Slashdot Mirror


US Intel Officially Blames the Russian Government For Hacking DNC (theverge.com)

It's official, the Director of National Intelligence and Department of Homeland Security has blamed Russia for stealing and publishing archived emails from the Democratic National Committee in July. Wikileaks released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the DNC in what was "part one of [their] new Hillary Leaks series." The Verge reports: "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts," the statement reads. "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." The release also mentions recent reports of attempted intrusions into voting systems in 20 different states, but says there is not yet enough evidence to attribute those attacks to the Russian government. Despite the acknowledged threat, the DNI says digital attacks are unlikely to directly alter election results. "It would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion," the statement reads. "This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place." "Nevertheless," it continues, "DHS continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant."

31 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the Russians had cracked the RNC instead of the DNC, you'd never hear the end of it. Communist infiltration and all that. FOX News would be yammering about it 24 hours a day.

    Instead, most of the posters on Slashdot are going to be falling all over each other denying the Russians had anything to do with it.

    1. Re:Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether the Russians had anything to do with it is irrelevant until people start acknowledging the appalling corruption that the hacks revealed. That should be first and foremost in the discussion. Whether it was the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or Klingons doesn't really matter. That piece of information takes second priority to that fact that our elections are rigged.

      Good God, why is this so hard to understand?

    2. Re:Double standard by mukinrestak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry, man, most people do understand, they're just getting their records corrected.

    3. Re:Double standard by david_thornley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Appalling corruption? Can you point me to some?

      In the meantime, do you have any reason to think the RNC isn't about the same? If you say the DNC is corrupt because you saw their internal emails, and don't at least wonder about the RNC, you're being played for a dupe.

      Politics is a dirty game. Always has been, always will be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Double standard by quantaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gawd man, do you ever take a break? If this happened to the GOP, the Press would use it against Trump all day long, and three times during the debate. In fact, they are already trying to blame Trump for it.

      Because Trump has not only been weirdly friendly with Putin but has spoken supportively of the cyber-attacks.

      Instead of trying to blame Trump, they should be looking right at DWS (who was in charge) and Hillary, and trying to tie it to Hillary's Homebrew basement dwelling server.

      And quite frankly, it shouldn't matter the "who" did it. The fact that it did happen, and everything looks so awful for the DNC and Clinton Campaign because of it, it should be news all day long, but somehow it doesn't matter as much as some chick from 20 years ago that Trump said "mean things" about.

      Why? Because emails exposed that people in the DNC perferred Clinton but never really did anything about it?

      Hell, Priebus has openly said that never-Trump'ers might not be allowed to run again if they don't fall in line. Why isn't that worse than the things people in the DNC speculated about doing.

      So far the content of these DNC leaks really have been non-stories.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Double standard by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RNC establishment exists, but is confused and conflicted

      There was a lot more visible establishment Republican opposition to Trump than DNC opposition to Bernie, and I'm pretty sure a hack of the RNC would have revealed a lot of dirt as well. But it didn't happen, so we can only speculate.

    6. Re:Double standard by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice to see the Trumpies out in full support of a foreign country directly tampering in a US Election, regardless of the fact that if we just let this go the next time will be even worse. The very idea of a foreign country interfering in our elections is an affront to our very democracy and a direct and present threat. But partisan people like you think it's no big deal because it hit the other guy.

      The next time it happens it might hit your side, think about that. And because of people like you our country won't have reacted this time so we will have directly encouraged the next attack.

      Let me let you in on something, this is a direct attack on our country. I'd be as outraged if it had happened to the green party or libertarian party. We cannot stand by and allow foreign countries to start tampering in our elections. We should respond directly to this attack, even if that involves a kinetic attack against the source.

  2. a more likely scenario? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if it's just people inside the DNC who are sick of the corruption? What if there are people inside the DNC who wanted Bernie to win and were angry when the DNC conspired to steal the primary election from him?

    What if the Russians aren't hacking the FBI, the NSA the DNC etc and it's all just people who are disgusted with the corruption? If the Russians were stealing secrets from these groups, you'd expect them to keep quiet rather than causing a ruckus that would result in increased scrutiny and heightened security.

    Knowing Hillary's dirty secrets and holding them would be terrific for blackmail. Leaking them to the public weakens her as a candidate and removes the material from future usefulness. My guess is that it's good samaritans rather than foreign spies.

    1. Re:a more likely scenario? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like when blaming the Russians? LOL!

  3. Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it weren't for the Russians, the DNC and the Clinton camp would have gotten away with voter fraud in the primary! Oh, no one cares. Nevermind.

    1. Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can send your vote to 3rd party. Obviously if you supported Sanders you're not likely to support Trump. There's Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, who aren't even on the same plane of evil and corrupt as the top party nominees.

    2. Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This exactly. We already know that Hillary has lied to congress (said she turned over all her emails while holding thousands of classified, work emails back; that's a felony), lied to the American people numerous times, and now, a disenfranchised DNC member (Seth Rich) leaked information to Wikileaks showing how Hillary stole the primary from Bernie Sanders and when Hillary found out about it she or someone else at the DNC had him murdered. So you can vote for a lying, murderous career politician lawyer (Hillary), Donald Trump, or vote for a libertarian like Gary Johnson who actually wants to protect the constitution and the freedoms that it gives us. The two party system only works until we stop voting like lemmings for one or the other and pick the best candidate.

      If a third party candidate were ever going to win (and ever needed to win) now is the time. Both Hillary and Trump have sub 50% likability numbers, and if all the people who dislike Trump and Hillary voted for Johnson, we would be close to a three way tie out of the gate.

        OTOH, as Kaang (or was it Kodos) once said "Go ahead and vote for a third party; throw your vote away! It's a two party system people, you have to vote for one of us..."

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    3. Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Talking crap about a candidate is not voter fraud. Coordinating with one's own front runner when it is clear they are going to win is not voter fraud. You and I may object to some or all of these things, but that doesn't make it voter fraud. Moreover, part of the hacking here isn't just DNC emails but is actual attempts at hacking *election systems* which should bother you in any event.

    4. Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you are now conflating two wildly different things. We were discussing the emails. In fact, you explicitly brought up the emails. You are now bringing up issues with caucuses. So let's discuss that issue (which we should keep in mind has nothing to do with DNC emails). Caucuses are very complicated (and frankly terrible as a system) and multiple votes are a standard aspect. For example, in Maine (where I caucused) there were multiple stages between the first count and the actual vote. This is a standard thing, and people who leave early are a standard factor. The other issue that came up was Sanders people failing to go to state conventions even after the local conventions were done, and in fact, in at least some occasions similar issues took place in reverse where they benefited Sanders. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/. Caucus obnoxious rules is not voter fraud, and none of this is relevant to the emails being discussed.

  4. Yeah, we know how you feel by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...said pretty much every country in South America and the middle east that have had the U.S. government interfering in their elections for decades.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Re:Hmm by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a tradition. For almost 25 years we were looking for a new enemy, but why bother when the old one works so well? Never change a running system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:A collection of articles on Russian influence o by bazmail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow it's almost as if you had all these references waiting for an article like this. Who does that? ... he asked knowingly

  7. Re:A collection of articles on Russian influence o by BradMajors · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is pretty strong evidence that the Obama regime is blaming Russia for everything regardless of whether or not there are any facts to support their claim.

  8. Blame by blackomegax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't care if they blame bigfoot. The information released was still damning of the corruption inside the DNC. Fuck the DNC. They don't deserve any votes for burning Bernie.

    1. Re:Blame by david_thornley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think the RNC is significantly better just because you haven't seen their emails, you're naive.

      Sanders had a chance. Under the circumstances, he had to do considerably better than Clinton to get the nomination, and that's pretty much as it should be. He's less electable than Clinton, would be less effective in office, and isn't actually a Democrat. I supported him primarily to try to push the party to the left. It was reasonable to want him to perform a lot better than Clinton in order to get the nomination.

      The first election I voted in was 1972. I do NOT want a repeat of someone like McGovern getting nominated.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Another outsourced job: exposing wrongdoing? by mveloso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, the US Government is accusing another government of attempting to influence an election by exposing wrongdoing?

    That's bizarre.

    I suppose if the press was doing its job instead of being Democratic spear-carriers we wouldn't need some other country to do the press' work for them.

  10. Re:Whaa? by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Canada is much less of a threat now that they've elected a dumb himbo Prime Minister who seems intent of leading them towards a giant mass cultural suicide. Besides, a lot of us kind of like their funny square-wheeled cars and the fact that they rid us of the Baldwin scourge.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Re:Hmm by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's always Russia, because we still haven't definitively settled the dick-measuring contest left over from World War II. It's hard to measure while the two main contestants (and new challenger China) keep simultaneously participating in pissing contests and counting notches after fucking other countries.

    The metaphor's getting a bit strained, but the bottom line is that it's a mess that hasn't been resolved in the last century. America was doing great in the 20's, horribly in the 30's, then somewhat stabilized after WWII. Meanwhile, Russia was doing decently in the 20s, badly oppressed in the 30s, then pretty unstable (but pretending otherwise) after WWII until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. After that, there have been several factions fighting for power, and one of the more aggressive factions has taken control, now looking to solidify Russia as the main superpower of the world.

    Then, of course, there are all of Russia's allies that have caches of Soviet weapons, and the ongoing corruption that allows them to get more. Even if "hurt America" weren't Russia's intent, there's enough belligerence in Russia's government that most conflicts can be traced back to some Russian office.

    On the American side, we've done little to discourage such saber-rattling. In a burst of benevolence, we've helped overthrow oppressive government regimes, only to be pulled back by our own isolationist factions, leaving a power vacuum that attracts more oppressive dictators. We also tend to be vindictive, highlighting the Russian connections when a bad guy gets a delivery of shiny new weapons.

    It's all very complicated, and has several symptoms of an ongoing cold war. Russia makes a public affair about our insecure elections, we make a public affair about their corrupt government. We build new weapons that could threaten Russia, they steal designs and threaten us. It's a stupid dance, and this is just another turn.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  12. Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait...so Obama and the Dems havetheir panties in a bunch because Russia (supposedly) just did pretty much what Yahoo just did at the behest of the Obama and the Dems.

    WTF?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  13. Nothing to see here by rworne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion,"

    That's rich. With all the whining and hand-wringing about not trusting electronic voting machines since the Bush administration, we already know many cannot be audited and leave no paper trail of ballots cast by voters.

    Yeah, they can't because we simply won't know if they did.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  14. Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait...so Obama and the Dems havetheir panties in a bunch because Russia (supposedly) just did pretty much what Yahoo just did at the behest of the Obama and the Dems.

    Are you really that stupid? Do you understand the qualitative difference between the American government operating on American soil and the Russian government operating on American soil? You believe there is a moral equivalence?

    Let's put it this way: If a cop kills a guy in the US, there might well be a discussion about excessive force, over-policing, etc etc. But if a Russian agent kills a guy in the US, it becomes a very different discussion and much different by degree. Don't you agree?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah there is a difference, our own government spying on us is far more offensive than a foreign government. I have no problem with our government spying on Russia, in fact I expect it.

  16. Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a minute. The story was EXACTLY THAT when people were complaining about spying. Government stooges on this site would respond with "well, it's okay to spy on other nations. They do it all time. It's their job."

    But when it's USA being spied on (hypothetically, these russia claims are complete bullshit).. whoa ho ho, now it's "act of war", "rally the troops" time.

    Fucking hypocrites.

  17. Re:Just like the 1900's by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are the same people that bugged Merkel's phone bitching about the DNC hack? It's not like the DNC is a government agency. It's a political party or as I like to call it, one of the two mafias that rig elections in this country.

  18. Not irrelevant by DavidMZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether the Russians had anything to do with it is irrelevant until people start acknowledging the appalling corruption that the hacks revealed. That should be first and foremost in the discussion. Whether it was the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or Klingons doesn't really matter. That piece of information takes second priority to that fact that our elections are rigged.

    The corruption in the DNC is a problem, and I hope that the registered Democrats will look at it seriously and bring reforms to their own party.

    However, it doesn't make the origin of the hack irrelevant. We are now in the general elections and it should be a worrying fact to the American people, both Republicans and Democrats, that a foreign power is trying to influence our elections.

    Good God, why is this so hard to understand?

    We get it, and God has nothing to do with it.

  19. Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait a minute. The story was EXACTLY THAT when people were complaining about spying. Government stooges on this site would respond with "well, it's okay to spy on other nations. They do it all time. It's their job."

    But when it's USA being spied on (hypothetically, these russia claims are complete bullshit).. whoa ho ho, now it's "act of war", "rally the troops" time.

    Fucking hypocrites.

    You missed part of the Pope's argument. It is a serious violation, because the Russians (or others) made the Democrats look bad.

    If someone did this same thing against the Republicans, or against a Republican administration, poperatzo would support it.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.