Oct 8, 2016

Crisis: Hillary Clinton, Ex-Yahoo Employee, Election Fraud, Fascist Fuckbook
Sections                                                                                     crisis index

Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman
     Sachs Finally Leaked

2. Ex-Yahoo Employee: Government Spy Program Could
     Have Given a Hacker Access to All Email

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.

A. This 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.

-- Constant part, for the moment --

B. 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 me, but it is possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my computer.

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 to see the last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. [1]

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.


1. Excerpts 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:

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 of state.

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 campaign officials.
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").

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 mail.

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 industry.”

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.”

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 interest 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.

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:

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 security practices.

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.

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,
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 the story:

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 Theorists

The third item is by Bill Boyarski on Truthdig:

This 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 Justice, wrote 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.

But this is where it seems to stand:

Yes, 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.

I don't 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 International:

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 [Fuckbook] 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. [2]

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 with [Fuckbook]'s 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 [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 by children.
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 unavailable".

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. [2]

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 part,
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.

[1]  Alas, 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 "xs4all" destroy (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 whatsoever for anyone).

[2] 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.

       home - index - summaries - mail