SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), still reeling from the hack on its computer system that resulted in a bunch of leaked emails and the resignation of basically all of its top people, has now created a "cybersecurity advisory board" to improve its cybersecurity and to "prevent future attacks." .
"To prevent future attacks and ensure that the DNC's cybersecurity capabilities are best-in-class, I am creating a Cybersecurity Advisory Board composed of distinguished experts in the field," interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile wrote in a memo. "The Advisory Board will work closely with me and the entire DNC to ensure that the party is prepared for the grave threats it faces—today and in the future."
Sure. That sounds like a good idea. But, then there's this:
Members include Rand Beers, former Department of Homeland Security acting secretary; Nicole Wong, former deputy chief technology officer of the U.S. and a former technology lawyer for Google and Twitter; Aneesh Copra, co-founder of Hunch Analytics and former chief technology officer of the U.S.; and Michael Sussmann, a partner in privacy and data security at the law firm Perkins Coie and a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor.
[...] But none of them are actual cybersecurity experts. I have no problem with these people being on this advisory board, but it's insane to put together a cybersecurity advisory board that doesn't include at least a single (and probably more) actual technologist with experience in cybersecurity.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:09PM
Who needs security when 'Because Russia' gives them massive poll boosts? They're just dying to get hacked again. Democrat voters apparently don't even care about what is being revealed.
I'll bite... so what was so bad that was revealed? People keep talking about there being some horrible secret, but I only know of two things.
1) The conspiracy against Bernie Sanders. It's terrible (mainly because it violates what the party had verbally claimed and it violates their charter). The party is trying to push an agenda (much like the Republicans, the Greens, and every political party), and they are doing things to do that. In my mind, morally a political party can use any legal means it wants to in order to select who it wants to present to the general electorate. All of this is party-internal, proverbial sausage-making.
2) Shuffling money around from local to Clinton's campaign. Again this seems like party-internal politics. They want to push an agenda, they are doing so in the way they think best. It's no more smarmy than how the Republican candidates were selling contact lists of voters to their rivals during the primaries. It's definitely creepy, but far from an indictment of how well or poorly a person would govern.
Was there some smoking gun (e.g. Clinton bribing people, embezzling or redirecting money, arranging assassinations, or something else) which I don't know about? For that matter, is there anything *Clinton* (as opposed to officers of the DNC) has been shown as wrongdoing in these emails?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:03PM
Wait, you mean to tell me the Democratic Party preferred the Democratic candidate to the Independents one? SHOCKING!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:12AM
What Independent one? Bernie was a Democrat. The Democrat party is not some elite club where they can pick and choose who gets to be a member, if somebody chooses to associate with the Democrat party then they're a Democrat, period. A significant portion of the party's base (you know, the people the party is supposed to be representing) made it clear that, instead of being a less bigoted clone of the GOP, they want their party to be less right wing, less authoritarian and more libertarian, less conservative and more liberal, less neoconservative, less neoliberal, and a lot more progressive, and the party told about half their constituents to fuck off (and continue to say "fuck you" and rub it in). Democracy is not a top-down affair, its a bottom-up one. The "party leaders" are supposed to listen to their base, not tell their base what to think and do, which is exactly what they're doing. This is an example of elitism and wannabe-aristocracy at its finest. If you don't understand the outrage over a small group of elites hijacking democracy and replacing it with an oligarchy then I don't know what else to say.