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.
The Democrats are very busy people. Between starting ISIS and bringing in refugees to kill Americans, how do they find time to even hack their own accounts! And I haven't even mentioned the making false birth certificates to make the ISIS founder, the President!
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.
This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because they're so old. They'd get competent sysadmins to run the servers, proficient clerks to print out their emails each morning, and they'd dictate their replies to a transcriptionist who can remember her fucking password.
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.
Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.
The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.
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.
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.
I know your being sarcastic, but the DRC employs more than one person to do these things.
--> What!! Now we are employing people from DRC - "Democratic Republic of Canopus" to do this?
FTFY. Aliens from space are always involved in these things you know.
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.
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.
Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)
Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?
The idea, that Russians are behind this is a red herring. Put out by anonymous sources it serves only to change the topic — from the contents of the e-mails and the negligence of the Democratic officials (including their Presidential nominee).
According to Assange, for example, Wikileaks got their data from DNC-sources including the misteriously murdered Seth Conrad Rich.
Maybe, Russians were involved too, maybe not. But the facts remain: DNC officials (including Hillary Clinton herself) are incompetent in computer security and dishonest.
Why is my real account disabled?
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
I'd sign up to be a part of Dogbert's ruling class, but I can't afford the fee. :)
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.
"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_
The Democrats can point at Russia and distract from the contents of the emails. The Democrats now owe Putin a favor.
If you're going to hack a major American political party, why stop there? Why not hack all of them? Where are the Republican emails?
The only evidence the DNC was hacked as opposed to the target of a whistleblower is from the security firm the DNC hired themselves. The evidence that the hacks originated in Russia is circumstantial, and there is no evidence it was state sponsored. Julian Assange has hinted the source was a leaker, not a hacker, and this also fits in better with his M.O...it is WikiLeaks and not WikiHacks, after all.
If I were running PR for the DNC and I knew one of our own people betrayed us because he couldn't stand our corruption and leaked our information, I would try to blame someone else, make us look like victims while smearing our opponent as having ties to evil criminal foreigners.
Trump is probably the most hated person on Earth right now, so I don't see a lack of motivated hackers here.
I'm willing to bet around the globe there are more motivated people who hate Clinton. Her hands are soaked in blood. Trump might be a big meanie who says nasty things, but he hasn't armed terrorists, toppled governments, or ordered drone strikes. (Yet.)
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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?
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.
Why? Then you have someone with a head on their shoulders running your rival country and all you can do is try to get leverage on them after the fact with dirt on someone who is already covered in it (both candidates are well-covered, in fact). If you release the dirt before the election, you might get a fawning fanboy of yours who thinks like a 12-year-old boy running the US instead, giving you far more leverage overall than threatening Hillary with yet another skeleton for her cavernous walk-in wardrobe full of them.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
The majority of legislators and politicians in the US seem hell-bent on destroying everyone's privacy in the name of "national security". Now the Dems are experiencing the result of Russia's attempts to further its own national agenda by invading US politicians' privacy. There's at least a little poetic justice in that, methinks...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Therefore the leak didn't come from a DNC staffer?
I didn't say that, I said that Assange "hinting" at it means nothing.
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.
There are several reasons why you'd only hear from the DNC itself and not the U.S. government. From the New York Times:
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.
Such a public accusation could result in a further deterioration of the already icy relationship between Washington and Moscow, at a moment when the administration is trying to reach an accord with Mr. Putin on a cease-fire in Syria and on other issues. It could also doom any effort to reach some kind of agreement about acceptable behavior in cyberspace, of the kind the United States has been discussing with China.
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.
The general consensus seems to be that the Russians consider him a useful idiot, not a "secret agent". He obviously isn't going to take orders from Putin, and Putin won't need to give him any. Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket that he might abandon like a failing casino. (As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.)
Indeed. Assange merely hinting suggests that he is trying to mislead: outrage would be the appropriate response. Surely outing the leak after he has been killed for leaking does no harm and helps expose his murderers. Instead we get innuendo from an advocate for radical transparency.
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.
The only reason Trump isn't Hitler is that he's way dumber than Hitler. Otherwise, he says all the right things.
Most likely, but democracy isn't guaranteed to survive. We only have a Republic as long as we can keep it. "Only I can fix it" Donald Trump represents an anti-democratic strain in the country. We're blessed that they are mostly ineffective. They may not always be.
Play Command HQ online
"I have to say, I didn't read the whole stack, but the ones I saw didn't seem to be anything other than a couple of people venting opinions in private that would be politically incorrect in public."
yep, there is no more than that.
if there was more, you would see the bad parts quoted everywhere.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
Seriously? What kind of evidence do you think they would say.
The security firm the DNC hired presented their evidence.
But who are "they" and what assertions have they made? The article says Obama won't accuse Putin because of "diplomacy," and yet here we have the government saying it was the Russians? So the government is telling the government and the press it was the Russians but the government isn't saying it was the Russians?
It sounds more like propaganda FUD to me. I'm not saying it was aliens but it was totally aliens! I'm saying it was Putin but it was totally Putin!
I just don't see how Putin's thought process works here. I can believe he wants Trump to win and not Hillary, because Hillary and Obama act like they want WWIII with Russia whereas Trump wants to ally with Russia against radical Islam. And so to help enable this, Putin...sloppily hacks the DNC and releases some emails that mostly confirm what everybody already knew, that the DNC didn't like Bernie Sanders? They didn't reveal any criminal wrongdoing that would actually sink Hillary. If it's a play by Putin I don't get his game. There must have been better targets and better use of compromised information than this. And why involve WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks doesn't deal in stolen goods from hackers, they deal in leaked documents from whistleblowers.
My theory: like Assange hinted, the leaks came from a DNC staffer. When the DNC learned they got compromised they had to play PR spin, and "we're victims of evil Putin who's in league with evil Trump!" is a waaaaaaay better story than "our own people were disgusted with our corruption and leaked our documents."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Is the press bias to the left or ideologically neutral to a fault? You can't really be both, ya know? They're polar opposites.
Anyway here the reality: the press is left on social issues (guns, abortion) and right on economic ones (e.g. the ones that actually matter). Outside of Mother Jones you won't find anyone seriously investigating income inequality or the massive wealth grab that happened post 2008. My favorite are a bunch of stories I keep reading about why the middle class' spending isn't going up. Since the press won't talk about income inequality they just kinda trail off when it comes time to talk about why.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That phenomenon is called the "echo chamber", where you have 30 or so outlets quoting and referencing each other in a cyclical fashion rather than the other 29 outlets checking original sources. The result is like the rumor game; eventually what is said is so wildly distorted it's unrecognizable. The problem is that by outlets doing this, is you have so many people saying the same thing it lends an aura of credibility to something with very little actual fact behind it. The root cause is the 24 news cycle, where journalists are pressed to publish as soon as possible, often within minutes of the event. This doesn't allow any time at all for research, so the temptation is to skip primary sources and go to third party sources, which is either the press pool or Twitter. The reason for this, in turn, is their revenue model, which currently revolves around display ad impressions (commercials) or clicks. The clicks don't care whether your info is right. They just care that the headline is fresh and enticing.