Your link to the Nation's article states, "Data-transfer speeds across networks and the Internet measured in megabits per second (or megabytes per second) can easily achieve rates that greatly exceed the cited reference in the VIPS memo of 1,976 megabytes in 87 seconds (∼22.71 megabytes per second or ∼181.7 megabits per second), and well beyond 50 megabytes, depending on the capacity of the network and the method of access to that network. Speeds across the network vary greatly, and sustained write speeds copied out to local devices are often quite a bit slower."
The Nation does not give any basis for the assertion that these high download speeds are possible--and admit that "The third-party analysis of the “Guccifer 2.0' claims (including from Adam Carter and the Forensicator) analyzed in the VIPS memo directly contradict [the hacking] conclusion."
Here's what Forensicator and other analysts have to say about that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 meg data transfer, transocean does not exist of 2 gig in 87 seconds. It does not exist locally, maybe now it does in certain point to point nodes only, but not through an IP."The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.What is the maximum achievable speed?
Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack.
Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”
Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new … -dnc-hack/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically, the Nation pulled the claim that such speeds are possible out of their ass, while forensic analysts have conclusively shown that this is not true.
The Nation article you cited then goes on to make one of the more risible comments I've heard in a long time: "However, this VIPS memo could have easily raised the necessary and critical questions without resorting to law-of-physics." Geez! The NERVE of Binney, bringing the laws of physics into this discussion! He should be ashamed! He didn't have to do THAT!
The author does ask one question that seems relevant. "It’s equally plausible that the cited July 5, 2016, event was carried out on a server separate from the DNC or elsewhere, and with data previously copied, transferred, or even exfiltrated from the DNC."
William Binney, Skip Folden, Ed Loomis, Ray McGovern, and Kirk Wiebe responded to this: "Yes, the claimed “hack” could have been done on a secondary computer (not “server”), but in either case had to come originally from the DNC server. This has no effect on the transfer rate, which precluded a “hack”—a point the authors of the dissenting memo keep missing."
They further state that, "This is correct, but has no bearing on the conclusions. Direct access was required in either case, whether the alleged “hack” occurred on the DNC server or on a copy made earlier by a person with direct access."
Independent research into the metadata associated with the July 5, 2016, cyber-event that was blamed on “Russian hacking” shows that what actually took place was a copy onto an external storage device, and that the copy took place on the East Coast of the United States by someone with physical access to the DNC server or computers.
If you'll scroll down a bit in the link you provided, you can see the heading Why This Is Important, by William Binney, Skip Folden, Ed Loomis, Ray McGovern, and Kirk Wiebe, in which they respond to these and other objections to their analysis.
