Comments on: Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1

By: Arrby

Arrby — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:25:38 +0000

The privatization of cyber weapons is disconcerting, but not suprising. The policy implications are obviously worth considering, as they are/were when we learned about the privatization of chemical weapons production (http://bit.ly/2o4nCHB). Welcome to corporatocracy.

By: Dead World Walking

Dead World Walking — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:07:16 +0000

‘strictly for profit’
Therein lies the psychopathic economic imperative, that is like a runaway train that’s gonna run out of rails.
And we’re the passsengers.

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 23:30:15 +0000

The scariest part of George Eliason’s article is that OSINT operators like Steve Emerson and Rita Katz make Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat project look like the rank amateurs they are when it comes to serving up lies and idiocy.
Oops, I might pre-empted GH Eliason’s discussion in Part 2 where he’s going to talk about the MH17 shootdown.

By: Norman Pilon

Norman Pilon — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 14:34:42 +0000

” The 17 Intel agencies need a ground up rebuild.”
No. The 17 Intel agencies don’t need a ground up rebuild so much as a hole in the ground.
And I rather think that it’s actually comforting that most of the so-called intel operations have been privatized as opposed to “centralized” under a single control structure. Why? Because therein at least lies the promise that ‘competition’ or “competing interests” between the various branches of these intelligence “agencies” holds out the promise of “factionalism” or “divisiveness” among the power elites themselves, that is to say, of a likelihood that the entire existing power apparatus or command structure will self-destruct.
And “that,” more than anything, is what needs to happen.