General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLooks like cyber security experts have already found suspicious activity on the old Joy Blog
Link to tweet
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Bullshit. They can't find their way out of a paper bag without Russian help.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,868 posts)HipChick
(25,485 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Because the posts in question exist in multiple web archives.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)So the "hack" happened in 2007, when Reid had an active blog, and she never noticed that there were posts she hadn't written? Sorry, not buying it.
peabody
(445 posts)you fail to take other evidence into account. Why were there no comments? Why doesnt any of her followers remember them?
I doubt, that a lot of people actually knew her back then in her blogger days.
-> which makes "a lack of evidence" =/= evidence.
.
+ few people here seem to understand how the Wayback Machine works.
The Wayback Machine is an automated script/robot which visits one homepage after the other, and "safes" its content.
Every time the WbM does that, it saves the new version additionally to the old versions -> if changes were made, someone can see how a homepage changed over time, for example.
when someone looks at a homepage, saved by the WbM, someone can literally brows through history, with the exact dates those "snapshots" of that particular homepage were made.
Administrators of a homepage can prevent the WbM from doing that by adding rules to the homepage, which locks the WbM out.
Which is what they retroactively did... so the WbM had to remove everything.
So, Mrs. Reid & her "cyber security guy" claim, that she/her old blog got hacked.
Okay, let's say this is true that her Blog got hacked. How would that influence the Wayback Machine?
-- hint, it wouldn't.
Hackers, would have had to edit her blog back in the day, to look authentic.
That is the reason, people mock her online with #TimeTravelingHackers.
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)With all the speculation and noise going on, no one explains how it actually works
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Chris Butler at the Internet Archives~
When we reviewed the archives, we found nothing to indicate tampering or hacking of the Wayback Machine versions. At least some of the examples of allegedly fraudulent posts provided to us had been archived at different dates and by different entities.
They can confirm a page is archived, but they cannot confirm who did it.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...post could be inserted with false dates at any time and picked up at a later date by the Wayback machine.
The Joy Reid Saga: The Wayback Machine cannot guarantee authenticity
https://burningbird.net/the-joy-reid-saga-the-wayback-machine-cannot-guarantee-authenticity/#.WuCS9WkjH4U.twitter
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)you know how I know? Because the Internet Archive has TIMESTAMPS. It shows you the date a page was archived and lets you compare it with later snapshots if there is a revision. See here for instance: https://web.archive.org/web/20070218173925/https://blog.reidreport.com/2007/02/tim-hardaway-is-homophobe-and-so-are.html
progressoid
(49,992 posts)is on TV a whopping 4 hours a week. Her political influence is immense!!!
peabody
(445 posts)the whole scheme of things.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)peabody
(445 posts)who exactly brought down DU during the 2016 election but Im pretty sure if we are a target then so can Joy be.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)progressoid
(49,992 posts)Got any proof of that?
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Mueller has this under control.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Why we would he announce such a thing?
Clearly you don't believe me. But pretend you do for a moment. Why would someone announce the details of an investigation of a crime committed against you, when doing so would hurt that investigation?
progressoid
(49,992 posts)You said the Russians took down DU. If Skinner didn't announce that fact, then either you're making a wild-ass guess (like most everyone else on this thread), or you secretly work for the FBI and you just outed yourself with that little nugget of information.
Agent Mike, is that you?
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)It's a forum and we speculate and poke at the other side. Sometimes we exaggerate. I have no inside track...HOWEVER...
I laughed out loud at the Agent Mike suggestion. No I'm not agent Mike. It's been speculated on DU that agent mike is Mike Evanoff. I actually used to work with his brother. (I'm 100% serious and not making a joke here).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Evanoff
Mike's brother (not going to name him), works in private enterprise and we worked in the same dept for a few years.
It's a small world.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The rabid right is not like that. They dont let anything go. I am sure they would have the energy to clear every remote corner.
helmedon1974
(92 posts)I'm betting she's being considered for a daily show, since she guest hosts for everybody and she and Maddow get along great....which would make her supposed comments less credibly assigned.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)Which is interesting in itself.
If the Internet Archive is so certain that it was not hacked why are they blocking it now? In fact they are now blocking all Reid Report blog posts.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)which means someone added "x-norobots" or something to keep it from showing on the Internet Archive. (Which looks pretty suspicious.) And whoever manages Reid's defunct blog site did it; the Internet Archive did not.
Edit: here it is on an Internet Archive mirror: https://archive.is/SOR69
csziggy
(34,136 posts)They may have gotten tired of attempts to view the original blog post using up their bandwidth for a defunct (as you put it) blog site.
But thanks for the link to a working copy of the page. I'd read that blog post yesterday and don't see how it proves that Joy Reid was ever hopeless homophobic. In that post she is examining the social phenomenon and how people handle it in private and in public:
Does that make me homophobic? Probably. And I'm not exactly proud of it. But part of the intrinsic nature of "straightness" is that the idea of homosexual sex is ... well... gross ... even if you think that gay people are perfectly lovely individuals. For the record, I'm sure gay people think straight sex is gross, too, it's just that the nature of political correctness is that gay people are allowed to say straight sex is gross, but the reverse is considered to be patently homophobic.
<SNIP>
Further, as an African-American, you're actually held to an even higher tolerance standard, which may or may not be fair. But as LeBatard himself noted, what Hardaway said probably met with quiet, embarrassed agreement on some level by many other players, who are now looking to their left and right, and perhaps quietly, and uneasily, wondering if the guy showering next to them is sneaking a peek at their naughty bits.
It's not pretty, but it's for real.
https://archive.is/SOR69#selection-641.0-645.35
She did not express the original anit-gay sentiment, she is examining it. Ten, twelve years ago many people were less comfortable with homosexuals than they are now. Most people, as President Obama said, have evolved on the issue and would not be as antagonistic to other people's life styles as Tim Hardaway was in the comments Reid was discussing.
(The other post that was put up yesterday about "lesbian hairstyles" read to me as satirical, not as a anti-lesbian screed. If you want to post a link to that one, I will review it and think about it, too.)
Yes, Joy Reid did say that she was probably homophobic - but that is in the context of someone brought up in a Southern Christian family. I know a lot of people who were taught hatred of "the others" that have grown out of it. My mother was raised by Southern Baptists to hate black people but she grew out of it and worked hard in her community to bring awareness of black history to the town.
Watching Joy Reid today I expect she has grown out of her acknowledged homophobia.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)helmedon1974
(92 posts)That's not how it works, Team Reid asked the Wayback Machine, that they remove it.
Wayback Machine decline the request.
-> later Team Reid found a loophole, how they themselves were able to retroactivly remove it. By adding rules for robots, if they can access a site.
example. google.com also uses a lot of crawlers to search a homepage... this get's added into their database, which people then can use to find stuff...
and like with the Wayback Machine, homepage administrators can also lock out google crawlers -> so a homepage get's invisible for google.
+ Team Reid DID NOT claim, that the Wayback Machine got hacked. They only say that HER blog got hacked.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)For some reason, your interlocutor is unwilling to answer that very simple, straightforward question.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Therefore any "hack" would have had to have happened a decade ago or more. If a web archive crawled a page and captured the "hacked" blog post, the archived version would have a timestamp dating to the date of the supposed hack. Not to 2005, or 2006, or 2007. Yet the posts she claims were "hacked" have such timestamps. Therefore either the blog was hacked over a decade ago, the hackers are time-travellers, or the claim is not credible.
Mad_Mongol
(86 posts)What makes you think a time stamp can't be hacked? It's not like time stamps are block chained, nor were there 2 factor authentication (to my knowledge) for such.
Heck, if I were to smear someone online, the time stamp & metadata for the post/blog would be what I would hack, first.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Because that's what I'm talking about. The date it's archived is recorded. Unless you're claiming those servers were hacked, as well. Which seems awfully elaborate and implausible.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But, I was wrong.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and hacked multiple mirrors of the Internet Archive stored on independent servers? All to take down Joy Reid? Really? You think that's plausible?
helmedon1974
(92 posts)been hacked, could be or would be? What makes you think Joy Reid is or was the only target? I can think of many reasons to hack archives and the Library of Congress. The Pentagon has been hacked, so has the DNC and RNC. So has our power grid and local voter information. Why do you think any of what you say is implausible? This may have been sitting, waiting for an excuse to use it. Joy Reid isn't Rachel Maddow, but with Ingraham and Hannity taking heat and other right wing propagandists losing support it makes sense to go after a rising star if you can. I'll bet Reid is on the verge of getting a daily show and someone doesn't like that. It's bad enough we have a strong, intelligent lesbian dominating 9pm. Imagine a strong, intelligent black woman.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)trust in our systems, including our media.
This could be just the first successful demonstration of an attack like this.
Mad_Mongol
(86 posts)Are the archives on independent servers or are they members of a Hadoop stack? If they are members on a Hadoop stack (very probable) then modifying one will propagate to ALL.
If you need a primer on what a Hadoop stack, is. Go to the Caringo site www.caringo.com --They provide large volume storage solutions to the National Labs...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)That does not mean that all LOC data are stored on their own servers.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)Maybe they are intercepting the actual page requests and modifying the data in transit to make Reid look like a homophobe. How do we know that the electrons leaving the LOC servers are the same electrons we are receiving? Do you have proof that we are receiving bit-identical copies of the data from the server?
Come to think of it, how do we know that your posts aren't also being filtered by aliens. You could be agreeing with us, but those cunning hackers are intercepting the packets on the wire and modifying the data in transit.
I'm just asking old-fashioned investigative questions here.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)No, but you and your traveling companion apparently have proof that we are not.
That's curious, innit?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)would have been attacked.
And this could be the first of multiple attacks on Democratic or media figures. There's no reason to think this would be a one-off, especially if it is effective.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/26/media/joy-reid-hacking-fbi-investigation/index.html
But why stop at hacking her blog and all the internet archives. Maybe they have also placed moles in all the major IT companies who have installed filters to capture and modify all internet traffic in real-time to make Reid look bad. I mean, Reid is clearly important enough to be the trial run for a nation state-level cyberattack...
Or she could just be lying.
Maraya1969
(22,490 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There have been dozens of threads on this, and most of them are uncritical rah-rah-we must support a strong progressive voice nonsense. Sorry for not marching in lockstep.
Maraya1969
(22,490 posts)You are on a mission and people are noticing.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)If people weren't posting dozens of threads that wilfully ignore easily discoverable facts, then I wouldn't bother.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)also here: http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2018/04/2018-04-24-why-we-need-multiple-web.html
and here: http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/joy-ann-reids-i-was-hacked-story-doesnt-add-up.html
and here:
Link to tweet
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #18)
Post removed
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And the disputed and claimed-to-be-hacked posts exist in multiple web archives. And were archived over a decade ago.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,085 posts)They exist in archive pages that were captured nearly a decade ago.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)With the photoshopped ones being the helpful twitterbot's version fed to the right wing smear dude.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Except, that wasnt quite so.
To support the screenshot forgery allegation, Nichols pointed to six images in the @Jamie_Maz Twitter timeline that he said were definitely not written by Reid nor posted by a hacker, but instead were outright fabricated images of posts that never appeared on the site. The most obvious one was an instance whereits an easy one, itll stick in your head [@Jamie_Maz] says Joy made statements about Eddie Murphy. Its obviously false, she never made that claim.
Nichols said those six posts are nowhere to be found in the Internet Archive. But that is not true.
Further searching on the Internet Archive turned up the posts for all six of the screenshots Nichols described as fakes, including the one about Eddie Murphy. The Internet Archives records indicate they were retrieved and stored between 2006 and 2009. And all six are exactly as they appear in the screenshots. A random check of other screenshots attributed to the blog produced the same result: None of the images are faked or doctored.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims-by-joy-reids-cybersecurity-expert-fall-apart?ref=home?ref=home?ref=home?ref=home
mcar
(42,366 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)She has 2 HuffPost articles today....
"Joy Reids Hacking Claims Look Increasingly Unlikely
Only a pretty bizarre course of events would have led to those allegedly fraudulent homophobic blog posts.
By Hayley Miller"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joy-reid-blog-post-hacking_us_5ae0ae7ee4b02baed1b593b6
And...
"Joy Reid Drops Event Appearance Amid Scrutiny Over Hacking Claims
The MSNBC host was supposed to moderate a panel in New York City on Thursday.
By Hayley Miller" which contains this..."This time around, Reid has vehemently denied writing the posts, claiming her blog had been hacked. But as HuffPost reported, only a pretty bizarre course of events would have led to the allegedly fraudulent homophobic blog posts."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joy-reid-cancels-event_us_5ae1d916e4b055fd7fc90c67
Kingofalldems
(38,468 posts)Bonx
(2,065 posts)Azathoth
(4,611 posts)It's not a new development, folks.
peabody
(445 posts)Azathoth
(4,611 posts)It's a jumble of inconsistent theories, like a lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt.
1) There are other archives, including the Library of Congress, that have the timestamped pages, so the claim that they are new fabrications is false.
2) Screenshot manipulation has nothing to do with hacking her website. What that would mean is that someone hacked her site, then waited 12 years to pull up the hacked posts from archives, then took screenshots which he then manipulated digitally. It's nonsensical.
3) Posters here have already uncovered other comment-less posts from Reid's blog that were reposted to DU at the same time. So the silly argument that everything she posted had comments and anything without comments must be a forgery is false.
See here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10540836
peabody
(445 posts)No way these post would not have had comments and people who knew her then dont remember them. Thats real fishy right there.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)A post that was reposted here at DU and discussed so it couldn't have been fabricated later.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)Thats why none of the comments were archived with the blog posts.
One would think the cyber security expert would know this.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Which she has admitted to making and apologized for?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Where does the LOC archive of this blog come from?
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)Archive.today is another. But it's interesting how LOC doesn't seem to be good enough for you.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Better to just make assumptions, especially when you and your compatriot have such difficulty with answers.
BTW, archive.is and the LOC got these pages from archive.org.
Any others?*
*Rhetorical
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)I'll bet you would also believe in the moon landing if someone could just show you some honest proof it happened.
Incidentally, no, the LOC does not come from archive.org. It's a separate installation of the Wayback Machine code.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)As for me, I'm a prisoner of my antiquated investigative style.
Damn you, modern methods!
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)I'm starting to wonder where you were on the days these allegedly hacked posts were made. Do you have an alibi?
I'm just asking old-fashioned investigative questions.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)What kind of maven are you, anyway?
mythology
(9,527 posts)It's a claim, nothing more.
orangecrush
(19,597 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....right here.
Of course no one on this site has seen the data that the cyber security expert has seen.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)In the mean time, of course, another good Black female journalist has been thrown under the bus by the purity crowd.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Malcom Nance thinks this is all a hack as well.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)Set Up!