I especially like these power moves by Lindell and friends -
1) Encrypt one of the files as a test to see who's a bad enough dude to validate the data.
2) Pack / possibly encrypt the largest chunks of data with a tool no one's heard of. Don't provide the tool with the data or say that's what you did, but do include a vague video showing the tool in use.
This data was never meant to be analyzed by anyone taking it seriously. Purely a stunt designed to look good as long as you don't look too close.
My only real question about this is whether Lindell is fully aware of this part of the con or if he actually believes this collection of bits proves anything.
I liked the reported reasoning about file J-15 (Chinese_SourceIP_HEX.txt):
> It contains, according to Mr. Zeidman, only IP addresses and numbers ranking the addresses from high to low. He notes that it is not packet data because it has no packets and no data.
Logic is always fun. Tearing apart someones statements into base arguments they have to agree is true, then build that up to invalidate their statement is also fun. In this case it might be $5M - ~20K lawyers fee's fun!
I follow an individual on Mastodon who painstakingly decompiles things like Wii games, developing a very intimate understanding of the game's development. We've probably all seen individuals like this on the Internet.
I'm deeply amused by people like Mike who don't realize these people exist. They will scrutinize every corner of something with an electron microscope, especially if the topic is juicy or you're a big enough ass to deserve it.
I think they know, but they also know it doesnt matter in the relatively short run. Same story with Satoshi wannabe fraud Wright demonstrating signed message on "brand new laptop straight from a shop my assistant just bought"
>signature was done using a completely new laptop computer bought at a store on that day, on the spot, delivered in manufacturer-sealed condition to Andresen.
There's something I don't understand. They're saying that two of the hex files were unreadable, due them either gibberish or being encrypted. But then they say he showed that this wasn't packet data. Was there something in the rules about these files being translatable to rtf? I don't understand how you can prove this isn't packet data if you can't even read the file.
If it's encrypted, or random, either way, it's not packet data.
Encrypted data is no more proof or evidence than deleted or withheld or never-existed data.
It might as well be an empty file with a note that says there is some data somewhere if you just knew the url to it. That would not constitute data itself, and neither does encrypted data.
> “He [the software developer] proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. Failure to pay Mr. Zeidman the $5 million prized was a breach of the contract, entitling him to recover.”
My favorite thing about this is that Robert Graham was given all the same access the contest winner was, and livetweeted the same result. He apparently just didn't think to claim the award.
Zeidman's clearly all about getting that bread. In the photo he provided to the Washington Post for their article he's posing with his self-published Animal Farm sequel, where the animals are "woke" now.
I was working a very undemanding job at the time and watched the "Cyber Symposium" (and other amazing shows on "Frank TV") out of morbid curiosity. Was very happy that Graham could get his eyes on the "data," even if the conclusion was obvious. How the hell were we supposed to believe that Mike got his hands on these so-called "packet captures"?
> How the hell were we supposed to believe that Mike got his hands on these so-called "packet captures"?
You're not supposed to. You're not the target audience Mike is trying to convince.
And when he's proven wrong, it's just more evidence that there's a vast conspiracy by the deep state that's out to get him and the people who believe in the Truth.
I doubt he is sophisticated enough to have manufactured the data himself, but someone must have manufactured the data.
One theory is that the "packet capture" was a disinformation campaign promoted by foreign actors (e.g. Russia) to capitalize on the stolen election narrative that was forming and foment chaos. Imagine a spy approaches Lindell posing as a credible but disgruntled "insider" within the US government, maybe even presenting forged credentials like a badge, government ID, etc. then "leaks" this manufactured data to him. Then Lindell believes he's on a crusade to save the country, and acts like their wind-up toy in the media.
It's more plausible to me that Lindell sincerely believes his narrative and was taken advantage of rather than he's an intentionally malicious character. Or perhaps that's how it started, and he's too embarrassed or hard-headed to admit being fooled. Seems like if that was the case, the NSA or CIA should step in and brief him, then give him a graceful exit in exchange for publicly admitting he was wrong. If Lindell is also compromised by blackmail or extortion, then things get more complicated.
I think the "someone" was Dennis Montgomery, and he conned Lindell. Montgomery was the source of the data (see RG's thread).
Montgomery has a history of cons. During the war on terror, Montgomery claimed he had software that could decode secret al-Qaeda messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts, faked a bunch of demonstrations, and got contracts for tens of millions out of the Pentagon and CIA before the jig was up.
Montgomery avoids the spotlight but he seemingly rakes it in. Lindell even bought the guy a house.
RG’s thread seems to say he never even got a single file after 3 days, while the arbiter’s report says Zeidman got 7 files the first day, and 4 on the second day. What’s up with that?
The only way to prove “data doesn’t reflect the 2020 election” is to positively prove an alternative source for the data. For example, you would have to prove it is either made up data or Lindell’s shopping list. By proving the data does not contain pcaps only proves that the data cannot be PROVEN to originate from the election, however it does not prove that it is not sourced from such data.
There’s at least three factors in play. The prize money, the principle of correcting the public record, and the notoriety of being the guy that correctly called a big bluff. He seemed to win the last two, and the money would be icing on the cake.
Anyone who gives Lindell a shred of credibility is doing so explicitly against all available evidence, and any new credibility destroying evidence will not change their opinion...unfortunately.
The horse is dead. This new revelation just further beats that dead horse. And the Lindell fans will continue to act as though the horse is alive because they operate in an alternate reality in which the events of this reality do have no effect.
They may operate in an alternate reality, but they are probably very sensitive to success and wealth. In their world successful people can't be wrong. Making him poor may be more effective than pointing out he's a nut.
> And the Lindell fans will continue to act as though the horse is alive because they operate in an alternate reality in which the events of this reality do have no effect.
We need to stop operating in black and white (polarized). Some Lindell fans will indeed stop being fans, some will be less of his fans, etc, etc. It's a continuum.
I'm sure you are see as well as I the current problems of today arising from treating everything as Black or White with no shades in between.
It would be a win if anyone who didn’t already think Lindel was a lying POS had their mind changed. Sadly shame and logic don’t really work on that crowd.
This is probably the absolute stupidest way to have lost $5 million.
The claim was very specific: Prove this data isn't from the 2020 election. All you had to do was actually include 2020 election data in the set. And right there, the problem becomes much harder.
Hell, you could have just used a dump of 2020 election data and been fine. Just claim it proves your accusations.
And that's probably part of the reason that they worded the challenge like that. Because it's the easiest one to manufacture reasonably well. Yet they still fucked it up.
I still cannot believe how anyone can believe in the competence of anyone in Trump's political sphere after the Four Seasons fiasco. How often does one have to kick themselves square in the dick before people start wondering if they're not the sharpest bulb in the box?
> The claim was very specific: Prove this data isn't from the 2020 election. All you had to do was actually include 2020 election data in the set. And right there, the problem becomes much harder.
The core of the arbitration decision is that "election data" specifically meant "packet captures of machines related to the election," relying on the fact that pretty much everyone (sans Lindell) understood that that was the kind of data they expected to have. Lindell instead had a tactic of relying on him being the ultimate arbiter of what satisfied "election data" as an ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card (which likely could have run afoul of other good-faith laws, although arbitration didn't analyze that point because they didn't need to go that far).
The Four Seasons fiasco is so strange. I remember hearing in an interview with that business owner that they (the business) explicitly told the Rudy team (during the phone call) that they were a landscaping company, not the hotel, and Rudy's team confirmed that they knew that and still wanted to use their building for their press conference.
I think the rather dumb justification was that they had already announced they would be holding a press conference at the Four Seasons, were denied by the hotel, and thought this would somehow be a less embarrassing out than simply finding a more reasonable location without the same name.
It's really surreal to remember how unstrange it was at that point. Hair dye dripping down Guiliani's face as spearheaded a blatant lie everyone knew was a lie whilst trying to overturn an election. Just completely insanity all around, and yet, it didn't feel that far off from everything that had preceded it. Just the frog getting a little hotter.
I bet the landscaping company was called after the location was already internally shortlisted by mistake, and some people would've lost face if they suddenly had to change it, so they rolled with it and doubled-down.
I'm sad I didn't get to participate in this "challenge" - this is the first I've heard of it. Otoh, it looks like it boiled down to something very uninteresting, in that it didn't really hinge on any analysis, it was just nonsense data.
You couldn't. You had to literally be there to get access. It was an in-person event with some people deemed to "be worthy enough" to get their hands on "the data".
I just hope that some kid got their college paid for, by selling this crap to Mike in the first place :D
Oh my god, same. I'm not exactly a cybersecurity whiz, but going through the details, it was like "Is this a PCAP? Is this a PCAP?". Good lord, this was a silver platter.
I especially like these power moves by Lindell and friends -
1) Encrypt one of the files as a test to see who's a bad enough dude to validate the data.
2) Pack / possibly encrypt the largest chunks of data with a tool no one's heard of. Don't provide the tool with the data or say that's what you did, but do include a vague video showing the tool in use.
This data was never meant to be analyzed by anyone taking it seriously. Purely a stunt designed to look good as long as you don't look too close.
My only real question about this is whether Lindell is fully aware of this part of the con or if he actually believes this collection of bits proves anything.