SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the all-your-email-are-belong-to-us dept.
From NPR:
President Obama has ordered the intelligence community to conduct a "full review" of "malicious cyber activity" timed to U.S. elections, the White House said Friday.
The review will go all the way back to the 2008 campaign when China was found to have hacked both the Obama and McCain campaigns, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said at a Friday press briefing.
In the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence officials charged that Russia had interfered. In early October, they released a strongly worded statement saying they were "confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." The statement went on to say "these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."
Shortly after that, WikiLeaks began posting emails hacked from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's Gmail account. The slow drip of those emails, including transcripts of Clinton's remarks to Goldman Sachs, hung over the campaign in its closing weeks and proved embarrassing at times. Podesta said he spoke to the FBI about the hacking, and intelligence experts blamed Russia for that as well.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:49PM
Yeah it damn well is. How can you even argue otherwise? That one candidate should have their "secrets" exposed while the other side does not. How does that serve the voting public?
I have a solution. How about you hack the other side next time? No reason the Russians should be the only ones who can play that game.
Russia hacked both campaigns, but they only released the dirt they have on one candidate. That means they've got blackmail material on trump. In what world is it good for the USA to have a president who is compromised by russia from the first day he gets into office?
What exactly has been compromised?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:58PM
I have a solution. How about you hack the other side next time? No reason the Russians should be the only ones who can play that game.
Because I'd be prosecuted and thrown in prison if I did that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:59PM
> I have a solution. How about you hack the other side next time? No reason the Russians should be the only ones who can play that game.
WTF?
Did you just argue that political parties should hack each other? You do know that hacking is illegal, right?
> What exactly has been compromised?
I feel like you are either a dumbfuck or you are playing a dumbfuck on soylent.
Surely you are not such a dumbfuck as to believe that the RNC has no dirty secrets?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:13PM
Did you just argue that political parties should hack each other? You do know that hacking is illegal, right?
Yes and yes. Funny how people care about legality when it's their party that gets hacked.
Surely you are not such a dumbfuck as to believe that the RNC has no dirty secrets?
And you're confident that they're emailing those dirty secrets, why? It's worth noting here that the Democrat secrets that were revealed, weren't particularly dirty. They showed that the DNC (DNC != Democrat Party BTW, it's the organization that coordinates nation-level activities like in the last year primary scheduling and the party convention, or coordinating nation-wide campaign funding of Democrat party candidates in the main elections) was in the tank for Clinton, but that was about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:06PM
> Yes and yes. Funny how people care about legality when it's their party that gets hacked.
Funny how you just make up motivations and ascribe them to people you don't like.
Kind of like you have no moral principles yourself and think everyone else is just like you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:29PM
Yeah, he's a steaming pile of horribleness. Badly propagandized beliefs, shitty ethics, poor critical thinking skills, and a closed mind.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:46AM
But more relevantly, who would suggest that we just not reveal important secrets about powerful actors, if we can't equally reveal those secrets? Why someone whose favorite pol just got burned by Russian intelligence. People without a horse in the race don't care who gets nailed as long as someone does on a frequent enough basis. Turnover of the crooks is good in politics and everyone will eventually get their turn. But people with a pet politician always complain when their guy gets whacked.
And that brings me to my original point. All this nasty fighting is good for democracy. First, it digs out true viewpoints and relevant secrets. It culls the particularly corrupt. It gives intelligence agencies something more worthwhile to squander their funds on than spying on regular people.