HOW to IMMEDIATELY DISPROVE RUSSIAN HACKING

COURTESY of NSA WHISTLEBLOWER BILL BINNEY
http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Interview-the-original-NSA-whistleblower
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/creator-nsas-global-surveillance-system-calls-b-s-russian-hacking-report.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/11/70011.html
How to Instantly Prove or Disprove Russian Hacking
by WashingtonsBlog  /  November 14, 2017

“It’s newsworthy that CIA head Mike Pompeo recently met with Bill Binney – who designed the NSA’s electronic surveillance system – about potential proof that the DNC emails were leaked rather than hacked. It’s also noteworthy that the usual suspects – Neocon warmongers such as Max Boot – have tried to discredit both Binney and Pompeo. But there’s a huge part of the story that the entire mainstream media is missing. Specifically, Binney says that the NSA has long had in its computers information which can prove exactly who hacked the DNC … or instead prove that the DNC emails were leaked by a Democratic insider. Remember – by way of background – that the NSA basically spies on everyone in America … and stores the data long-term.

After the story of Pompeo’s meeting with Binney broke, Binney told Washington’s Blog:

Here’s what they would have from the programs you list [i.e. NSA’s Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney spying programs, which Edward Snowden revealed] plus hundreds if not thousands of trace route programs embedded in switches in the US and around the world.

First, from deep packet inspection, they would have the originator and ultimate recipient (IP) of the packets plus packet series 32 bit number identifier and all the housekeeping data showing the network segments/path and time to go though the network.

 

And, of course, the number of packet bits. With this they would know to where and when the data passed. From the data collection, they would have all the data as it existed in the server taken from.  That’s why I originally said if the FBI wanted Hillary’s email, all they have to do is ask NSA for them. All this is done by the Narus collection equipment in real time at line rates (620 mbps [mega bits per second,] for the STA-6400 and 10 gbps [giga bits per second] for the Insight equipment).

 

Binney explained what these numbers mean:  Each Narus Insight device can monitor and record around 1,250,000 emails each second … or more than 39 trillion emails per year. Wired reported in 2006:

Whistle-blower Klein allegedly learned that AT&T was installing Narus boxes in secure, NSA-controlled rooms in switching centers around the country.

Binney told us there are probably 18 or so Narus recording systems throughout the U.S. deployed by the NSA at AT&T facilities, drawing our attention to the following NSA document leaked by Edward Snowden:

And this AT&T graphic:

(Binney has figured out their locations from publicly-available sources. He has also mapped out similar monitoring systems at Verizon facilities.) Binney also sent me hard-to-find company literature for Narus.  Here are some interesting excerpts:

Narus Insight …

  • Provides full visibility into network traffic
  • Analyzes at macro or micro level targeting specific or aggregate full-packet data for forensic analysis

And:

Universal data collection from links, routers, soft switches, IDS/IPS, databases, etc. provides total network view across the world’s largest IP networks.

 

Binney also pointed me towards a couple of network engineering principles that show that figuring out who hacked the emails (or proving they were leaked) is well within NSA’s capabilities. Initially, when data is transmitted online, it is sent using the TCP/IP Packet format.  Put simply, data is not sent in a vacuum, but rather as part of a bundle containing a lot of other information. Here’s the TCP part of the bundle:

And here’s the IP part of the bundle:

So any data analyst can learn a tremendous amount about the source address of the sender, the destination address of the receiver and a boatload of other information by using a “packet sniffer” to  inspect the “packets” of information being sent over the web. Additionally, it’s simple to conduct “traceroute” searches. “Traceroute” is a computer network diagnostic tool for displaying the route and measuring transit delays of packets across an Internet Protocol network. Wired reported in 2006:

Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record,” says Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California, company. “We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls.”

So NSA can easily use basic packet sniffers and traceroutes, and see this. Remember, Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails:

Binney told us:

Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct… You can tell from the network log who is going into a site.  I used that on networks that I had.  I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network…

 

Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things.  Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries.  But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

He explained:

If it were the Russians, NSA would have a trace route to them and not equivocate on who did it.  It’s like using “Trace Route” to map the path of all the packets on the network.  In the program Treasuremap NSA has hundreds of trace route programs embedded in switches in Europe and hundreds more around the world.  So, this set-up should have detected where the packets went and when they went there.

 

He added:

As Edward Snowden said, once they have the IP’s and/or other signatures of 28/29 [the supposed Russian hacking groups] and DNC/HRC/etc. [i.e. the DNC and Hillary Rodham Clinton], NSA would use Xkeyscore to help trace data passing across the network and show where it went. [Background.]

 

In addition, since Wikileaks is (and has been) a cast iron target for NSA/GCHQ/etc for a number of years there should be no excuse for them missing data going to any one associated with Wikileaks… Too many words means they don’t have clear evidence of how the data got to Wikileaks.

 

And he stressed:

If the idiots in the intelligence community expect us to believe them after all the crap they have told us (like WMD’s in Iraq and “no we don’t collect data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans”) then they need to give clear proof of what they say. So far, they have failed to prove anything. Which suggests they don’t have proof and just want to war monger the US public into a second cold war with the Russians. After all, there’s lots and lots of money in that for the military-industrial-intelligence-governmental complex of incestuous relationships…

 

If you recall, a few years ago they pointed to a specific building in China that was where hacks on the US were originating. So, let’s see the same from the Russians. They don’t have it. That’s why they don’t show it. They want to swindle us again and again and again. You cannot trust these intelligence agencies period.

 

And he told Newsweek:

U.S. officials “know how many people [beyond the Russians] could have done this but they aren’t telling us anything. All they’re doing is promoting another cold war.”

Binney … compared allegations about Russian hacks to previous U.S. fabrications of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the bombing of North Vietnam in 1964. “This is a big mistake, another WMD or Tonkin Gulf affair that’s being created until they have absolute proof” of Russian complicity in the DNC hacks, he charged during a Newsweek interview. He noted that after the Kremlin denied complicity in the downing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1983, the U.S. “exposed the conversations where [Russian pilots] were ordered to shoot it down.” Obama officials “have the evidence now” of who hacked the DNC, he charged. “So let’s see it, guys.“

 

NSA either doesn’t have solid evidence of Russian hacking of DNC emails – which means the Russians didn’t do it – or those with the power to demand NSA produce the evidence simply haven’t asked the right questions.”

PREVIOUSLY

WARRANTLESS SPOOFING
https://spectrevision.net/2012/07/06/listening-in/
HOW to RUN a TRACEROUTE (cont.)
https://spectrevision.net/2008/02/18/how-to-run-a-traceroute-cable-cut-conspiracies/
SEXUAL BLACKMAIL in GOVERNMENT
https://spectrevision.net/2016/10/14/blackmail-uber-alles/

CLEAN MONEY


“When Trump Tower was built, as David Cay Johnston reports in The Making of Donald Trump, it was only the second high-rise in New York that accepted anonymous buyers.”

HOT / DIRTY MONEY LAUNDERING
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303785-cotton-clinton-foundation-one-of-worlds-largest-money
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/01/who-tony-podesta-and-why-he-under-scrutiny-bob-muellers-russia-investigation/821166001/
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/paul-manafort-is-accused-of-money-laundering-what-is-it-and-how-do-you-do-it-2017-11-02
by Leslie Albrecht / 11.02.2017

“In addition to conspiring against the United States and failing to report foreign bank accounts, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign manager, is charged with laundering more than $18 million and sending more than $75 million through offshore accounts. (Manafort’s lawyer has called the charges “ridiculous.”)

Of course, that’s a lot of money, but money laundering is so prevalent worldwide that Manafort’s alleged scheme makes him look like small potatoes, said Jeffrey Robinson, author of “The Laundrymen.” The top money launderer for Mexican drug kingpin El Chapo laundered $300 million to $400 million a year for a total of $1 billion over the course of a decade, according to Mexican law enforcement.

The practice of making so-called “dirty money” clean has ballooned in the last couple of decades, and these days some $1.25 trillion to $1.5 trillion is probably circling the globe looking to get clean, Robinson estimates. “It’s out of hand,” he said. “The people who own this money are actually the most powerful special interest group in the world.”

What is money laundering?
The first step in money laundering is to commit a crime that makes you some money — a lot of money. Only people who have a bunch of cash they’ve made through illicit means need to launder money. The process takes “dirty money” — ill-gotten gains — and turns it into “clean” money that appears to be legitimately earned.

Authorities say Manafort acted as an unregistered agent for a foreign government (Ukraine) and failed to pay taxes on the income he earned doing that. Manafort and his associate Rick Gates allegedly earned “tens of millions,” and, over the course of a decade, allegedly used several corporations, bank accounts and partnerships to hide the Ukrainian payments from U.S. authorities. (Read the full indictment here.)


Why do people have to launder their money?
Though spending large sums of cash would seem to be as American as singing the National Anthem, it is almost impossible to do so without attracting the attention of the government and law enforcement — even if you’re a law abiding citizen. Every time someone spends $10,000 or more in cash in the U.S. — in some cities, like New York, the amount is lower — the transaction is reported to authorities.

Banks, casinos, sellers of gold and jewelry, even mortgage lenders and insurance companies must file what are called “suspicious activity reports” with financial crime investigators. They review the reports and look for red flags. Beyoncé and Jay-Z walking into an auto dealership to drop a pile of cash on a new car doesn’t raise eyebrows, but Joe Shmoe who’s unemployed and hasn’t paid taxes in several years would probably get a second look, said Kevin Sullivan, a former New York state police investigator who used to read the suspicious activity reports.

Large amounts of cash wasn’t an issue for Manafort — he allegedly used wire transfers from offshore accounts to access his money. But cash can be a burden for drug traffickers and others who deal in dollar bill-intensive enterprises: $1 million in $100 bills weighs about 22 pounds and stacks about 8 to 10 feet high, Robinson noted. “You can’t get them into an attache case the way James Bond did,” Robinson said. “You have a bulk problem. If you’re a drug trafficker, your friends will steal it from you. So you have to get into the banking system.”

How do people launder money?
“You work very hard for your illegal money and you want to enjoy the fruits of it. You have to seem like a legit guy. The government is watching you,” said Chris Mathers, author of “Crime School: Money Laundering.” In Manafort’s case, authorities allege he used shell companies (which he controlled, but weren’t linked to his name) to funnel millions into accounts in the Seychelles, Cyprus and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Using the shell companies, he wired the money into the U.S. to buy real estate in New York and Virginia, then took out mortgages on the properties to get cash, authorities say. He also allegedly paid for a “lavish lifestyle,” spending millions on high-end rugs, antiques, clothes and upgrades on a house in the Hamptons. Bills for the those items were paid by the shell companies.

Other classic money laundering techniques:

• Trade price manipulation
Let’s say a drug dealer makes $1 million selling heroin. Instead of putting the money in the bank, the dealer creates a fictitious company and uses it to buy 200 Rolex watches at $5,000 each. He ships the watches overseas, but on the ship’s bill of lading, he lists them as fake watches worth little money. Once the watches reach their destination, a partner in that country sells them at their full price, and the dealer recoups his $1 million.

• Commingling dirty money with clean money
This method is well-known to fans of the AMC TV show “Breaking Bad,” in which lead character Walter White and his wife laundered drug money by mixing it with money they made at a car wash they owned. To do so, they would ring up charges for say, 1,000 car washes in a single day, when in reality they had sold only 500 car washes that day. They would use their dirty money to pay for the fictitious car washes, which they could then claim as business income. The recent Netflix show “Ozark,” starring Jason Bateman as a financial adviser who launders money for a Mexican drug cartel, featured a similar plot line, captured in this handy how-to guide:

• “Smurfing”
With this older method, criminals with large sums of cash, say $1 million, would send 50 guys into 50 different banks to deposit $2,000 each.

‘It’s a good time to be in money laundering’
The same new technologies disrupting how we handle money in person and online are also affecting the money laundering business. “This is an industry that’s in flux with all the new technology that’s out there,” Sullivan said. “It’s a good time to be in money laundering.” Mobile payment systems, virtual currencies, and currencies used in online gaming all provide new territory for money launderers to mine, he said. But one positive for law enforcement is that high tech methods generally leave a trail of digital bread crumbs for investigators to follow.

Who does it?
Classic money launderers include terrorists, arms dealers and drug traffickers, but these days most of the dirty money around the world is linked to corporate and political corruption, Robinson said. One reason for its growing prevalence: prosecutors are increasingly reluctant to pursue money laundering cases. That’s because cases are time-consuming and sometimes very complicated to explain to a jury. And at the end, the accused may not go to jail, because he’ll probably cop a plea and pay a fine, Robinson said. 

“If you look at Mexico or Russia, you understand that dirty money is doing to these countries what it did to Colombia, which is pollute the political world,” Robinson said, noting that Medellin drug cartel leader Pablo Escobar influenced Colombia’s politics for years by “buying and selling” politicians. “It’s a very very destructive force,” he said. Another side effect? Money launderers don’t pay taxes on their money, which means governments are missing out on that tax revenue, and leaving the rest of us to foot the bill.

What skills does money laundering involve?
Like many jobs, being a successful money launderer depends on who you know. Just like we use professional mechanics to fix our cars, sophisticated criminal groups use professional money brokers to fix their money-washing problems. It also helps to know good accountants, have contacts at financial institutions, and most of all, have highly skilled lawyers who can help create shell companies that are structured to leave no trace of their true owners.

Lawyers are important because in some jurisdictions they’re not required to report unusual financial transactions the way banks and other institutions are, Mathers said. And what happens between them and their clients is privileged information, he added. “In order to launder money, you need human beings,” Mathers said. “You need cooperation from other people, particularly attorneys. You can’t launder effectively without attorneys, period.”

PREVIOUSLY

BLACK GOLD SLUSH FUNDS
https://spectrevision.net/2014/12/19/black-gold/
MODERN ART PRICES EXPLAINED
https://spectrevision.net/2015/11/06/modern-art-prices-explained/

NARCO-PHILANTHROPY
https://spectrevision.net/2015/02/27/narco-philanthropy/
NAZI COCAINE MONEY
https://spectrevision.net/2016/12/22/nazi-cocaine-money/

TITLES of NOBILITY AMENDMENT
https://spectrevision.net/2016/09/22/cornered-markets/
TRUE CRIME
https://spectrevision.net/2013/01/18/true-crime/

DoD & HUD ‘LOST’ $21 TRILLION

WRONGFUL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
https://www.thenation.com/article/heres-where-your-tax-dollars-for-defense-are-really-going/
https://dillonreadandco.com/hud-is-a-sewer/
https://solari.com/blog/dod-and-hud-missing-money-supporting-documentation/
https://solari.com/blog/the-missing-money-19-trillion-in-undocumentable-adjustments-and-counting-with-dr-mark-skidmore/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
http://www.mintpressnews.com/cooking-books-dod-hud-defrauded-taxpayers-of-21-trillion-from-1998-to-2015/232905/
Cooking Books: DOD, HUD Defrauded Taxpayers Of $21 Trillion From 1998 To 2015
by Whitney Webb / October 06th, 2017

“Last year, a Reuters article brought renewed scrutiny to the budgeting practices of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), specifically the U.S. Army, after it was revealed that the department  had “lost” $6.5 trillion in 2015 due to “wrongful budget adjustments.” Nearly half of that massive sum, $2.8 trillion, was lost in just one quarter. Reuters noted that the Army “lacked the receipts and invoices to support those numbers [the adjustments] or simply made them up” in order to “create an illusion that its books are balanced.”

Officially, the DOD has acknowledged that its financial statements for 2015 were “materially misstated.” However, this was hardly the first time the department had been caught falsifying its accounting or the first time the department had mishandled massive sums of taxpayer money. The cumulative effect of this mishandling of funds is the subject of a new report authored by Dr. Mark Skidmore, a professor of economics at Michigan State University, and Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of housing.

“Losing” the equivalent of the national debt
Their findings are shocking. The report, which examined in great detail the budgets of both the DOD and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), found that between 1998 and 2015 these two departments alone lost over $21 trillion in taxpayer funds. The funds lost were a direct result of “unsupported journal voucher adjustments” made to the departments’ budgets.

According to the Office of the Comptroller, “unsupported journal voucher adjustments” are defined as “summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled. Often these journal vouchers are unsupported, meaning they lack supporting documentation to justify the adjustment [receipts, etc.] or are not tied to specific accounting transactions.” The report notes that, in both the private and public sectors, the presence of such adjustments is considered “a red flag” for potential fraud.

The amount of money lost is truly staggering. As co-author Fitts noted in an interview with USA Watchdog, the amount unaccounted for over this 17 year period amounts to “$65,000 for every man, woman and child resident in America.” By comparison, the cost per taxpayer of all U.S. wars waged since 9/11 has been $7,500 per taxpayer.

The sum is also enough to cover the entire U.S. national debt, which broke $20 trillion less than a month ago, and still have funds left over. What’s more, the actual amount of funds lost — measured at $21 trillion – is likely to be much higher, as the researchers were unable to recover data for every year over the period, meaning the assessment is incomplete.

While the sheer amount of money lost is shocking enough, also troubling is the fact that such fraudulent behavior on the part of DOD and HUD has been accepted by the federal government for years. In fact, Reuters notes that the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) refers to the preparation of the Army’s year-end statements as “the grand plug” — where “plug” is accounting jargon for the insertion of made-up numbers. In addition, in 2015, DFAS was unable to accurately put together the year-end statements for the department, as more than 16,000 financial data files had been erased from its computer system.

Furthermore, the Department of Defense has, unlike other government departments, not been subjected to annual audits and had merely been “hoping” to successfully meet the requirements for an audit by the end of September 2017. This deadline was not met — a failure that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) foreshadowed back in 2011, based on the fact that the military has not been able to implement a standardized system allowing it to know how much money it has and where it is going.

The GAO has raised the alarm on this issue for over 25 years, but its concern has continually fallen on deaf ears. A likely reason for the lack of oversight, despite the well-known nature of the department’s grave accounting problems, is the fact that weapons manufacturers and government contractors are the largest beneficiaries of DOD budgeting errors and waste. Given those weapon manufacturers alone spent nearly $30 million on donations to political campaigns last year, Congress and much of the federal government are likely unwilling to bite the hand that feeds – even if it means ignoring massive and systemic fraud.”

Summary Report on [DOD, HUD] Unsupported Journal Voucher Adjustments

PREVIOUSLY

U.S. COMPTROLLER RESIGNS
https://spectrevision.net/2008/04/03/us-comptroller-general-resigns/
EXCHANGE STABILIZATION SLUSH FUND
https://spectrevision.net/2015/04/17/exchange-stabilization-slush-fund/
the UFO ECONOMY
https://spectrevision.net/2014/08/24/the-ufo-economy/