—a person's head, an ear of barley, a fish. Some researchers see traces of these origins in modern alphabets: C as crescent moon, S as snake. Especially intricate characters—such as Chinese hanzi and Japanese kanji—activate motor regions in the brain involved in forming those characters on paper: The brain literally goes through the motions of writing when reading, even if the hands are empty. Researchers recently discovered that the same thing happens in a milder way when some people read cursive.

Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies, people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters.

In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text.

In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead.

Abigail Sellen of Microsoft Research Cambridge in England and co-author of The Myth of the Paperless Office-book do you start to miss it. I don't think e-

At least a few studies suggest that by limiting the way people navigate texts, screens impair comprehension. In a study published in January 2013 Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and her colleagues asked 72 10th-grade students of similar reading ability to study one narrative and one expository text, each about 1,500 words in length. Half the students read the texts on paper and half read them in pdf files on computers with 15-inch liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Afterward, students completed reading-comprehension tests consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, during which they had access to the texts. Students who read the texts on computers performed a little worse than students who read on paper.



Supporting this research, surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control. People report that they enjoy flipping to a previous section of a paper book when a sentence surfaces a memory of something they read earlier, for example, or quickly scanning ahead on a whim. People also like to have as much control over a text as possible—to highlight with chemical ink, easily write notes to themselves in the margins as well as deform the paper however they choose.

Because of these preferences—and because getting away from multipurpose screens improves concentration—people consistently say that when they really want to dive into a text, they read it on paper. In a 2011 survey of graduate students at National Taiwan University, the majority reported browsing a few paragraphs online before printing out the whole text for more in-depth reading. A 2008 survey-a 2003 study

Surveys and consumer reports also suggest that the sensory experiences typically associated with reading—especially tactile experiences—matter to people more than one might assume. Text on a computer, an e-reader and—somewhat ironically—on any touch-screen device is far more intangible than text on paper. Whereas a paper book is made from pages of printed letters fixed in a particular arrangement, the text that appears on a screen is not part of the device's hardware—it is an ephemeral image. When reading a paper book, one can feel the paper and ink and smooth or fold a page with one's fingers; the pages make a distinctive sound when turned; and underlining or highlighting a sentence with ink permanently alters the paper's chemistry. So far, digital texts have not satisfyingly replicated this kind of tactility (although some companies are innovating, at least with keyboards).

Paper books also have an immediately discernible size, shape and weight. We might refer to a hardcover edition of War and Peace as a hefty tome or a paperback Heart of Darkness as a slim volume. In contrast, although a digital text has a length—which is sometimes represented with a scroll or progress bar—it has no obvious shape or thickness. An e-haptic dissonance

Exhaustive reading
Although many old and recent studies conclude that people understand what they read on paper more thoroughly than what they read on screens, the differences are often small. Some experiments, however, suggest that researchers should look not just at immediate reading comprehension, but also at long-term memory. In a 2003 studyKate Garland of the University of Leicester and her colleagues asked 50 British college students to read study material from an introductory economics course either on a computer monitor or in a spiral-bound booklet. After 20 minutes of reading Garland and her colleagues quizzed the students with multiple-choice questions. Students scored equally well regardless of the medium, but differed in how they remembered the information.

Psychologists distinguish between remembering something—which is to recall a piece of information along with contextual details, such as where, when and how one learned it—and knowing something, which is feeling that something is true without remembering how one learned the information. Generally, remembering is a weaker form of memory that is likely to fade unless it is converted into more stable, long-—they often just knew the answers.

Other researchers have suggested that people comprehend less when they read on a screen because screen-based reading is more physically and mentally taxing than reading on paper. E-ink is easy on the eyes because it reflects ambient light just like a paper book, but computer screens, smartphones and tablets like the iPad shine light directly into people's faces. Depending on the model of the device, glare, pixilation and flickers can also tire the eyes. LCDs are certainly gentler on eyes than their predecessor, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), but prolonged reading on glossy self-illuminated screens can cause eyestrain, headaches and blurred vision. Such symptoms are so common among people who read on screens—affecting around 70 percent of people who work long hours in front of computers—that the American Optometric Association officially recognizescomputer vision syndrome.

Erik Wästlund of Karlstad University in Sweden has conducted some particularly rigorous research on whether paper or screens demand more physical and cognitive resources. In one of his experiments 72 volunteers completed the Higher Education Entrance Examination READ test—a 30-minute, Swedish-language reading-comprehension exam consisting of multiple-choice questions about five texts averaging 1,000 words each. People who took the test on a computer scored lower and reported higher levels of stress and tiredness than people who completed it on paper.

In another set of experiments 82 volunteers completed the READ test on computers, either as a paginated document or as a continuous piece of text. Afterward researchers assessed the students' attention and working memory, which is a collection of mental talents that allow people to temporarily store and manipulate information in their minds. Volunteers had to quickly close a series of pop-up windows, for example, sort virtual cards or remember digits that flashed on a screen. Like many cognitive abilities, working memory is a finite resource that diminishes with exertion.

Although people in both groups performed equally well on the READ test, those who had to scroll through the continuous text did not do as well on the attention and working-memory tests. Wästlund thinks that scrolling—which requires a reader to consciously focus on both the text and how they are moving it—drains more mental resources than turning or clicking a page, which are simpler and more automatic gestures. A 2004 study conducted at the University of Central Florida reached similar conclusions.

Attitude adjustments
An emerging collection of studies emphasizes that in addition to screens possibly taxing people's attention more than paper, people do not always bring as much mental effort to screens in the first place. Subconsciously, many people may think of reading on a computer or tablet as a less serious affair than reading on paper. Based on a detailed 2005 survey of 113 people in northern California, Ziming Liu of San Jose State University concluded that people reading on screens take a lot of shortcuts—they spend more time browsing, scanning and hunting for keywords compared with people reading on paper, and are more likely to read a document once, and only once.

When reading on screens, people seem less inclined to engage in what psychologists call metacognitive learning regulation—strategies such as setting specific goals, rereading difficult sections and checking how much one has understood along the way. In a 2011 experiment at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, college students took multiple-choice exams about expository texts either on computers or on paper. Researchers limited half the volunteers to a meager seven minutes of study time; the other half could review the text for as long as they liked. When under pressure to read quickly, students using computers and paper performed equally well. When managing their own study time, however, volunteers using paper scored about 10 percentage points higher. Presumably, students using paper approached the exam with a more studious frame of mind than their screen-reading peers, and more effectively directed their attention and working memory.

-book, not owning an e-only be loaned once, for example.

To date, many engineers, designers and user-interface experts have worked hard to make reading on an e-reader or tablet as close to reading on paper as possible. E-ink resembles chemical ink and the simple layout of the Kindle's screen looks like a page in a paperback. Likewise, Apple's iBooks attempts to simulate the overall aesthetic of paper books, including somewhat realistic page-turning. Jaejeung Kim of KAIST Institute of Information Technology Convergence in South Korea and his colleagues have designed an innovative and unreleased interface that makes iBooks seem primitive. When using their interface, one can see the many individual pages one has read on the left side of the tablet and all the unread pages on the right side, as if holding a paperback in one's hands. A reader can also flip bundles of pages at a time with a flick of a finger.

But why, one could ask, are we working so hard to make reading with new technologies like tablets and e-readers so similar to the experience of reading on the very ancient technology that is paper? Why not keep paper and evolve screen-based reading into something else entirely? Screens obviously offer readers experiences that paper cannot. Scrolling may not be the ideal way to navigate a text as long and dense as Moby Dick, but the New York Times, Washington Post, ESPN and other media outlets have created beautiful, highly visual articles that depend entirely on scrolling and could not appear in print in the same way. Some Web comics and infographics turn scrolling into a strength rather than a weakness. Similarly, Robin Sloan has pioneered the tap essay for mobile devices. The immensely popular interactive Scale of the Universe tool could not have been made on paper in any practical way. New e-publishing companies like Atavist offer tablet readers long-form journalism with embedded interactive graphics, maps, timelines, animations and sound tracks. And some writers are pairing up with computer programmers to produce ever more sophisticated interactive fiction and nonfiction in which one's choices determine what one reads, hears and sees next.

When it comes to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage. But text is not the only way to read.



© 2018 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... r-screens/
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:30 am

If Seth Rich Had Nothing to Do with Wikileaks Why Did Rich Attorneys Just Subpoena Julian Assange and Wikileaks Twitter Messages?

The Gateway Pundit

Twitter sent out notices to several investigative reporters and media outlets on Friday including: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Kim DotCom, Cassandra Fairbanks, Roger Stone, Matt Couch and The Gateway Pundit.

The liberal and Democrat-connected attorneys for Aaron Rich are demanding Twitter turn over all direct messages from these accounts to Aarron Rich’s attorneys.

Aaron is the brother of Seth Rich, the DNC operative who was murdered mysteriously in the summer of 2016. There have been no leads to the murder of Seth Rich. Aaron Rich is suing conservative activists and media outlets for allegedly spreading conspiracy theories about the slain staffer.

On Friday Twitter sent out letters to several conservatives and media outlets including Wikileaks informing the account owners that the attorneys for Aaron Rich are seeking information from the private accounts.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... -messages/


Subpoena to Twitter Aaron RICH v. Ed Butowsky-1
https://www.scribd.com/document/3813636 ... from_embed
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:20 pm

What Secretive Anti-Ship Missile Did China Hack From The U.S. Navy?

Details surrounding the Navy's Sea Dragon program remain scarce, but there are some distinct possibilities.

By Joseph Trevithick

The Drive | June 8, 2018

China's relentless cyber espionage campaign against the Pentagon has been one of the central reasons why that country's technological warfighting capabilities have aggressively matured over a relatively short period of time. In fact, we now see the fruits of their hacking operations on a daily basis via advanced 'indigenous' weapon systems, some which are now entering into operational service. But a previously unreported intrusion into a Navy contractor's computer network has provided the Chinese military with information on the service's electronic warfare and threat library, cryptographic radio systems used on submarines, specific sensor data, and detailed information on a previously undisclosed and fast-paced initiative to field a supersonic anti-ship missile onto American nuclear submarines dubbed Sea Dragon.

Over half a terabyte of information was stolen electronically from the contractor's computer systems at Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Rhode Island. The installation is a focal point for development and testing of new systems related to sub-surface combat. The contractor's network was not deemed classified but the information on it in its totality was of a highly classified nature according to the Washington Post, which broke the story.


The loss of the Navy's current electronic warfare library is especially troubling as that type of information is considered among the most sensitive data the Pentagon gathers and is critical to countering enemy defensive networks and allowing U.S. assets to survive in contested territory. This theft paired with information on sensor data that potentially collects that information is especially damning as the enemy can figure out not just what the Navy knows, but exactly how they have come to know it.

Yet the news that the Navy is rapidly looking to field a submarine-launched anti-ship missile capable of supersonic speeds is the biggest revelation from this report. Not only that but it is supposedly a weapon already in existence that is being adapted for submarine use. Quite honestly, in a vacuum, it's good news that the Navy is working on such a capability. Giving U.S. nuclear submarines long-range anti-ship capabilities that they can use while operating where no ship can is a critical ability that should be obtained, but what weapon could this be?

A shadowy cutting-edge weapons program

Little is known about the Sea Dragon program, as the Washington Post points out:



"The Sea Dragon project is an initiative of a special Pentagon office stood up in 2012 to adapt existing U.S. military technologies to new applications. The Defense Department, citing classification levels, has released little information about Sea Dragon other than to say that it will introduce a “disruptive offensive capability” by “integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform.” The Pentagon has requested or used more than $300 million for the project since late 2015 and has said it plans to start underwater testing by September.

...

The introduction of a supersonic anti-ship missile on U.S. Navy submarines would make it more difficult for Chinese warships to maneuver. It would also augment a suite of other anti-ship weapons that the U.S. military has been developing in recent years."

Pentagon budget documents show that Sea Dragon, which began in the 2015 fiscal year, was one of many programs that the secretive Strategic Capabilities Office has managed and is listed in a specific line item covering "Advanced Innovative Technologies." By the following fiscal cycle, this same set of funding also paid for work on land-based railguns, advanced conventional guns and ammo, advanced navigation systems, unspecified enhanced munitions and unmanned aerial vehicle payloads, and a naval drone swarm project called Sea Mob.

In the 2016 fiscal year, the Sea Dragon program completed designs for an in-water test apparatus and the ejection body and its associated hardware, as well as successfully completed a test of the weapon system on land. Unfortunately, subsequent budget requests do not list further accomplishments for the program.

We do know that the Pentagon expected to start underwater static testing of some portion of the system, as well as begin planning for a "sea-based tactical demonstration," by the end of the 2018 fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30, but its latest budget request for the 2019 fiscal year said that the new funds would go to continued planning for that live-fire test.

The Pentagon asked for nearly $150 million in total to support that work, as well finishing underwater static testing, building a sea-based launch support test site, and continued analysis of the conceptual kill chain associated with the weapon system. This is less than half of the money the U.S. military requested for Sea Dragon for the 2018 fiscal year, but the budget documents note that this was a product of cost savings they had achieved by buying extra long-lead time components in advance.

We have talked regularly and at great lengths about China's increasing naval capabilities on virtually every level. We have also talked for years about America's lack of investment in anti-ship missile systems, which the Pentagon is now working hard to counteract. But there is no existing supersonic anti-ship cruise missile in America's inventory. Few close U.S. allies possess similar weapons either, with the focus being on low-observability, networking, advanced targeting capabilities and so on, not high-speed.


Russia, on the other hand, has focused for decades on developing supersonic and now even hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, which are seen as a major threat to American warships. China has also worked hard to independently perfect the anti-ship ballistic missile, with the medium-range DF-21D and a version of the intermediate-range DF-26 becoming one of some of the most potent anti-access threats to American Carrier Strike Groups operating in the Indo-Pacific Theater.

So if no supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles exist in the Pentagon's inventory, or are even deep in development, what is this 'existing' weapon?

Identifying the mystery weapon

This weapon could be one of a number of concepts we identify below. But to start, a submarine-launched version of the SM-6 multi-role missile seems like the most conventional possibility. This is not a cruise missile, but the designation stated in the Washington Post's article could be just a due to the writer's lack of knowledge of existing weapon systems and their capabilities or just a misinterpretation of what is clearly a fairly opaque program.

The SM-6, which you can read all about in this recent profile we published on it, can be launched from the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems found on American destroyers and cruisers. In its latest form, it is fully networked, allowing it to receive targeting data from a variety of platforms, including airborne, ground-based, or surface-based sensor nodes. This concept is called Cooperative Engagement Capability/Naval Integrated Fire Control CEC/NIFC and it is one of the most important concepts the sea-going force is trying to implement at this time.
Although it was designed primarily as a surface-to-air weapon to be used against air-breathing threats and ballistic missiles during their terminal stage of flight, the SM-6 has an increasingly potent long-range anti-ship and a land-attack capability able to promptly strike targets over long distances. The fact that it flies at very high speeds on a ballistic-like track instead of a flat cruise missile like flight profile makes it especially hard for enemies to defend against.

Most of America's nuclear fast attack submarines and all its guided missile submarines have 'strike length' vertical launch cells similar to the Mark 41 VLS, that are used to house BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
A new arrangement, with two large hatches that cover a number of launch tubes and can be more easily adapted to different weaponry, is now being fielded on latest Virginia class submarines. Soon boats equipped with the Virginia Payload Module, which carries four of these large modular missile bays, will be under construction.

These same cells currently used for Tomahawk cruise missiles could be configured to house an altered SM-6-booster combination capable of launching the missile submerged without destroying the launch cell. If such an arrangement were developed and implemented, the variety and flexibility of firepower that America's submarine force would possess would greatly increase.
Because the SM-6 is networked and doesn't rely on organic sensors installed on its firing platform for targeting, submarines could even act as clandestine launch platforms for anti-aircraft attacks. This would allow for more vulnerable assets, like E-2D Hawkeyes, MQ-4C Tritons, P-8 Poseidons, and powerful radar-packing surface combatants to stand off at long ranges, using their sensor's great reach—outside the range of their own or nearby weapons—to their advantage and remotely ordering up attacks on enemy ships and aircraft by surprise.

The unique list of information Chinese hackers stole from the Navy contractor also points to such a system, which would rely on electromagnetic threat libraries, crypto-communications, and a wide variety of sensors for detecting and engaging threats.

Raytheon, the company who makes the SM-6, has a long history of providing tailored weapons for American submarines, and some non-traditional programs have recently seemed to disappear into the realm of deep classification. For instance, the initiative to arm Navy subs with AIM-9X air-to-air missiles as a short-range last-line of defense against prowling anti-submarine warfare aircraft. That program went as far as being successfully tested before going dark, which you can read all about it in this past feature of ours.

It is also possible that the Washington Post article's author was wrong about the missile's supersonic capability, which would point to fielding an advanced anti-ship cruise missile like Lockheed's very stealthy and smart Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) aboard submarines. Yet this would probably be a less covert affair developmentally speaking. But such a weapon would be especially useful when combined with the SM-6—or another high-speed anti-ship weapon—allowing for long-range, multi-layer attacks on enemy flotillas. Also, the Navy, and its submarines will be getting a long-range, subsonic, anti-ship capability via the Block IV Tactical Tomahawk.

It's more likely that his weapon could actually be LRASM-B, or at least an evolutionary relative of it. LRASM-B was being developed alongside the subsonic LRASM-A around the turn of the decade and would have performance nearing Mach 3, operating in a similar fashion as the Russian-Indian developed BrahMos anti-ship missile.
Development work continued on LRASM-B until around 2013 when it was officially passed over. It is very possible that this design was brought back to life under the shadowy Sea Dragon program, with a focus on submarines as a launch platform, not ships. The budgetary dates and what was mentioned in the Washington Post article would certainly support this possibility as well.

Maybe even more promising is the possibility that this is actually the product of a supposedly defunct 2000s initiative to create a high-speed cruise missile dubbed Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS for short. This weapon was all about hitting time-sensitive targets very quickly with little preparation, being able to fly at high altitudes and at speeds approaching Mach 4, obliterating its target with submunitions, a high-explosive warhead, or a penetrating warhead within about 30 minutes time at its maximum range.
This Lockheed-led initiative built on the Skunk Works' experience with the D-21 drone and was supported by the Office of Naval Research and NASA. It was funded throughout the 2000s, had successful payload delivery tests on the jet sled, its engine was built by Rolls Royce, and was approaching a complex flight demonstration phase when it disappeared. This could have been due to budget cuts that happened around the turn of the decade, but maybe it was revived in 2013, adapted for the anti-ship mission, and deep in development in updated form by 2015. It's also worth noting that a submarine-launched capability was part of the program's initial vision.
Adding to the case that RATTLRS may have been reborn in secret is this tidbit of information brought to us by our good friend Stephen Trimble's twitter feed. Apparently, the Navy has been showing off a model of this exact concept just months ago without any real explanation as to why:

Finally, the mystery missile could be a hypersonic missile, not a supersonic missile, for the Ohio class submarine, which the Navy is quietly developing and has test flown fairly recently. Still, the Pentagon has openly discussed these and other hypersonic tests recently, so it's not exactly top secret. Also, this wouldn't be a variation of an existing system as described in the Washington Post article. Fielding such a system operational by 2020 also seems remarkably ambitious, but it may be possible and certainly, China has an extreme interest in hypersonic technologies.

These are just the clearest possibilities for what this weapon could be. It's also possible that it is another weapon system clandestinely developed to a certain degree in the past, and brought back into development due to the changing nature of the world by the middle of this decade. During the mid2000s, time-sensitive strike was such a big deal due to the Global War on Terror that numerous programs existed that never seemed to go anywhere—at least publically.

Loose bits sink ships

Regardless of the exact identity of this weapon system, the idea that the Navy—or at least one of its contractors—lost so much detailed information on what could be one of its most promising and critical weapon systems, as well as the infrastructure that supports it, couldn't have come at a worse time. China is pumping huge sums of money into its maritime warfare programs and fortifying its "fortress" like anti-access/area-denial strategy that will make it harder and harder for America's surface fleet to operate anywhere near striking distance of the Chinese mainland. With this in mind, submarines remain among the most important tools for breaking down this anti-access bubble so that more vulnerable assets can move closer to potential targets and strategic areas. What's worse is that with detailed info in hand, China is likely going to work hard to replicate this capability, not devise a defense against it.

Above all else, this is another terrible reminder about how the Defense Department and the industrial complex that feeds it remains its own worst enemy when it comes to securing highly detailed information about its most critical and costly weapon systems. At some point, the decision has to be made that networks that are not air-gapped and are connected to the outside world in some fashion are not secure enough to gamble such sensitive information on. Physical espionage is a big enough threat to deal with as it is, and the U.S. has failed miserably at defending against electronic espionage using convenient network architecture.
Coming to terms with this reality will mean it will become more time consuming, expensive, and tougher overall to develop new weapon systems. Distributing programs to sites located across the U.S. will instantly become a major issue. But what's the point in the U.S. developing any of these systems if in the end it is just developing them for its number one technological competitor as well?

And the fact that China doesn't have to pay billions upon billions of dollars for this intellectual property—they can steal for virtually nothing—isn't only a loss to American national security, but it actually provides the enemy with a major fiscal edge. And that edge is already being exploited in front of our very eyes on an increasingly unprecedented scale.

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com
© 2018 Time Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Lots of photos at the link.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21 ... e-u-s-navy
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Seth Rich

Postby kinderdigi » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:15 am

Q Anon time capsule 15 June 2018



OIG Report: Trump’s plan is a lethal steamroller… Learn why Comey won’t sleep well tonight.

reddit | this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2018

This is a quick update. I will write more about this in the coming days. I just want to clear the air about the OIG report not finding political bias from James Comey and what it really means. Those who are not familiar with the case, at primary analysis, may be deceived by MSM and think this is some kind of victory for Comey. Well, no. It’s not. It’s actually a disaster!

I will explain.

Look at these two tweets from Trump: Imgur. These tweets represent the two angles from which Trump can attack Comey: political and procedural. Is the political angle efficient? No. The most you can get from it is name calling. And this is what Comey knew. He tried to pull Trump to the political battlefield with his book, his tweets and insulting interviews. Trump knew better. He knew the political angle was a dead end. He would tweet from time to time because he is Trump but he knew trying to emphasize Comey’s political bias would not be fruitful. Why? Read this article from CNN, which did its homework back in October 2016 to assess possible damages in relation to the Hatch Act. The important part of the article is here: Imgur. As you can see, proving Comey’s political bias would only trigger disciplinary measures. Irrelevant since Comey was already fired!

So? Let the IG give Comey something costless and that Comey does not need: political equidistance and let’s kill two birds with the same stone. Did you guess which other bird was taken care of here? If the report determines Comey was not politically driven when he exonerated Hillary, then it is also implicitly positioning that Trump was not politically driven when he fired him. Especially if Sessions “forced” Rosenstein to create the paper trail advising him to do so… Lethal…

So? Trump needs to attack Comey through the procedural angle. And this is the primary function of the OIG report.

Why is it relevant to attack Comey? Because of this: Imgur. Comey is among the 13 Angry who used a private email address. Q asks in this Q559: @what? What do you think? Comey used the same domain Hillary used, to conduct the same business she was conducting. Q has it all. I explained this in a previous post, I will repeat it: it’s right here:

Q701 Top 10 player [here now]. 50.22.218.5 Q

Q is telling us he was physically in the place where this IP is located. After digging, we found out the following:
1) 50.22.218.5 is the IP for Softlayer Technologies.
2) The server that hosted clintonemail.com in 2009 had IP 209.62.20.200 and was associated to ThePlanet.com now known as SoftLayer and acquired by IBM a few years back. source.

Q was telling us as early as in Q701 that he had all the goods about the top 10 players who used this server to sell the US to the highest bidders. Q gave out this information in early February! All this time was used by IG Horowitz to polish a damning legal case he started building way back and that no one involved will escape from. It will be the END. It will be a disaster. And Comey knows it.

Now you see it: if the Comey domino falls, you get to the private server, you get to Clinton, you get to Obama, you get to the core of the Deep State.

For this to happen, you need to resurrect the Clinton server investigation. And this can only happen if you have clearly shown there were process irregularities in the past. Hence the super clean OIG report that has now dismissed political bias and is exclusively focusing on procedures and protocol.

Icing on the cake:

Q1497 POTUS in possession of (and reviewing): 1. Original IG unredacted report. 2. Modified IG unredacted report [RR version]. 3. Modified IG redacted report [RR version]. 4. IG summary notes re: obstruction(s) to obtain select info (classified). [#3 released tomorrow] [SEC: FBI/DOJ handling of HRC email investigation] [[RR]] Who has the sole ability to DECLAS it all?

Now that Rosenstein has redacted the report to cover his tracks, these tracks:

Q1470 When the info is released [RR] no more.

Trump is now in position to declassify whatever he sees fit for the whole world to see. He is now in position to say: look what he redacted, look what he did and tried to hide from the world.

While Trump will be debating on when to declassify, Q opens this window for McCabe and all the others who would want to convert:

Q1455 You have a choice. SIS 'good' agents. The time is now. Contact window(s) [GOOD]Biblical. Q

Lethal.

Q1122 TRUST SESSIONS. TRUST WRAY. TRUST KANSAS. TRUST HOROWITZ. TRUST HUBER. Q



Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2018 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening ... h=9c9f36a3
kinderdigi
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:50 am

Previous

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests