Wow. This page is getting confusing to navigate.

(1) Chaos - I know you posted something last night concerning whether moving Hammer to Ft. Washington referred to physically moving servers from Reno to Ft. Washington, or whether it meant "rebuilding" the software on a brand new set of servers in Ft. Washington. You asked for a link or some sort of reference on that point. For whatever reason, I can't find that post on this page right now. I'm sure it's here - I'm just missing it.

Anyhow, if you listen to the first audio clip I sent you - "pt. 1" - you'll hear Blixseth state that $5M were spent on new servers and that the new system (Ft. Washington) is orders of magnitude faster than the old one (Reno). I'd ignore the actual price cited by Blixseth and actual performance numbers he stated. He's clearly not a technologist, and neither of those figures are likely correct. The point is that the government spent money on servers and the new servers were faster.

Bringing Hammer in-house does not mean moving machines. It meant getting the latest technology - not just machines, I'd imagine, but O/S level sorts of technologies to dynamically allocate resources to certain solution spaces as they become more probable, etc. In other words, it would be a ground-up technology transfer that would result in Hammer running on the "latest" technology and therefore operating with much more power.

(2) MITM. You also wrote about this, Chaos. Sorry this reply is dissociated from your post. I suspect that our NSA is deep in our communication infrastructure. As I understand it, they are always capturing every packet being transferred and storing that information. This is what you refer to as "splicing" I think: (a) packet data is received at a piece of network equipment, say, a router; (b) a duplicate of the packet data is created and stored or sent to a chosen destination; and (c) the original packet data is routed according to ordinary routing principles. When Hammer receives data pursuant to a splicing arrangement, it is being used to passively listen. ...I think you and I are on the same page on that?

I think the NSA can also dynamically rewrite routing tables across our network nationally. So, at the "flip of a switch" data packets intended to be routed to a given IP can be routed to a different machine. This allowed the government to divert any given communication session so that Hammer could be interposed in the communication stream. Does that make sense to you, Chaos?

(3) Protective Order. I haven't read what you linked to. If we are on the same page about the necessity of going to a court (as opposed to an executive) to lift a protective order, then great. No need to say anything more on that point.

u/chaos_actual u/Magadeburger
u/v8power

Two things to set the stage...

We are talking about what actually happened in November 2020, not what theoretically might have happened. I'm proposing that until we know what we don't know we don't know what we don't know.

All we know now is that Dennis Montgomery collected data from all 50 states and territories and gave that data to Mike Lindell through intermediaries and now in order to use the data in his court case, Lindell has purchased an 80% interest in Dennis Montgomery Incorporated.

The question is how did Montgomery do what Mike Lindell says Montgomery did. No one is talking.

The CIA is not a logical organization to partner with Dennis Montgomery since he is suing (since June of 2017) the last last two former Directors of the CIA, one former Director of the NSA, two former Directors of National Intelligence and a former President of the United States for illegal warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens and government officials. So in general I have to push back pretty hard on the idea that the CIA is going to facilitate Dennis Montgomery having access to the raw data proving election manipulation of the 2020 election.

Before accepting on face value, that portion of the narrative story Mike Lindell is spinning, or purposefully publicly (for now) omitting, that Dennis Montgomery was the one-stop, all-in-one, end-to-end, source of the 32 terabytes of PCAP data, more information about the actual collection and data transport to the facility where it was processed and analyzed is needed.

Just the issue of bandwidth alone begs the question of who is Dennis Montgomery fronting for. Bandwidth is expen$ive, has to be engineered, connections made, tested and maintained. Money, time, and manpower. Dennis is old and has major health issues. Does not compute.

The second, and most important thing to consider is prior to the 2020 election (Jon Herold - patel patriot has a handle on this in his Devolution series), by Executive Order, signed by President Trump, the CIA was stripped of all authority to conduct covert actions and operations, domestic and foreign. DIA and Special Operations Command now share wearing that hat. Somebody got their tallywacker royally tallywacked.

"From Snowden, we know that all internet packets nationally were collected and stored."

Collected by the NSA and stored mainly at their long term storage Utah facility. CIA involvement on this scale would require NSA coordination and cooperation. One of NSA functions / authorities is administration and oversight of all government encrypted communications, systems and equipment, crypto-keys and equipment, and the equipment and bandwidth to interface it all. What was done in collecting the 32 terabytes of data of the 2020 election was a big operation involving cooperation and coordination on a national scale. The question remains, who or what did that.

Concur Snowden would have been cleared and exposed to technical and operational details of NSA collection and storage capabilities and operations while working for Booz-Allen as a contractor assigned to support NSA collection operations pre-2013. Not CIA collection operations and not in 2020. While not assigned to the Utah facility, he would have been cleared to know its function and interact as operationally required. Snowden's main job was facilitating access to information systems (blazing the trail, covertly of course) and extraction of information once identified by subject matter experts. Get in, get it, get out, and send it off. And don't get caught any time in the process.

CIA (as opposed to NSA) collection access operations are generally narrowly targeted operationally and in those instances were mass collection is the object NSA executes and CIA facilitates.

"So, if mere eavesdropping was desired, the CIA could use those, combined with the private key (and the symmetric key, unearthed by the private key)."

Its not about eavesdropping. Its about collecting at scale a massive amount of data in a short period of time. This was a heavy lift, short-lived 03 to 06 November 2020), collection operation. We are talking about getting the raw data collected, functions relating to the encryption exploitation comes later in the processing of the data.

"To alter communication, you need to be in a position to intercept lines of communication live. That would require resources only the government would have, in order to do that in a comprehensive way. The CIA used Montgomery's software, combined with their network access, to get this done."

The data was not altered at collection. The data was simply collected. Since the election data was data in transit, live vice stored data collection was required.

The CIA did not nor does not have either the authority nor capability to have accomplished what you propose, even before they got their tallywacked. We are talking about the coordinated interception and collection of live raw data (not processed live, post processed) of massive amounts of data over a short period of time over multiple access points and transporting that data back to one aggregation point (according to the Lindell narrative - Dennis Montgomery).

IMO Occam's razor cutting this knotty collection conundrum - is that data was collected (recorded) in batches at transfer points (this was an election data collection operation, not an election data manipulation operation), transported in some manner to Montgomery, where he administered it being played back into the Hammer/Scorecard system, in distinct batch runs, playing the election back, in Lindell's words, "like it was a movie," - like it was a lot of different movies from different parts of the country (what was playing in Peoria was not what was playing in Poughkeepsie), results analyzed and extrapolations of vote flips state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct, produced between the time Lindell received the data on 09 January 2021, claims he presented four "samples" to the president (though he seems to be referring to information on paper, not samples of the data stream and vote flipping) and the start of the Cyber Symposium on 10 August 2021 presented to the public... sort of.

Real time data collection and transport bandwidth for a three day period would have been insanely expensive (if even feasible), and an engineering marvel. Even if there was preexisting operational bandwidth to hijack, engineering pulling ongoing operations offline, conducting the 2020 elections data collection, and putting the original operations back on line is not something that could be done without a lot of people noticing who would started asking the wrong questions.

I guess I'm letting you know that you are not clear.