Well, I have followed him for these last 24 years. At the very least, his act has always been asking questions, be the agnostic. Although he has been flirting with libertarianism, treated Ron Paul well, Ii always got the sense that he has a hard time confronting the fact that his worldview differs from the facts.
And only these last two years sees him making moves.
And, I forgot what exactly the matter was, but he was sending or had been send some USB sticks with data .... he lost it.
It shows a clear and present failure in OPSEC. I think this is based on his worldview. The government cannot be this bad. Impossible. The very fact he acknowledged to find out he was hacked, is a shocker to him in and of itself, and part of the moves he has made.
Who is saying they did? What they did is divulge they have information on him. That fact alone leave the question of: how? How did they come by it?
Means and methods.
While NSA is tremendous capabilities, it not by default means they did actively hack him/ his devices.
It may very well be it was done by someone working in his team. I would not put it pass Tucker to be totally oblivious on how these things work. But let' s assume for a moment, it was done by someone working on his team, whistling on him to his bosses at FOX. This creates a different digital stream of data, to which the NSA then could become privy.
This video speaks of rootkithunters. The reason I post this video is not because of that, but because of another issue the maker of the video points out: many, including himself, having knowledge of penetration testing and attacking other devices, are often oblivious of their own vulnerabilities.
In a schematic of communication, you not always need to hack the device itself, but rather the central communication hub. This then is also the value of what Q posted. How do you deploy a capability? Directly or indirectly. For a spook, indirectly is much more rewarding.
With this, again, I am not saying he was NOT hacked. All I am saying is that the means and methods may have been different.
Oh agree it may have not been Signal itself, and lord knows there are thousands of vulnerabilities on any given system. I don't think the "how" is what's important here though.
Maybe another way of looking at it: maybe the white hats knew Tucker was being monitored by the cabal through Signal and wanted to make him aware that he was being watched, and also send a message to the cabal that they could read Signal at any time?
Well, I have followed him for these last 24 years. At the very least, his act has always been asking questions, be the agnostic. Although he has been flirting with libertarianism, treated Ron Paul well, Ii always got the sense that he has a hard time confronting the fact that his worldview differs from the facts.
And only these last two years sees him making moves.
And, I forgot what exactly the matter was, but he was sending or had been send some USB sticks with data .... he lost it.
It shows a clear and present failure in OPSEC. I think this is based on his worldview. The government cannot be this bad. Impossible. The very fact he acknowledged to find out he was hacked, is a shocker to him in and of itself, and part of the moves he has made.
You understand though that Q posts indicate NSA is white hat run though? So why would white hats hack him and expose the fact they did?
Who is saying they did? What they did is divulge they have information on him. That fact alone leave the question of: how? How did they come by it?
Means and methods.
While NSA is tremendous capabilities, it not by default means they did actively hack him/ his devices.
It may very well be it was done by someone working in his team. I would not put it pass Tucker to be totally oblivious on how these things work. But let' s assume for a moment, it was done by someone working on his team, whistling on him to his bosses at FOX. This creates a different digital stream of data, to which the NSA then could become privy.
https://invidious.io.lol/watch?v=sFOKz_fd0SA
This video speaks of rootkithunters. The reason I post this video is not because of that, but because of another issue the maker of the video points out: many, including himself, having knowledge of penetration testing and attacking other devices, are often oblivious of their own vulnerabilities.
In a schematic of communication, you not always need to hack the device itself, but rather the central communication hub. This then is also the value of what Q posted. How do you deploy a capability? Directly or indirectly. For a spook, indirectly is much more rewarding.
With this, again, I am not saying he was NOT hacked. All I am saying is that the means and methods may have been different.
Oh agree it may have not been Signal itself, and lord knows there are thousands of vulnerabilities on any given system. I don't think the "how" is what's important here though.
Maybe another way of looking at it: maybe the white hats knew Tucker was being monitored by the cabal through Signal and wanted to make him aware that he was being watched, and also send a message to the cabal that they could read Signal at any time?
Bingo!