Comments by "oolong2" (@oolong2) on "Fox News Is Just Plain Lying About What’s In The Clinton Campaign Durham Report: Ryan Grim" video.

Sorry, but a string of public IP addresses is not "personal information" nor is it the "looking at files". People really have zero understanding of technology.
3
@Kehvan Sure I am, for a very long time. I said if I owned any of those things, I would have access to logs filled with strings of public IP addresses. So clearly, you're not paying attention to what I actually said. Fox News said they hacked, infiltrated, planted evidence and that it was just like Watergate. All those things were 100% lies. I'm not shilling for anybody. I just know that all political campaigns pay for opposition research and many companies and individuals are willing to do unscrupulous things for an easy paycheck. It doesn't matter if you are Clinton, Obama, Trump, Romney, etc. They ALL pay a lot of money for opposition research. If you're somehow surprised by that or you think that Clinton did something special here, then you would be extremely naive.
3
@notjustfootballhd2203 Again, IP addresses are public and nonproprietary. They are based on an open TCP/IP standard that we all used to communicate on the internet. This is sort of like owning a private road or a parking lot and logging cars that drive into your parking lot. Which is a lot different than if you were to break into people's cars and rummage through their stuff.
2
@Kehvan And yet public IP addresses are in fact public. If you want to pretend that a string of public IP addresses hitting a DNS server is the same as hacking information or planting information, you would be lying. If owned a website, a mobile app, an internet provider, or any number of things. I would have access to a string of public IP addresses.
2
So glad you came back to correct the record.... The first segment you did responding to the Fox News false reporting was pretty atrocious and cringe.
1
@DetVen It was logs containing a string of IP requests that those servers. Again, it's similar information any service provider Google, YouTube, etc. has on traffic. All social media platforms sell their traffic.
1
Public IP addresses are in fact public.
1
@tamaraspencer4024 I'm not sure if there are any regulations about public IP addresses and timestamps. Internet providers track IP addresses all the time in order to enforce copyrights on people downloading movies and TV shows. Social media companies like Facebook and probably even YouTube will sell the data of you accessing their platform which also contains IP addresses. There are restrictions on personal information like names, phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, etc., but I'm pretty sure there isn't any specific protections on internet traffic activity.
1
@tamaraspencer4024 Clearly you're not either if you don't realize that YouTube is tracking the activity of you IP address and selling it to other people.
1
@tamaraspencer4024 There are no laws against people sharing things they have access to at work. You'll probably get fired, but there is no law against it. Also "cyber security" has nothing to do with this. Something you would know if you were "certified in cyber security". So, you can spare me your fake credentials.
1
@HazeOfWhearyWater And? Server logs that the dude in question had access to. What's your point? What do you think Facebook and Google/You Tube does with all the activity from you that they log?
1
@Kehvan Yeah like GDPR which doesn't apply here. Again, this isn't "personal data". When social media companies sell your data, they can also include public IP addresses. Which again, is not personal data.
1
@Kehvan So you honestly believe that you sign a TOS for all data that is sold? Did you sign a TOS when you last used Google? 😂 Again, there is no such thing for public IP addresses. There are only specific regulations for certain types of data (personal data, video, media involving children, etc.). Logging traffic is not one of them. I have no idea what "false police report" you're referring to.
1
@HazeOfWhearyWater No these were DNS servers that Trump's servers were *accessing*, the activity of which was logged by those DNS servers. Not much different than the activity that is logged by Google when you look up something.
1
@HazeOfWhearyWater And? Google, Facebook, and everyone else regularly sells data logged on their servers that isn't publicly available.
1
@HazeOfWhearyWater You seem to not understand how technology works. Google doesn't have access to Trump's servers, but if Trump's servers, or your phone, or your laptop, accessed Google, then Google would have access to the public IP address and timestamp that you used to access that server. Just like these DNS servers don't' have "access" to Trump's servers, but anytime Trump's servers made a request through them they would have their IP address logged.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again.... They didn't have access to a DNS cache on Trump's network or Trump's server, they had access to a DNS server that Trump's servers were connecting to outside their network
1
@matthewrose8002 Just like no one has records and logs from Google, YouTube, or Facebook, but social media platforms still sell this data nonetheless. The fact that information is restricted doesn't mean anything was hacked or that laws were broken. Otherwise, an entire field of corporate espionage wouldn't exist.
1
@matthewrose8002 I'm amazed how little people know about the actual story. Trump was not president at the time. The fact that people don't know that much, shows how easily Fox spreads lies and misinformation.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The fact that people don't know that this was before Trump was even president is amazing to me. What "national security information" are you referring to?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again. Obama was president at the time. Trump was a presidential candidate. The DNS servers in question were owned by a private Virginia based company called Neustar. Someone paid money to figure out that The Trump organizations servers were pinging servers at a Russian bank based on public IPs that were logged at Neustar. You can figure this out based on IP address. That doesn't give you access to the content transmitted. It just tells you that Sever A was connecting to Server B. The reason that no one was arrested is because this is basic opposition research/corporate espionage. It is legal to take records from a private company that you're working for. It might be unethical, but it is not illegal.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, no one accessed "3rd party data". It was their own logs from a from a private company that Trump Tower used for DNS services. This is not hacking. It's no different than a YouTube employee access YouTube logs of me talking to you. Which would also include the IP addresses of my laptop/network as well as the IP address of whatever device you're communicating on. If a YouTube employee forwarded those logs to someone else that isn't the same as someone "hacking" or accessing my laptop. I've explained this several times now.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 And yet social media companies sell your data all the time, which includes your IP address. So your issue is with internet laws. The only thing they can't sell is identifiable information like name, address, credit card numbers, etc. However, everything else is fair game.
1
 @soulcapitalist6204 Again, "no one accessed a protected computer". If you don't understand how technology works, please reread my comments.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Christ dude, if you don't understand what you're reading then stop arguing from ignorance. "Non-public" means the logs from the DNS company where the dude worked and the information, he had access to. It does not mean accessing or "hacking" Trump's servers.
1