1. Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s
Paid Speeches to Goldman
Sachs Finally Leaked
Employee: Government Spy Program Could
Have Given a Hacker Access to
3. Election Fraud Concerns Extend Beyond Conspiracy
4. When Free Speech and German Law Collide on
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, October 8, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1
is about Hillary Clinton's extremely well paid speeches ($22 million)
to very rich bankers, but there sofar seems to be just one leaked
email; item 2 is about an ex-Yahoo employee with information about Yahoo that I somewhat doubt; item 3
is about the possibility of election fraud in the USA: I think it is
possible, but my guess is that it will not be important in the coming
elections (mostly because it is very difficult to check well); and item 4 is about "Fuckbook" that came out as favoring fascism in Germany, while it also actively discriminates people who were threatened with awfully cruel murders by fascists: I knew they were the extremely despicable dataminers, but this is new for me, although indeed it is not amazing, for dataminers.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working.
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked
This first item is by Lee Fang, Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons and Naomi
LaChance on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
This is not quite what I expected,
since these excerpts are not directly from Hillary and there
also seems to be just one mail ("an email from Tony Carrk").
Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s remarks
during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley,
and other groups were leaked
online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards
of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22
million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary
The excerpts are revealed
in an email from Tony Carrk, the research director of the Clinton
campaign, to John Podesta, the campaign chairman, and other top
It remains true (in my opinion, at least) that someone who
makes $22 million dollar in speeches for which she "was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech",
by people who will make or have made millions from her decisions, is
plainly corrupt, though I expect both Hillary Clinton and the
bankers who paid her $22 million dollars will have much to
disagree about that judgement, especially since there seems to be, so far, just one
Then again, given just that one mail, it seems Hillary was extremely
friendly to the bankers who paid her so much:
But the discussions were also an
opportunity for Clinton to speak candidly about policy, politics, and
her approach to governing.
Touching on her view of developing
financial regulations, Clinton declared to a crowd of Goldman Sachs
bankers that in order to “figure out what works,” the “people that know
the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the
At the Goldman Sachs Builders and
Innovators Summit, Clinton responded to a question from chief executive
Lloyd Blankfein, who quipped that you “go to Washington” to “make a
small fortune.” Clinton agreed with the comment and complained about
ethics rules that require officials to divest from certain assets
before entering government. “There is such a bias against people who
have led successful and/or complicated lives,” Clinton said.
But then that is all we are told,
on the basis of just one mail (it seems).
And it is not as if Hillary Clinton wasn't
asked to release the transcripts of her speeches to her fond
supporters, the rich bankers, for she was (repeatedly, also)
e.g. last February:
In February of this year, the New
York Times editorial board called
for Clinton to release her speech transcripts, declaring that voters
“have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.”
That is ("[a]ccording
to reports") her campaign staff decided that the
only opinions of the presidential candidates that ought
to be released to the public are those opinions of their
presidential candidate that show their presidential candidate as she desires
to be shown.
According to reports, the campaign
reviewed the speech transcripts but decided against releasing them out
of fear that she would appear too friendly to banks and other donor
The rest is private and should not be released, according to
Clinton's staff, that is.
I wonder whether Wikileaks will publish considerable excerpts from
Hillary's speeches to her rich supporting banking friends and will do
so before the presidential elections. (I don't know.)
2. Ex-Yahoo Employee: Government Spy Program Could Have
Given a Hacker Access to All Email
The second item is by Sam Biddle on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
I say, but I say so because I do not
know whether I believe the "ex-Yahoo employee", and I don't
because the story doesn't sound plausible. Then again,
Contrary to a denial
by Yahoo and a report
by the New York Times, the company’s scanning
program, revealed earlier this week by Reuters, provided the
government with a custom-built back door into the company’s mail
service — and it was so sloppily installed that it posed a
privacy hazard for hundreds of millions of users, according
to a former Yahoo employee with knowledge of the company’s
Despite this week’s differing media
accounts, this much isn’t disputed: In 2015, Yahoo provided the U.S.
government with the means to scan every single email that landed in
every single Yahoo Mail inbox. The scanning was kept an absolute secret
— and as this ex-Yahoo source describes, that meant keeping it a secret
from security personnel who came to believe it endangered Yahoo’s
hundreds of millions of unwitting customers.
part of it seems true: Yahoo did provide the U.S. government
with the means to scan every single email on its servers.
What seems less plausible to me is that (i) this scanning was kept "an absolute secret" "from security personnel", while (ii) what was installed seems to have been a
"sloppily installed" "root kit" that gave "a
third party complete, invisible control".
First, here is the evidence that what I said in point (ii) is true:
Essentially, according to the
Times’s report, Yahoo made its porn and virus scanner merely to
look for one more nasty thing (some sort of “signature”
pertaining to a state-sponsored terrorist group) while it was looking
anyway, as opposed to building an altogether new scanner (the
difference between an addition to your grocery shopping list and
separate trip). Both are indiscriminate mass searches with troubling
Fourth Amendment implications, but there are important differences:
According to the Yahoo alum, a mere “modification to [existing] mail
filters wouldn’t have raised a red flag … [the security
team] wouldn’t have been able to detect it in the first place.”
Rather, Yahoo’s security team had detected “something novel, like
something a hacker would have installed.” The team believed
it “was or looked like a root kit,” a piece of software installed
on a computer system to give a third party complete, invisible control.
In this case, according to the ex-Yahoo source, it was “a program
that runs on your servers that has access to incoming data.”
And second, here are my reasons to doubt
While I agree it may be
true, all we have are the words of an unidentified ex-Yahoo
employee, who fails to explain how "the security personnel"
could have been tricked in this way, and who also fails to
explain why what was installed - nevertheless, and behind all of the security's
personnel's back - was installed sloppily.
I'd like to know more (though I agree this
will probably be quite difficult).
3. Election Fraud Concerns Extend Beyond Conspiracy
The third item is by Bill Boyarski on Truthdig:
starts as follows:
Most of you are already sick of this
election and are looking forward to Nov. 8. But don’t count on it being
over after Election Day.
Donald Trump is already crying fraud.
People with Cold War memories are warning of Russian hackers disrupting
the election. Vote-counting systems are antiquated and often poorly
run. All this adds up to investigations and lawsuits alleging
miscounted votes and fraud stretching far beyond Election Day, and
making doubters even more skeptical of the results.
The combination of Trump’s paranoia and
fears of mysterious hackers are fuel for conspiracy theorists. But with
the rapid advance in computer technology and Russian hackers’ suspected
penetration of Democratic National Committee (DNC) files, even people
who don’t buy the conspiracy theories are alarmed.
Hm. I have repeatedly written about the
possibility that the American elections may be stolen somehow, by
manipulating the votes, and especially in states and districts where
the voting is electronic and not backed up by paper votes.
And while I think the possibility is quite
realistic, I also still do not have much good evidence about its
(possible) extent, and I doubt there are many who do.
Here is evidence that it is possible:
Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Democracy
Program at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for
in August: “In the last two weeks, there have been credible reports
that Russia is attempting to influence our elections by hacking into
the Democratic Party’s email server and other campaign files. These
reports are troubling. But an attack on our country’s voting machines,
once deemed far-fetched, is even more disturbing.”
Norden and other election experts cited
dangers in the use of voting machines, which don’t leave a countable
paper record of the votes cast. One threat could involve hackers
changing the count on machines, with no way to check the results after
the election. “In November, tens of millions of voters in 14 states,
including Pennsylvania and Virginia [battleground states], will vote on
paperless electronic voting machines,” Norden wrote.
And this is about its possible
extent and consequences:
A nationwide hack of American election
machinery is probably impossible. Elections are run by thousands of
local governments, loosely supervised by state governments. Each has
its own system, ranging from well-run to incompetent. But a hack of
electronic voting machines in a few crucial counties in key states is
not impossible. And that could affect a close presidential election.
is where it seems to stand:
voting fraud is possible; no, it cannot be checked on a nationwide
basis; nobody really knows how certain it is that electronic votes are
reported correctly; and it seems a few leaks in a few crucial counties
in key states may make a difference - but again (it seems) nobody really knows.
think election fraud will be a major issue these elections, not because
it may not happen, but because "the presidential elections" are too
murky, too variegated, and the real standards of safety and control are often unknown.
4. When Free Speech and German Law Collide on [Fuckbook]
The fourth and last item today is by Jan Fleischauer on Spiegel
This starts as follows (and I changed the
subject: I don't mind going to court about this, but I changed the subject to make it more difficult):
On February 20th, Berlin actress
Jennifer Ulrich posted a video on her [Fuckbook] page documenting
events in Clausnitz,
a small town in the eastern state of Saxony. The video shows residents
surrounding a bus filled with refugees and police pulling the terrified
passengers out in order to protect them from the angry mob. "I am very
ashamed right now of being German when I see the images from
Clausnitz," Ulrich wrote. "My blood freezes in my veins when I see such
inhumanity and hatred."
Ulrich has had a [Fuckbook] page since May 2013. She generally shares photos from films
she's working on or from public appearances and adds a nice comment.
Those interested in her posts tend to be either colleagues or fans.
But two days after the Clausnitz post, a
user going by the pseudonym Mario Weber posted a death threat on the
actress' page. "They should take a chainsaw to your shit-ugly feces
face," Weber wrote. "Ulrich, your life is worthless, just die." Another
post followed a few minutes later, no less direct. "The day of
reckoning will come, leftist scum, and then I will be there to
slaughter each and every one of you in the bloodiest way possible."
I say. Well... first of all I very
much dislike Fuckbook. Part of my reasons are here (from 2011), but while I did
know that Fuckbook assembles its billions by datamining, I did
not yet know it also favors fascism. 
Here is step 1 on why Suckerbug's
Fuckbook favors fascism:
Two days after Ulrich reported the post
about sawing her face up with a chainsaw, she received a response that
the post in question had been reviewed. The screening had determined
that the post had "not violated our community standards."
The company provided no further
explanation. Nor was it evident who had conducted the review or who had
answered her once it had been completed. Unlike other companies, [Fuckbook] declines to provide names
when interacting with users. As Ulrich would discover, there wasn't
even a telephone number to call with follow-up questions.
So anonymous fascists' threats that you
will be chainsawed "in the bloodiest way possible" is quite
permissible, according to Fuckbook's fascist censors.
Here is step 2 on why Suckerbug's
Fuckbook favors fascism:
She posted the answer from [Fuckbook] on her page together with
the question, "I wonder what this insanely friendly, apparently
right-wing user would have to write in order for [Fuckbook] to deem his comments worthy of deletion?" This time, the
company identified a violation of its terms. Ulrich received a message
from [Fuckbook] that her
posting had been deleted and she was admonished to acquaint herself
community standards. Then her page was blocked. When she tried to send
a note to a friend, a message popped up on her screen reading, "Your
account is temporarily unavailable."
So... if you friendly ask Fuckbook why
fascist murder threats are passed as permissible, then (i) that
post is deleted (and you're "admonished to
acquaint" yourself with Fuckbook's "community
standards" (that prefer fascists' murder threats) and (ii) both
your page and your message are also made "temporarily
unavailable", because - it seems -
you have not been friendly enough to the fascist who threatened
to murder you "in the bloodiest way possible".
Here is what is allowed on
Fuckbook by Fuckbook's anonymous fascist censors:
But you are not allowed to
question fascism on Fuckbook; you are not allowed to
protest against being threatened with cruel murder; and if you
do your account and your messaging are made "temporarily
But [Fuckbook] is a free-for-all, anything goes. You can express your wish
that the chancellor be hanged or threaten to kill the children of
parliamentarians. You can also disparage dissenters as "ticks," "lice,"
"trash" or "rubbish" and then muse on how this waste might be disposed
of at the dump.
There are pages calling for the refugees
in Germany to be sent to the gas chambers. Others incite people to set
refugee hostels on fire so that no other outsiders will dare to come to
Europe. You can find every conceivable presentation of violence,
boastful displays of the swastika and the glorification of the Nazi
dictatorship, concentration camps included.
All of this is publically accessible, even
Here is some more:
But even today, you don't have to
scratch far beneath the surface to find illicit content on [Fuckbook]. All you have to do is
type in the question, "Did Hitler have the Jews gassed?" The search
results include pages and entries claiming the Holocaust was invented
by the Jews and that Hitler was used as a scapegoat by "Holocaust super
liar Simon Wiesenthal."
That is Fascist Fuckbook for you. 
There is in fact a lot more on Spiegel, for the above is all
quoted from a much longer first part, while there also is a second
part, as long as the first part.
I only mention that there is considerably more on fascism in the second
all of which is forbidden under Germany's laws, but all of
which is permitted
by Fuckbook, that also is completely closed for any real criticism or
any real research or any real responsibility or any real accountability.
And this is a recommended article.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 For your information: My grandfather was murdered in a German
concentration-camp (that didn't exist
according to the fascists who are protected on Fuckbook) and my father
survived more than 3 years and 9 months of being imprisoned as a
"political terrorist" in four German concentration camps (that didn't exist according to the fascists who are
protected on Fuckbook).
O, and my father was the only communist ever to get knighted
in Holland while the Communist Party existed, and he got knighted for
designing and building an exhibition about the dangers of fascism.
But I must suppose - given the above - that fascism either did not exist according to Fuckbook or that if it did it was a major effort for the good, the humane, the kind and the friendly. And of course my father was a liar, according to Fuckbook's censors.