Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 01 2017, @05:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-details-as-they-occur dept.

Obama Details Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

U.S. President Obama writes:

I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners. Using this new authority, I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU's cyber operations. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information. The State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring "persona non grata" 35 Russian intelligence operatives. Finally, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, to help network defenders in the United States and abroad identify, detect, and disrupt Russia's global campaign of malicious cyber activities. [...] [The Obama] Administration will be providing a report to Congress in the coming days about Russia's efforts to interfere in our election, as well as malicious cyber activity related to our election cycle in previous elections.

Press release. Text of Executive Order. Annex to Executive Order.

Russia Calls for Expulsion of U.S. Diplomats

Although Russia's foreign minister has asked President Vladimir Putin to expel 35 U.S. diplomats from the country in response to President Obama's actions, President Putin has so far declined to do so.

Dispute on Russia's Involvement with DNC Hacking

A WikiLeaks associate has disputed the Russian hacking narrative, saying that he was handed the documents in Washington, D.C.:

On 15 December 2016, the British tabloid Daily Mail quoted Craig Murray, a former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan and "close associate" of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as saying that the Democratic National Committee's e-mails were not obtained by WikiLeaks due to the efforts of Russian hackers but were instead leaked by a disgruntled DNC operative who had legal access to them [...]

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Of course, it could be completely untrue. At the moment we have only his account to work with.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3Original Submission #4

 
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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @11:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @11:34PM (#448286)

    > Trump's margin of victory was actually wider than initially reported in every single state where recounts were carried out.

    Where "every single state" is actually just "one single state" - Wisconsin. All the other recounts were halted in the courts before they could be completed.
    And that increase was only 131 votes [hotair.com] easily just statistical noise.

    The actual reason for the recounts was that there is zero verification. [medium.com] No random sampling of precincts to compare handcounts of paper ballots with electronic tallies. All the stuff about there being "no credible evidence" of irregularities was because nobody even bothers to look for irregularities. Kind of like all the claims about their being no medical value to marijuana - nobody was even been allowed to look for medical uses of marijuana, so of course there is no evidence.

    Recounts were the shittiest way to do verification, but they were the only way that the courts might even possibly allow. As long as there are electronic voting machines, there must be some form of manual verification that is a standard part of the process. Ideally a federal law spelling out minimum levels of verification so that we can have provable confidence in the system.

    Michigan even has a bullshit rule [theguardian.com] that if the number of paper ballots didn't match the number of votes in the computer, then a recount was forbidden for that county. WTF? The counties with the biggest red flags are the ones blocked from checking from doing a handcount. That's beyond ridiculous.

    Anybody who thinks that the evidence of the DNC being hacked is lacking should, if they were logically consistent, want similarly strong evidence that our votes aren't being electronically tampered with. Its a litmus test that separates the partisans from the principled.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 02 2017, @12:13AM

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday January 02 2017, @12:13AM (#448295) Journal

    Michigan even has a bullshit rule that if the number of paper ballots didn't match the number of votes in the computer, then a recount was forbidden for that county.

    From the link:

    State law rejects a recount in places where the two figures don’t match up: a precinct is ineligible to be recounted if the “number of ballots to be recounted and the number of ballots issued on election day as shown on the poll list or the computer printout do not match and the difference is not explained to the satisfaction of the board of canvassers,” the law says.

    That sounds more like if you suddenly have more or less ballots than were issued, then you can't have a recount. It seems to be an attempt to prevent post-election ballot stuffing or "losing ballots" then demanding a recount.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @12:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @12:39AM (#448307)

      That might be the original inetnt of the law.
      In which case this practical effect is an unexpected result.
      It was still used to deny recounts in the precincts that had the most reason to be recounted.
      Which was fucked up.