Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday May 06 2017, @11:59AM   Printer-friendly

The campaign staff of Emmanuel Macron, one of the two candidates in France's presidential election run-off, claim to have been targeted by a massive hacking operation that leaked sensitive documents:

On the eve of the most consequential French presidential election in decades, the staff of the centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron said late Friday that the campaign had been targeted by a "massive and coordinated" hacking operation, one with the potential to destabilize the nation's democracy before voters go to the polls on Sunday.

The digital attack, which involved a dump of campaign documents including emails and accounting records, emerged hours before a legal prohibition on campaign communications went into effect. While the leak may be of little consequence, the timing makes it extremely difficult for Mr. Macron to mitigate any damaging fallout before the runoff election, in which he faces the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, who has pledged to pull France out of the euro and hold a referendum to leave the European Union.

French authorities recently arrested a suspect who admitted to attacking the campaign website for the other candidate, Marine Le Pen.

Also at the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, and Reuters.


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This discussion has been archived.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 hemocyanin on Saturday May 06 2017, @08:50PM (7 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 06 2017, @08:50PM (#505546) Journal

    FYI, Clinton won 48% of the vote, meaning 52% of voters did not vote for her. So while it is true she won a larger plurality than Trump did, she did not win most of the votes -- the opposite is true and most people did NOT vote for her (myself included -- I'm in that Green 1%): http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php [uselectionatlas.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @09:45PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @09:45PM (#505568)

    > So while it is true she won a larger plurality than Trump did, she did not win most of the votes

    That's not what isostatic said.
    He said the person with the most votes wins.

    Your post is a hillary derangement aftershock.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:24AM (1 child)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:24AM (#505679) Journal

      So in a twelve way race, if a person got 15% of the vote, and the other 11 shared the remainder in such a way as to not exceed 15%, THAT person should be the winner in your view?

      As others have pointed out, if there is no majority winner, there should be a run-off. HRC failed to get a majority and those 6.1% who voted 3rd party or write in, might not be the staunch HRC supporters you imagine.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @05:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @05:32AM (#505734)

        So in a twelve way race, if a person got 15% of the vote, and the other 11 shared the remainder in such a way as to not exceed 15%, THAT person should be the winner in your view?

        Define "should."

        I don't think that slavery-holdover electoral college should determine the winner.

        You just can't get past your hillary fixation. Get over it. Your witch lost.

  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday May 06 2017, @10:38PM (3 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Saturday May 06 2017, @10:38PM (#505586) Journal

    France has a more sensible situation, where the lead two candidates after round 1 (if nobody gets 50%) get through to round 2. This allows the public to vote for their favoured candidate without worrying about sabotaging the normal one.

    There were 4 or 5 candidates with a good shot in round 1, and another half-dozen on the paper. In this case there were two crazies on the round 1 ballot that had a good chance, so it could have been bad with a choice between Le Pen and Melenchon into round two, but either way it's better than the spoiler effect we so often see. The US should consider doing something similar to break this crazy two-party divide-and-conquer system.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @11:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @11:01PM (#505596)

      In this case there were two crazies on the round 1 ballot that had a good chance, so it could have been bad with a choice between Macron [youtube.com] and Melenchon into round two, but either way it's better than the spoiler effect we so often see. The US should consider doing something similar to break this crazy two-party divide-and-conquer system.

      Fixed with help from a guy from Sheffield in the UK. He's a former toilet cleaner which, no matter if you agree with his positions or not, is an undeniably excellent qualification for political commentary. You're welcome ;)

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:03AM (1 child)

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:03AM (#505641) Journal

      Isn't it funny that the first argument raised against changing the US electoral system is cost?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:06AM (#505668)

        You mean how you were the first and only person to raise any argument against changing the US electoral system?
        Yeah, funny you mentioned it.