Russian Hacking (You People are Idiots)

[interchange]

Here's the problem: Read your links. Note all the things the Chinese and Russians have stolen. Remember the Chinese attempts to buy American elections for the Clintons. Now that your ox has been gored (or so you'd like to think - can't possibly be that you had a stinker of a candidate), you've suddenly decided that we're at war with Russia and under attack. Yet even if you are correct that the Russians hacked the DNC to discredit the Dems with their own shady dealings, that same activity has undoubtedly been going on for a couple decades with things the rest of us care about.

Conditions on which your arguments would make sense but do not actually apply:
1. If Clinton was my "ox" (in other words, I'm not a Democrat)
2. If I actually advocated war with Russia. The next sentences and subsequent posts by me should clearly indicate that this was hyperbolic language
3. If I hadn't created a separate post to differentiate it from the one which had become a wellspring for this partisan bickering

As to other activities referenced:
1. There is an enormous difference between contemplating release of stolen documents to compromise an election and even obtaining some documents which might be relevant -- and, you know, actually releasing them in order to attempt to compromise an election.
2. The Chinese democratic funding scandal looks pretty awful, and unfortunately it seems investigations were a lot of smoke and no action. I couldn't tell you if I "suddenly" changed my mind this time because "my ox has been gored". I was 15 in 1996 when that was going on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Conditions on which your arguments would make sense but do not actually apply:
1. If Clinton was my "ox" (in other words, I'm not a Democrat)
2. If I actually advocated war with Russia. The next sentences and subsequent posts by me should clearly indicate that this was hyperbolic language
3. If I hadn't created a separate post to differentiate it from the one which had become a wellspring for this partisan bickering

As to other activities referenced:
1. There is an enormous difference between contemplating release of stolen documents to compromise an election and even obtaining some documents which might be relevant -- and, you know, actually releasing them in order to attempt to compromise an election.
2. The Chinese democratic funding scandal looks pretty awful, and unfortunately it seems investigations were a lot of smoke and no action. I couldn't tell you if I "suddenly" changed my mind this time because "my ox has been gored". I was 15 in 1996 when that was going on.

His characterization that the Chinese tried to buy elections for the Clintons is scurrilous, anyway. There wasn't nearly enough money involved to "buy" an election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

 

[Darwin333]

It is sad that one side is OK with Russia supposedly hacking the election (or doesn't believe they hacked) and the other side is NOT OK with Russia supposedly hacking the election.

So people are reacting to this supposed news story based on their political ideology rather than actual facts (or lack of facts). They believe what they want to believe without ANY regard to actuality.

What a world.

I think that we should use better terminology. Russia didn't "hack the election", at least not that I have heard from any credible source. They likely hacked the DNC and released emails which likely influenced some voters. Those two are very very different things. One suggests changing actual election results while the other suggests releasing factual, but private, information to influence people to vote one way or the other. If Russia actually "hacked the election" by hacking into voter machines and changing votes then we would have a much more serious issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that we should use better terminology. Russia didn't "hack the election", at least not that I have heard from any credible source. They likely hacked the DNC and released emails which likely influenced some voters. Those two are very very different things. One suggests changing actual election results while the other suggests releasing factual, but private, information to influence people to vote one way or the other. If Russia actually "hacked the election" by hacking into voter machines and changing votes then we would have a much more serious issue.

It wasn't the information itself that influenced voters. It was the headline spin Repub operatives put on it. The emails themselves were pretty innocuous.

 

[Darwin333]

You combat propaganda with education. It does involve everyone taking the problem seriously first though.

What education would have solved this? Do you think people would simply have disregarded the factual and real emails? Do you think the press wouldn't have reported on them? I simply don't see how you can stop the release of factual, albeit private, information from having an influence. So now we are left with stopping, or somehow dissuading, nation states from hacking political parties which are private entities. Hell I don't even think we can consider this an act of war even if we wanted to since the DNC is a private, not public, entity.

 

[Darwin333]

It wasn't the information itself that influenced voters. It was the headline spin Repub operatives put on it. The emails themselves were pretty innocuous.

If the opposite had happened and the RNC was hacked do you honestly you think that the democrats, media, and/or Hillary campaign wouldn't have spun it to their advantage? Once the information is out there in the public realm politicians will use it to their advantage if they can regardless of the source (assuming factual information), that's just a fact of life.

So the question remains, what retaliation should the US government have against Russia for hacking a private entity? There are numerous accounts of foreign powers hacking the actual government and government contractors to steal US military secrets, including nuclear technology. Everyone knows that China is still doing that right now but we do nothing, at least nothing publicly. So how do we punish Russia over hacking the DNC?

 

[alien42]

I think that we should use better terminology. Russia didn't "hack the election", at least not that I have heard from any credible source. They likely hacked the DNC and released emails which likely influenced some voters. Those two are very very different things. One suggests changing actual election results while the other suggests releasing factual, but private, information to influence people to vote one way or the other. If Russia actually "hacked the election" by hacking into voter machines and changing votes then we would have a much more serious issue.

they hacked the electorate, it isn't any less important or serious.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the opposite had happened and the RNC was hacked do you honestly you think that the democrats, media, and/or Hillary campaign wouldn't have spun it to their advantage? Once the information is out there in the public realm politicians will use it to their advantage if they can regardless of the source (assuming factual information), that's just a fact of life.

So the question remains, what retaliation should the US government have against Russia for hacking a private entity? There are numerous accounts of foreign powers hacking the actual government and government contractors to steal US military secrets, including nuclear technology. Everyone knows that China is still doing that right now but we do nothing, at least nothing publicly. So how do we punish Russia over hacking the DNC?

We don't & can't do much of anything other than hack them back. If it becomes advantageous to release hacked information we should do so.

We should also reject any candidate who encourages Russian hacking but that ship already sailed...

 

[agent00f]

I think tit for tat negotiation is appropriate to try to respond directly and avoid provoking greater conflict.

Being passive or "diplomatic" will just further our in fighting and embolden Russia and other entities to explore where we draw the line. If we wait to draw the line long enough, it would be war. I also think the response ought to be transparent and direct, else the American people will continue to fight each other without recognizing our government at least takes Russia seriously. People here being sheepish about Russia and fighting each other instead is aggravating, but it is parroting our government's action.

What would be an appropriate tat? That's harder. Their elections are already crooked.

The funny thing is this all started with the Democrat's centrist attempt to enact the tough guy against Russia and backing Putin into a corner, that prompted him into this tit for tat response, which is the rational one on his part.

Now watch as the lowest common denominator are forced to treat Putin with respect for putting them in their place. Literally nothing good comes out of trying to appease the absolute LCD.

 

[ivwshane]

What education would have solved this? Do you think people would simply have disregarded the factual and real emails? Do you think the press wouldn't have reported on them? I simply don't see how you can stop the release of factual, albeit private, information from having an influence. So now we are left with stopping, or somehow dissuading, nation states from hacking political parties which are private entities. Hell I don't even think we can consider this an act of war even if we wanted to since the DNC is a private, not public, entity.

Critical thinking can counter most propaganda.
For example, this factual information you keep referencing was pretty benign and anyone who was capable of critical thinking can/did read the emails themselves and realized this.

 

[boomerang]

Making Sense Of The Russian Hacks, Trump, Clinton, Wikileaks And The DNC Soap Opera

The author proclaims that he is a Democrat and one that has consistently voted Democrat most of his life. I can't say this enough, it does not do anyone any good to get caught up in what the propaganda media pushes. Question everything.

 

[OrByte]

It seems like all of the Senate is in agreement that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election.

It seems that Trump is not (yet) in agreement, just like some of his supporters here

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-russia/index.html

 

[werepossum]

It seems like all of the Senate is in agreement that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election.

It seems that Trump is not (yet) in agreement, just like some of his supporters here

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-russia/index.html

Okay, serious question: How do we stop it? Hillary set up a private server for ALL her official government business, a server which originally had NO security or encryption and whose "security team" was one man, with zero formal security training, employed elsewhere full time (admittedly apparently on various self-assigned Democrat political projects, but still elsewhere) by the State Department. The DNC was warned by the FBI that their web site was penetrated, and they not only did nothing for months, when they finally did take action they neglected to warn other affiliated Democrat entities whose members also had access into the DNC system. John Podesta responded to a phishing email that literally wouldn't fool most grandmothers or elementary school children - AFTER the Hillary For President "help desk" IT "expert" told him it was "a legitimate email".

Let's forget for a moment the collusion with the press and the rigging of the primary to concentrate solely on the supposed Russian hack. Short of pre-emptively declaring the Democrats the eternal winners in every election, what steps would actually protect the Democrats against that level of ingrained internal abject stupidity?

And mightn't it be more effective in the long run to find people with ethics and intelligence at least equal to our lowest quartile before declaring them the bestest and smartest people in the world, insisting that they be protected from "bad people" who want to trick them, and demanding that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, serious question: How do we stop it? Hillary set up a private server for ALL her official government business, a server which originally had NO security or encryption and whose "security team" was one man, with zero formal security training, employed elsewhere full time (admittedly apparently on various self-assigned Democrat political projects, but still elsewhere) by the State Department. The DNC was warned by the FBI that their web site was penetrated, and they not only did nothing for months, when they finally did take action they neglected to warn other affiliated Democrat entities whose members also had access into the DNC system. John Podesta responded to a phishing email that literally wouldn't fool most grandmothers or elementary school children - AFTER the Hillary For President "help desk" IT "expert" told him it was "a legitimate email".

Let's forget for a moment the collusion with the press and the rigging of the primary to concentrate solely on the supposed Russian hack. Short of pre-emptively declaring the Democrats the eternal winners in every election, what steps would actually protect the Democrats against that level of ingrained internal abject stupidity?

And mightn't it be more effective in the long run to find people with ethics and intelligence at least equal to our lowest quartile before declaring them the bestest and smartest people in the world, insisting that they be protected from "bad people" who want to trick them, and demanding that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

Just an fyi: her server appears to be the only thing that wasn't hacked (ie nothing was released from it).

 

[OrByte]

Okay, serious question: How do we stop it? Hillary set up a private server for ALL her official government business, a server which originally had NO security or encryption and whose "security team" was one man, with zero formal security training, employed elsewhere full time (admittedly apparently on various self-assigned Democrat political projects, but still elsewhere) by the State Department. The DNC was warned by the FBI that their web site was penetrated, and they not only did nothing for months, when they finally did take action they neglected to warn other affiliated Democrat entities whose members also had access into the DNC system. John Podesta responded to a phishing email that literally wouldn't fool most grandmothers or elementary school children - AFTER the Hillary For President "help desk" IT "expert" told him it was "a legitimate email".

Let's forget for a moment the collusion with the press and the rigging of the primary to concentrate solely on the supposed Russian hack. Short of pre-emptively declaring the Democrats the eternal winners in every election, what steps would actually protect the Democrats against that level of ingrained internal abject stupidity?

And mightn't it be more effective in the long run to find people with ethics and intelligence at least equal to our lowest quartile before declaring them the bestest and smartest people in the world, insisting that they be protected from "bad people" who want to trick them, and demanding that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

who said anything about stopping it? we live in a technical world where this sort of thing is probably happening all the time with US national interests very much at stake. I am confident that moving forward our intelligence agencies and resources are doing everything they can to prevent something catastrophic from happening to our national security interests.

I'm more interested in why Trump refuses to acknowledge this happened. I also want to know if Trump's campaign was involved in coordinating efforts with Russia. I also want to know if the RNC was hacked (most likely was) and what other damage was done that could be used against the US as Trump takes office.

There are ties to Trump and Russia that Trump and his friends are working feverishly to hide from us. It is the duty of the US congress to administer oversight on these matters. I don't care how stupid it was that Hillary setup her own server, the FBI has already dealt with that.

 

[werepossum]

Just an fyi: her server appears to be the only thing that wasn't hacked (ie nothing was released from it).

That's entirely possible. It seems unlikely given the number of people on it who were compromised, but maybe it looked too wide open to be anything but a trap.

who said anything about stopping it? we live in a technical world where this sort of thing is probably happening all the time with US national interests very much at stake. I am confident that moving forward our intelligence agencies and resources are doing everything they can to prevent something catastrophic from happening to our national security interests.

I'm more interested in why Trump refuses to acknowledge this happened. I also want to know if Trump's campaign was involved in coordinating efforts with Russia. I also want to know if the RNC was hacked (most likely was) and what other damage was done that could be used against the US as Trump takes office.

There are ties to Trump and Russia that Trump and his friends are working feverishly to hide from us. It is the duty of the US congress to administer oversight on these matters. I don't care how stupid it was that Hillary setup her own server, the FBI has already dealt with that.

lol Fair enough.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm more interested in why Trump refuses to acknowledge this happened. I also want to know if Trump's campaign was involved in coordinating efforts with Russia. I also want to know if the RNC was hacked (most likely was) and what other damage was done that could be used against the US as Trump takes office.

There are ties to Trump and Russia that Trump and his friends are working feverishly to hide from us. It is the duty of the US congress to administer oversight on these matters. I don't care how stupid it was that Hillary setup her own server, the FBI has already dealt with that.

Be cautious not to let curiosity turn into conspiracy.

Putin had to be against Clinton. It didn't matter who she was running against. Here's a news article from 5 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html

Critical thinking can counter most propaganda.
For example, this factual information you keep referencing was pretty benign and anyone who was capable of critical thinking can/did read the emails themselves and realized this.

You believe if people read the released emails with an open mind, they'd realize they are of little significance.

While I believe the emails influenced hardly anyone outside of those who were already firmly poised to vote against Clinton.

I conclude the email hack, whomever orchestrated it, did little to influence the election, and did not alter the end result.

 

[OrByte]

Be cautious not to let curiosity turn into conspiracy.

Putin had to be against Clinton. It didn't matter who she was running against. Here's a news article from 5 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html


You believe if people read the released emails with an open mind, they'd realize they are of little significance.

While I believe the emails influenced hardly anyone outside of those who were already firmly poised to vote against Clinton.

I conclude the email hack, whomever orchestrated it, did little to influence the election, and did not alter the end result.

I cannot agree.

The email hack gave Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump plenty of opportunity to call Hillary and her supporters crooked and "lock her up" etc etc

The emails were fluff, meaningless, there was nothing in the emails. But that didn't matter. Innuendo is all Bernie and Trump had to chip away at support for Hillary.

I believe the end result was altered. Support for Hillary dropped because of innuendo that she was crooked. When in fact, she isn't.

lock her up lock her up lock her up lock her up....

 

[Jhhnn]

Be cautious not to let curiosity turn into conspiracy.

Putin had to be against Clinton. It didn't matter who she was running against. Here's a news article from 5 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html


You believe if people read the released emails with an open mind, they'd realize they are of little significance.

While I believe the emails influenced hardly anyone outside of those who were already firmly poised to vote against Clinton.

I conclude the email hack, whomever orchestrated it, did little to influence the election, and did not alter the end result.

So, adding fuel to the fire didn't make it burn brighter & longer?

 

[ivwshane]

Be cautious not to let curiosity turn into conspiracy.

Putin had to be against Clinton. It didn't matter who she was running against. Here's a news article from 5 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html


You believe if people read the released emails with an open mind, they'd realize they are of little significance.

While I believe the emails influenced hardly anyone outside of those who were already firmly poised to vote against Clinton.

I conclude the email hack, whomever orchestrated it, did little to influence the election, and did not alter the end result.

I agree but only if you look at it from a insulated perspective. The emails themselves were nothing but the hype and propaganda behind them most certainly had an effect.

 

[agent00f]

Be cautious not to let curiosity turn into conspiracy.

Putin had to be against Clinton. It didn't matter who she was running against. Here's a news article from 5 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html


You believe if people read the released emails with an open mind, they'd realize they are of little significance.

While I believe the emails influenced hardly anyone outside of those who were already firmly poised to vote against Clinton.

I conclude the email hack, whomever orchestrated it, did little to influence the election, and did not alter the end result.

Funny all the people who were all saying them emails are the most damning thing of all time are now all like they don't even matter.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The vast majority of voting Americans didn't read nor care about the emails. Only political junkies cared

 

[agent00f]

Case in point: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ect-donald-trump.2481207/page-2#post-38381965

The vast majority of voting Americans didn't read nor care about the emails. Only political junkies cared

Complete mystery why anyone think these people have integrity/ethics.

 

[interchange]

The vast majority of voting Americans didn't read nor care about the emails. Only political junkies cared

Case in point: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ect-donald-trump.2481207/page-2#post-38381965

Complete mystery why anyone think these people have integrity/ethics.

Russia hit its mark pretty well, don't you think? Or perhaps they should only be credited with an assist.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I seriously doubt the leaked emails changed very few if any minds. Most voters were busy living their lives and didn't pay that must attention to the emails, just pundits and political junkies. They more than likely chose the candidate they felt was addressing their most important concerns.