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.
Or maybe the conspiracy is that the Russians did it. Who knows. It seems sloppy that the little hints left behind would've been left behind in the first place. One thing is for sure is that we can't fully trust either side because they've been proven to lie either way.
"Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same." -- Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Principle_
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.
Therefore the leak didn't come from a DNC staffer? What kind of logic is that?
The truth is, we do not know if the documents came from a leak or a hack, and we do not know the identity of the leaker(s)/hacker(s). It would be nice if the media would 1. dig more into the content of the leaks and 2. investigate the source of the leaks and give us facts rather than try to spin some kind of "Trump is a Russian plant" conspiracy theory.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I have to agree - I dislike Trump on both a personal and ideological level, but so much of what is said about him is bafflingly untrue. And that just makes his supporters more rabid, because now they have evidence that what he's saying - the media is a collusion, they're covering things up, he's an outsider who will change things - is true. And the more that, in their heads, he's right about one thing, the more likely they think he is to be right about other things.
Part of me thinks I should really dislike him on so many levels, but I've just seen so many instances where the media just wildly misquotes or misinterprets what he says in the most negative way possible that it gets hard to trust why I don't like him, without feeling like I'm falling for a propaganda technique.
That's fair. I base my dislike of him partly on what he actually says - speeches, etc. and partly from the positions he takes on his website. But I agree that my dislike for him decreased when I started looking just at what he says, not at what people say about him.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.