Slashdot Mirror


Clinton Campaign Breached By Hackers

An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton's campaign network was breached by hackers targeting several large Democratic organizations, Reuters reports. Clinton's campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill confirmed the hack in a statement. 'An analytics data program maintained by the DNC, and used by our campaign and a number of other entities, was accessed as part of the DNC hack. Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised,' he said.

The hack follows on the heels of breaches at the Democratic National Committee and at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earlier this year. More than 19,000 emails from DNC officials were published on WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention, casting a shadow over the proceedings. Some security experts and U.S. officials have attributed the breaches to Russian operatives, although the origin of the email leak is less certain.

21 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Untouchable criminal by rfengr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.

    1. Re:Untouchable criminal by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop watching movies and thinking they are real.

    2. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the hate crimes Trump is spouting every times he open his dirty mouth.

      So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?

      Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.

    3. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.

    4. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Was there evidence that they were being actively denied support? Were lies used as cover-ups later?

      I would love to see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld charged with war crimes, but the more pressing issue is that the woman of today's topic has a very good chance of becoming president and doing far more damage than she's ever done before.

      The people need to know the truth about her and her sponsors in order to be informed voters.

    5. Re:Untouchable criminal by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many embassies were destroyed, and how many ambassadors were killed?

    6. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Because we don't jail people for thought crimes and believe everyone deserves a voice even if they're stupid? Since when is not liking people a crime?

      NeoNazis are ridiculed quite mercilessly here in the US. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. And people have the freedom to call you an irrational douchebag and wish that someone would kick your ass.

      It's called LIBERTY. We still have a little bit of that left in spite of the best efforts of "progressives" and SJW retards. If liberty scares you and you enjoy a nanny state that punishes people for being meanieheads, then enjoy the EU. A nanny state for your "protection" goes against the principles on which this country was founded. And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

    7. Re:Untouchable criminal by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

      Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.

      Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.

      So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re: Untouchable criminal by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who decides what is hate speech? You? Hillary? Obama?

      I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.

      Where is your outrage for harms done me?
      Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?
      Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  2. Love it and stay by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

    Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source).

    Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.

    That criminal witch is untouchable [...]

    Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

    We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu.

    But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.

    "Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

    We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.

    Don't descend to their level.

    (And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

    1. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

      The following are quotes from Hillary Clinton Economy Jobs Moodys. They speak for themselves.

      "Moody's Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee's proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law."

      "Moody's published a similar analysis of Donald Trump's plans in June. It concluded that the Republican presidential nominee's policies would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump to 7% and home prices would fall."

    2. Re:Love it and stay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal.

      If this is true, why aren't conservatives winning every seat in every election, including the Presidency? The reason is because most voters are more liberal than they are conservative. That's undeniable at this point.

      The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.

      Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally. That's not the sign of a conservative country.

      Deny it all you like, but the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so. The people got a taste of freedom from conservative values, and they liked it.

      Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.

      So go ahead and claim it's a conservative country if you want, but it's not. This isn't 1950, it's 2016 and the country is liberal and getting more so. And I'm all for it.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Love it and stay by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't the guy that wrote that report donate the maximum to Hillary Clinton?

    4. Re:Love it and stay by srichard25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious. Not sure why you think conservative = religious.

      Also, I suggest you take a look at how many states are currently being run by Republican governors and legislatures.

  3. Re:Good by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

  4. Re:Good by AlphaBro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, who cares if one of the most powerful people in the world violated federal law and put national security at risk. Stop obsessing about it.

  5. Re:Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! by AlphaBro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's ignore the emails about rigging the election and instead focus on how these hackers are trying to rig the election.

  6. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by RoccamOccam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Repeating my reply to another similar post : I'm definitely not a Trump supporter, but I have to take issue with that statement. He didn't call for hacking, he said that they should "find" the missing emails. Since the server is already off-line, it's not there to be hacked.

    Presumably, he is suggesting that the server had probably already been hacked (maybe by any number of individuals or countries) and he thinks they could be found.

  7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yeah, who cares if one of the most powerful people in the world violated federal law and put national security at risk. Stop obsessing about it.

    Yeah, I totally agree, it was pretty fucking irresponsible of Trump to invite a foreign nation to hack a presidential candidate's systems...

  8. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not obsessed about it, actually. I don't particularly care about US federal law or national security anyway. What I find somewhat more troubling is attempts almost on the eve of elections at conveniently removing one of two major candidates for the leadership of a global superpower in a world I happen to live in, even if I happen to live in a different part of it.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, laws were violated. They just were excused. Comey is on record saying that anyone else Hillary caught doing what Hillary did with the same evidence, would be prosecuted. How does that sit with you? I guess it sits pretty good as long as some ass official says it's ok for one but not for anyone else. Try getting past your cognitive dissonance. You're failed logic is the pillar of corruption.