Slashdot Mirror


Guccifer 2.0 Dumps a Bunch of Clinton Foundation Donor Data (engadget.com)

The hacker Guccifer 2.0 today released a large database of information reportedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. The dump, Engadget reports, includes names, addresses, and emails of both individuals and corporate donors as well as their contribution amounts. From the report: This, of course, isn't the first time Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin have attempted to subvert the US political process during this election cycle. Just last month Guccifer released Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Tim Kaine's personal cell phone number. What's more, nearly half of the country's state voter registration systems have recently come under cyberattack, according to the DHS, though the FBI has not yet determined if those breaches originated in Russia. There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks. Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he "jokingly" suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server.

15 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Well that was a well balanced summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I particularly liked:

    There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks

    So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups? Hey, I suppose that's better than Hilary who can't even run a secure email server.

    I'm also interested in these "unanswered questions"? I suspect the reason they're unanswered is because you haven't asked them. You're just implying that something is amiss about Trump without actually saying what is wrong or making any allegations.

    1. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump?

      I have a question for you - when the list of the Clinton Foundation donors gets leaked online, why are you talking about unanswered questions for Trump? Isn't this story about Clinton? Because I can think of at least one question for Clinton - how did the database of donors for The Clinton Foundation get stolen? Where and how was it being stored? Those are a couple unanswered questions right off the top of my head, maybe you can think of some more.

      It seems like the summary kind of takes this track:

      The Clinton Foundation donor database got leaked.
      Russia has been trying to subvert the US political process!
      Nearly half of the US states have had their voting systems attacked! (but we don't know if the Russians did that, and we don't even know if it's connected to the Clinton Foundation database leak)
      There are "unanswered questions" for Donald Trump.
      Four Congressmen want Trump investigated by the FBI.

      That seems like a weird direction to head off into when this is a story about the Clinton Foundation donor database getting stolen and leaked. It's almost like that small collection of facts are unrelated to each other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is part and parcel of the childish maneuver to deflect guilt. It is pointing to bad behavior in a vain attempt to justify bad behavior. Basic logic of this goes something like this ....

      "You killed a puppy"

      "But Johnny killed a kitten, and got away with it, so should I"

      Whenever you see "Trump did ______" and someone answers "Clinton did ______" in response (and they aren't pointing to a third alternative), they are guilty of this childish maneuver. Personally speaking, this is why I can't vote for EITHER of the two idiots running on the major party tickets.

      This isn't good for Clinton, and it is no surprise that they want to make it about Trump somehow. Once you understand that it is the same crap kids try on their parents, you realize that we're dealing with children who are over 18 years old.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin"
    Just tell us what happened without participating in the propaganda will you? This is embarrassing for all reporters.

  3. What a crock by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He implies there is some sort of correlation to banks making donations, and tarp funds being distributed. Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars? And since when does the secretary of state have any impact on where tarp funds are distributed? And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow, it's not like they are buying paintings of themselves with it.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:What a crock by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not quid-pro-quo, it's a charitable donation. A write-off for the donors. It's certainly much less fishy than Trump donating 25K to the Florida AG who was investigating Trump U and subsequently dropped the case.

  4. Re:At's all fun until.... by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are influencing our elections by providing that elusive and oft promised but ne're delivered Obamian transparency, undermining an entire administration's corrupt miscarriage of justice, and finally serving up the goods from a 10,000 unfulfilled FOIA requests, then GOOD. We need to be influenced. More influence please! Influence the shit out of me and everyone else! HARDER!!!

    If exposing the truth is detrimental to one of the parties that might be something the electorate deserves to know, you know, before the election.

    Besides, I ordered a shit ton of Jiffy Pop from Amazon in preparation for the culmination of this election cycle. /popcorn GO!

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  5. Stop blaming the Russians by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am so sick and tired of hearing about how Russia is trying to "subvert our election." Annoyed enough to bother logging in and not posting AC.

    Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.

    Who cares who revealed it? If they weren't acting unethically, there would be no issue. But they are, and that's why it's a problem, and trying to bring Russia into this is purely a smokescreen.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  6. Re:Lost emails by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS. Of course, she conveniently forgot that she had any such requirement due to a head injury, of which she is still suffering effects. All of which should keep her out of any position in government for the rest her life, but people like you continue to try to minimize the crimes she has committed.

    As for having ANY classified email on her home brew, basement dwelling server is also a crime (she sent and received )

    As for deleting her server after it was subpoenaed is ALSO a crime.

    If she is investigated for murder, it won't be because of some kid having SIDS in Kansas. There are plenty of murders of people that she was quite familiar with, which might have some relationship to her. Cute though.

    Trump has his own issues, and people limited to binary choices rarely choose well. Vote 3rd Party.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  7. Re:Charity? by jasnw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, which gave the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating, the Clinton Foundation spends only 12% of the money it raises on overhead. Politifact has a good rundown on this: http://www.politifact.com/trut... . Do some research before making wild claims, don't just go with wisdom from the blogosphere.

  8. Re:Lost emails by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.

    WHAT?!!! Uh, NO .

    If you ever hold a security clearance, the proper procedure for dealing with classified information leaks will be drilled into you. The very first thing you get taught - repeatedly - is you do not delete classified information if it leaks.

    The process is pretty simple: you disconnect from the network, go into "airplane mode" if necessary, and then immediately stop using the machine. You don't delete anything, you don't close any open programs, you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.

    This leaves a paper trail. But it also makes sure that the information spill is known, that how far it leaks is known, and that any potential spill to uncleared individuals is known.

    So if Hillary did delete emails with classified information, she - well, broke procedure. I have no idea if it's a law or just an official process. But there's a process and procedure for dealing with classified information leaks, and deleting anything is 100% not it.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  9. Subvert? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Informing the public about who's paying bribes to which Ruling Party candidates isn't subverting the process, it's benefitting the process.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  10. Re:one foundation but not the other by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty sure the IRS is PERFECTLY capable of catching and dealing with people caught cheating with their taxes. This is a non issue.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Re:Lost emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS.

    She had a duty to delete confidential material. She did as required, and is accused of a crime of deleting documents, when she was required to, by law.

    No, she has no such duty. Her duty is to stop using the machine and hand it over to the appropriate security officers to investigate the extent of the leak.

    Stop just making shit up. It does nobody any good to just spout lie after lie after lie. I can see why you like her so much, though!

  12. Re:Lost emails by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She had a duty to delete confidential material.

    You're just making shit up. The problem for you is, her narrative has been that she didn't know any of it was classified -- the "I was too stupid" defense.

    --
    sig: sauer