Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-the-news-that's-fit-to-print^W-steal dept.

Russians are already being blamed for a newly revealed cyberattack on The New York Times and other U.S. media outlets:

The FBI and other U.S. security agencies are investigating cyber breaches targeting reporters at The New York Times and other U.S. news organizations that are thought to have been carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed U.S. officials. "Investigators so far believe that Russian intelligence is likely behind the attacks and that Russian hackers are targeting news organizations as part of a broader series of hacks that also have focused on Democratic Party organizations, the officials said," CNN said.

[...] The intrusions were detected in recent months, according to CNN. Citing the U.S. officials, it said the Times had hired private security investigators to work with national security officials in assessing the breach.

Also at CNN, Politico, and The Hill.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by dingus on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:25PM

    by dingus (5224) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:25PM (#392673)

    They can just say "there was a hack? RUSSIANS." And then people repeat that like it's an incontriverable fact.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:55PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:55PM (#392690) Journal

    I don't think you'll be surprised to hear that some are connecting this to supposed Russian motives for the DNC hack/emails as well, since NYT is a liberal news outlet.

    Example [washingtonpost.com]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:57PM (#392691)

    Hey, I thought their firewalls blocked you guys from accessing these Western web sites.

    • (Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:11PM

      by dingus (5224) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:11PM (#392704)

      a) the "Great Firewall" is in China, and it probably doesn't even block soylentnews

      b) I'm not Russian.

  • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:13AM

    by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:13AM (#392926) Journal

    It's worse than that; the CNN made up the story about the NYT being hacked!

    At least the NYT claims their Russian NYT servers were only DDOSed and not hacked according to RT (RT phoned the NYT to ask them about it [rt.com]).

    They obviously don't believe anything the CNN says —good for them! :D

    So it's a made up culprit (Russia) for a made up hack (NYT), i.e. CNN at its "best"/usual.

    Meanwhile Fox News interviews Julian Assange at an "undisclosed location" (short clip) [thegatewaypundit.com]... wtf? Like he isn't trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London? Oh well at least they asked him a few questions and stuff :)

    In other news I see Bernie "fake opposition" Sanders is trying to do something again (couldn't even care enough about that shit to read beyond the headlines). Why the fucking hell would anyone deem that person anything but a traitor after sucking up to Hillary? If people can't get the idea that trust is dead maybe they could at least get the idea that people who sold them out shouldn't be trusted but even that seems a hard sell at times.

    Bernie's function is to divert and waste the time and resources of people who know Hillary is shit.

    Some speculative questions:
    What happens if Hillary dies before the election? Natural or otherwise.
    What happens if Hillary dies soon after "winning" the election? Natural or otherwise. Do people accept the normal succession to the VP?
    What happens if Hillary is elected but is physically and/or mentally unable to function as POTUS in any way at all? Again; do people accept the VP? Hell, do people demand the VP?
    Is any of that what the "Democrats" or whoever it is who decides to push all this are actually betting on, that it will sail through to at least four more years of "control"? Was the nomination BS all about getting the appropriate puppet VP?
    Should Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Donald Trump be running against Kaine [wikipedia.org] rather than Hillary?
    Kaine seems to be as "establishment" as the rest who are in power (including "Bernie the traitor") so what if anything would change if he became POTUS? Just another puppet right?

    Who tells the polls they're voting Hillary? Assuming they actually exist then who are these people? The Dem Hillary nomination speech was desolate (video [thegatewaypundit.com]), her events are desolate, her itinerary is desolate, support for her seems pretty sparse except from Hollywood and MSM.

    Why are the numbers for Jill Stein so low? Where did the people Bernie betrayed go? I continue to refuse to believe that it is theoretically possible for Hillary to have more than 30% of the votes, Practically? Not even 20% from people who not only pay no attention but who live in bubbles where no-one else does either.

    --
    Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))