SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Dunbal on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:17PM (14 children)
Someone needs to tell him that if he plans on imitating Hillary's tactics: she's the one that lost....
(Score: 5, Touché) by isostatic on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:31PM (9 children)
In France, the person with the most votes wins the election. Crazy I know
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:57PM
That's actually not true of many of our elections, even with the presidential elections it's a stretch given the turn based nature. And to be on turn 1 you need 500 signatures from already elected officials (with more annoying rules).
(Score: 3, Touché) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 06 2017, @08:50PM (7 children)
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]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @09:45PM (2 children)
> 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)
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
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)
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
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)
Isn't it funny that the first argument raised against changing the US electoral system is cost?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:06AM
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.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:59AM (3 children)
I don't think anyone from the Democratic Party denied that the leaked e-mails were genuine, as Mr. Macron has:
In a statement, the Macron campaign said the hackers had mixed fake documents along with authentic ones, “to sow doubt and misinformation.”
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @05:14AM (2 children)
probably spelling her name wrong, but whatever
Every time she opened her mouth to say that the
emails were fake, she was shot down with DKIM
digital signatures. For the email to be fake,
Google itself would have had to have been hacked.
(an inside job probably, unless you think there
is a general-purpose quantum computer that can
crack giant RSA-style crypto problems)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @05:34AM (1 child)
A huge number of emails were not DKIM verifiable.
I can't remember if it was one third or two thirds.
But, either way it was not an insignificant number.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 07 2017, @08:47AM
I had missed the story. One e-mail was enough:
Brazile said that she did not know of any debate questions in advance [...] evidence that undermines Brazile’s denial has emerged by way of a standard email verification method known as DomainKeys Identified Mail, or DKIM, which indicates that the WikiLeaks-provided message sent by Jennifer Palmieri on March 12 from her Hillaryclinton.com account is not forged. [...] Salon has verified that the DKIM signature from the message provided by WikiLeaks indicates that the message was indeed sent by the Hillaryclinton.com domain. [...] Representatives for Donna Brazile and the DNC have not responded to Salon’s repeated requests for comment [...]
-- https://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-passed-a-debate-question-to-hillary-clintons-campaign-in-march-evidence-suggests/ [salon.com]
other reports:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/heres-cryptographic-proof-that-donna-brazile-is-wrong-wikileaks-emails-are-real/ [dailycaller.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/24/tech-blogger-finds-proof-dnc-chiefs-emails-werent-doctored-despite-claims.html [foxnews.com] (I couldn't read this one.)