Slashdot Mirror
Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say (nymag.com)
A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report: The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
There used to be a time when the press acted as investigative journalists, and worked with whistleblowers to expose political corruption and hold politicians accountable for their actions (think Watergate). This was lauded as necessary for the function of the country. Now, this function has been outsourced to the FSB, and the corruption they reveal is denigrated as "interfering with the sanctity of the electoral process". How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?
Maybe I missed publication of some definitive proof, but this story kind of says the Russians did this, unqualified. We've seen some similarly confident attributions in the past that turned out to be wrong. Convenient, but wrong.
If I were Putin, and I had dirt on Clinton, I'd hang on to it until she were President. Much more leverage that way.
Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I find it strangely ironic though that hackers have broken all of the major news stories this election cycle and it's the reports trying to cover them all up. Fucked up world we're in these days.
The story says unnamed American intelligence officials have "high confidence" it was the Russians.
However, I don't know how they've determined that. The only analysis I've seen was from the private security firm hired by the DNC to investigate after the attack. They found circumstantial evidence the hack originated from Russia (Cyrillic letters in metadata, timestamps that correspond with waking hours in Russia, etc). However, that doesn't mean it was state sponsored. There are lots of hackers in Russia and not all of them are getting rubles from Putin.
What we know: circumstantial evidence the hack originated in Russia.
What the media's running with: Trump is a secret agent taking orders from Putin who personally haxx0red the DNC and if you don't elect Hillary Clinton then Trump is going to take orders from Putin and invade Europe and/or nuke everyone.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
It's almost as if their primary goal is propaganda instead of the reporting of facts...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Applause for changing the subject away from the very damaging contents of these emails. There are persuasion courses that charge top dollar to teach these things. The Democratic Party in America is not what everyone thought it was. They are racist, elitist, election-fixing, democracy-shitting-on assholes. People all over the world have been shocked by just how evil they were revealed to be. But on stories like this, change the subject as often as possible, that's a solid move. Get people talking about ANYTHING other than what we all saw the Democratic Party really means.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Well sure but I think that was case where Putin wanted just enough deniability to avoid legal consequences without it being entirely clear he is above the law at home, but at the same time sending an unmistakable message to other wood be dissidents.
He wanted it know who did it.
Its not nearly so clear to me why he would want it know He/KGB/Russia Gov is behind the DNC hack. Its not like US Democrats are likely to change policy positions because they fear Russians are going to put a hit on them or something. Having their finger prints on it allows the DNC to try and conflate, confuse, and distract from any issues revealed in the leaks by talking about and tieing them to some kinda bizarre Russian conspiracy. Do so degrades the impact of the leaks themselves so why bother in the first place.
The real possibilities are:
1) The Russian finger prints are plants to lead people away from the actual responsible party
2) The KGB was just sloppy
3) It was a non-state but possible Russia based group, that was sloppy
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Also, Assange has been hinting that the leak came from a DNC staffer, and not a hack at all.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The Democrats can point at Russia and distract from the contents of the emails. The Democrats now owe Putin a favor.
Also, Assange has been hinting that the leak came from a DNC staffer, and not a hack at all.
Assange has had an extensive relationship with the Russian government. He's even hosted a television show on a Russian state-owned network. And he's made it quite clear that he wants her to lose.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?
This election is surreal. On the one hand, we have Hitler. On the other hand, we have a murderer who takes orders from satan himself.
Neither of these things is remotely close to real. Donald Trump is a dork, and Hillary Clinton is an awkward idealist who's been jaded somewhat by bumping into life. Neither one will destroy the country. Neither one will be Hitler.
After muddling through another 4-8 years, the country will have another election where we hear that it's again Hitler against the antichrist, and somehow people will believe again that it might actually be true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Sanders wasn't frozen out due to some misguided left wing ideology. Not in the slightest. He was frozen out due to right wing stances on the economy and social services that tried to brand him as unelectable and unrealistic.
Sorry, but Sanders wasn't 'frozen out' of the media at all, not in the slightest. He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story. "Frontrunner wins again" doesn't cut it, "plucky underdog challenges frontrunner"-- yes.
The assessment by the intelligence community of Russian involvement in the D.N.C. hacking, which largely echoes the findings of private cybersecurity firms that have examined the electronic fingerprints left by the intruders, leaves President Obama and his national security aides with a difficult diplomatic and political decision: whether to publicly accuse the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the hacking.
Why would they need to do that when there is no evidence the hack was state sponsored? The reason Obama can't accuse Putin of engineering the hacking isn't because "diplomatic tensions" but because there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil. I'm not saying they didn't do it. I'm saying we literally don't know. I can only surmise the media is pretending like it's a set-in-stone fact is because it helps the Democrats politically to be seen as the victims of foreign aggression and distracts from the embarrassing content of the leaks.
Since the media reporting this falsely, do you think they're doing so because they're lying, or because they're incompetent?
Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket
Isn't it, though?
As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.
Of course not. I would never vote for someone who says they would categorically never use nukes, because that defeats the purpose of nukes as a deterrent if you've already sworn never to use them.
Do you think the nuke card should be taken off the table? Why?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?
The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.
Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.
When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.