Slashdot Mirror


CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia (nbcnews.com)

Slashdot reader schwit1 reports that the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election," according to U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to NBC News: Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership. The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."

Not mounting a response would weaken U.S. credibility, one senior U.S. official said, while others said hundreds of millions of dollars has been allocated to the team mounting the attacks. Thursday US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN there was "mounting evidence" that Russia was supplying leaked emails to WikiLeaks, and last week in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said it was "absolutely clear... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."

352 comments

  1. For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a private organization like the DNC? This wasn't even a hack of the real government. This is pure insanity.

    1. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      How do you know the allegations are completely unproven?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

    3. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Ecuador kicked out the US Military several years ago and is now allied with Russia.

      This is all public info , I'll let you draw the logical conclusion as to how wiki-leaks is fed data.

    4. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ogdenk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption! As far as I'm concerned, I'd stop short of thanking the Russians.

      As far as Russia influencing the election.... exactly how many governments have we toppled and how many sovereign nations are there where we have tried to directly influence their local politics? This is pure hypocrisy. Personally, I say let's get the war over with. I'm tired of living under the bomb, just drop the fucking things.

    5. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?

    6. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a private organization like the DNC? This wasn't even a hack of the real government. This is pure insanity.

      Yeah, but it will probably be a war waged on Xbox and a budget for everyone to buy a copy of the latest Halo.

    7. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it was real covert action with covert response they wouldn't be talking about it.
      They are using these claims a lot in the election, in the hopes of instigating some cold war hate the Russians patriotism. I hope it backfires.

    8. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Also: Are you unaware that it's not just "a private organization" that has been attacked? CBS just now reported that 32 states have asked to feds for help against attacks on their election infrastructure.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This probably has more to do with Syria and the Ukraine than the hacking of the DNC. Most likely the democrats have no idea who hacked them, but blaming Russia is convenient, and also serves as an excuse for operations such as this.

    10. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

      Completely agree.

      A democratic president using the CIA to attack speech and actions against his political party. You might not like it but our political leaders and political issues affect other nations around the world. They may not get to vote but I see no reason they shouldn't be able to sway voters. Especially with something like truth and exposing hypocrisy. Our CIA has been swaying foreign elections since it's creation.

      Our political leaders are all for violating our privacy and constitutional rights yet they are the ones with the skeletons in the closet that cry foul the loudest.

      There is nothing to show it's "state sponsored". It simply doesn't have to be since it's not that expensive. They are private contractors. And private contractors at this level could be funded by any individual with political interests.

      What I find interesting is none of the exposed information is claimed to be falsified.

      P.S. I'm very much Against Trump.

    11. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Civilian? lol, your ignorance is not surprising.

    12. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      This is pure insanity.

      This is pure show for the benefit of those drooling fools known as my fellow Americans.

    13. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just because YOU haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean such evidence doesn't exist.

    14. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption!

      But how do you even know that supposedly-criminal behavior actually happened?

      Oh, maybe because our government is launching a cyber war against Russia. This action is pretty much admitting all of it is true.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Do you have any sources? Election systems shouldn't be hackable. They should be networked but not on the internet. That's really poor planning.

    16. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      No it isn't.

    17. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      The Russian hacks of the state election systems were not announced by "anonymous sources". They came directly from the FBI, as well as election officials in Arizona (red state) and Illinois (blue state). Oh, and Florida (red state).

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/...

      https://www.theguardian.com/te...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't think the Kremlin regularly plays the same game?

    19. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're claiming that evidence exists, then the burden of proof falls on you.
      If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq.
      How soon we forget.

    20. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?

      "The FBI, and the election officials in Arizona (R), Illinois (D) and Florida (R) could all be lying!

      It's not proven until Breitbart, SputnikINT and RT.com say it is."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a...

      Well on the bright side, a nuclear winter would offset global warming. Unless of course that's a Chinese hoax.

    22. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting is none of the exposed information is claimed to be falsified.

      Nonsense. The default position of the Clinton campaign is that none of these documents can be trusted to be authentic. That assertion hasn't survived contact with reality, however.

    23. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      my fellow Americans.

      Excellent movie, IMHO.

    24. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one wants to read links that lead to propaganda organizations writing articles about corrupt 3 letter organizations.

    25. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WaPo, The Clinton News Network, and theguardian.com are not reliable sources of information when the DNC is involved any more than RT is trustworthy when Putin is in the news.

    26. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're claiming that evidence exists, then the burden of proof falls on you.

      If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq.

      How soon we forget.

      You are an absolute idiot if you think every bit of Intel we get should be public knowledge. Are you still living in a dorm or have you moved back into your mother's basement?

    27. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      But timezones match working hours, ip ranges and easy to discover code litter. In the past the code also something to do with a board game called "Chess" thats part of compulsory education in some nations.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ""two or more connected tools/tactics to attack a specific target similar to the chess strategy"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    28. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The washingtonpost has:
      "IP addresses listed" and near the end its " “not aware of any specific or credible cybersecurity threats relating to the upcoming general election systems,”"
      CNN notes:
      "We have seen no access into statewide registration database and no manipulation of that database." and "FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence."
      The Guardian has
      "in calling out what it says is Russian-directed hacking."
      So its back to ip ranges a "calling out" and a 'believe"?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    29. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.

      We're talking about an act of war against a nuclear state that can actually attack us on our home soil if they so choose. If an American citizen doesn't want to see at least some evidence of WHY we're committing an act of war against that state, then they're an idiot.

      And "The government said so" is not the same as proof. That's like saying "My favorite politician is honest!".

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    30. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Everyone is in on the conspiracy except the cocaine-bloated corpses of Andrew Breitbart and Alex Jones"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by meta-monkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      So we should trust the government? They wouldn't lie to us, right? It's not like the worst US military diasters in history, the Vietnam War and the Iraq war, were started based on false pretenses or anything. Yes, let's just fucking nuke Russia because THE GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T LIE TO YOU YOU FUCKING COCK GOBBLING FAGGOT.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    32. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So can you link me to the proof then, you bloodthirsty warmongering faggot?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    33. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence."

      Make up your mind. Is the US government an all-seeing intrusive eye that's hoovering up every bit of our data on the internet or are they unable to figure out that Russians are behind the hacks? It's unlikely that both conditions are true.

      If Putin will kill a critic with polonium, imprison three young girls for making fun of him and enact legislation making being gay a crime, do you really doubt that he'd take the relatively low-cost step of trying to help out his pal and debtor Donald become president? Especially if he can gin up a new cold war to distract his subjects from the Russian economy which is in free fall?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have to admit.... this is absolute trolling and I just simply can't hold back because the irony is killing me slowly.

      If you're going to take the high ground and call someone and idiot, can you please at least avoid abbreviating the word intelligence as the name of a company. I suppose you intended to say "intel" and not "Intel". Somehow the capitalized letter changes the entire meaning... as if we were talking about CPUs and such.

    35. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the standard US government playbook. Need to draw attention away from all of your fuckups? Engineer a war.

    36. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean like how Iraq had WMDs? There's the problem - we keep getting strung along in to thinking there's evidence of something when there isn't. If they want people to just go along, they should produce the evidence. Every time they do this without the proper justification it gets harder and harder to believe that they do anything in the public's best interest.

    37. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      Perhaps you might tell us why this is the case? Seriously - you figeu=re intel is going to give us IP addresses, phone numbers and all? Or are you an alt.right person who wouldn't believe any evidence anyhow.

      Here's your cohort where I confirm your alt.right street cred. http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      You might try for a position on old pussy grabber's staff, after he is elected.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      They caught someone? They have an actual name? We know they got hacked, but do they actually know who did it? All I've heard is "sources say." As far as any proof we seem a little short on proof.

      '

    39. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron.

    40. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT Russia!

    41. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If you're claiming that evidence exists, then the burden of proof falls on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq. How soon we forget.

      After all we all have the credentials to access that sort of thing. If Dubya were still in office would you accept his pronouncement as teh truth? Or how about Trump, the Candidate of the GOP - otherwise known as the Grab Our Pussy party?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      So we should trust the government? They wouldn't lie to us, right? It's not like the worst US military diasters in history, the Vietnam War and the Iraq war, were started based on false pretenses or anything. Yes, let's just fucking nuke Russia because THE GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T LIE TO YOU YOU FUCKING COCK GOBBLING FAGGOT.

      It's Saturday night....Saturday night. You kinda tip your hand that you don't believe it, and have absolutely no intention of ever believing it. You're the other side of the coin of your "cock gobbling faggot" buddy.

      Now insult me with all caps screed projector person. that's kinda hot.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    43. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      The Russian hacks of the state election systems were not announced by "anonymous sources". They came directly from the FBI, as well as election officials in Arizona (red state) and Illinois (blue state). Oh, and Florida (red state).

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/...

      https://www.theguardian.com/te...

      Remember tho' - these Einsteins believe that the FBI is in on the Fix, cuz you know, they didn't put Grandma in a pantssuit in front of a firing squad.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    44. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      So can you link me to the proof then, you bloodthirsty warmongering faggot?

      There is no proof that would satisfy you because it does not fit your agenda.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

      "On the basis of what we've looked at, we certainly believe that there's a connection to the Equation Group malware," said David Emm, Kaspersky's principal security researcher, told the BBC.
      "I've thought from the very beginning that it was real," added Mikko Hypponen at security company F-Secure.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    45. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think for any actions that would put us all at risk, that evidence better damn well be public.

    46. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption!

      You figure a pogram would be good? Extraordinary rendition on every one of your political enemies, the rel thing, non if this wiimpy waterboarding. Beat 'em within an inch of their lives first, then take dying statements and all evil will be banished form the world if only we realize that th eends justify the means.

      Dood! Here's a good question.

      All of the shit coming out has been about those Demoncrats.

      Given your anything is good, legal or not outlook, did you ever wonder why it's only the democrats? Or are you saying that the Republicans are as pur as the driven snow, corrution free, and it was actuall Hillary who outed Valerie plamce and squelched intel in order to lie to get us into settling Bushe's family feud.

      Whoever is doing the hacking has a distinct target.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    47. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you blame him ? As far as I know only the US has been heard discussing murdering the guy. ( Our next Queen no less )

    48. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyber combat, toe-to-toe with the Rooskies. We need Slim Pickens more than ever now!

    49. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allegation is not proof.

    50. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Trump does a good enough job on his own to prove he's unfit. Hillary is much more effective in the silencing criticism and in the suppressing evidence department.

      Voting for either of those clowns is insane.

    51. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You love cock you fucking ass pirate!!!!

    52. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to expose yourself bro. You are clearly gay and trying to hide it by talking tough. You're as queer as a 3 dollar bill.

    53. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Allegation is not proof.

      You don't say?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    54. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.

      Troll or not, not many people who disbelieve it will not accept any proof. Certainly the beneficiary of the hacks, Donald Trump, refused to believe na actual intel breifing on the subject. He says: "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?" During the second presidential debate he declared: "Maybe there is no hacking,"

      So yes, it is possible thatthe Democrats hacked their own computer, but you have to look at the evidence:

      Who loses, who benefits, and what is the motive.

      Obviously, the DEmocrats have been embarassed by these leaks.

      The Republicans have been the beneficiaries

      The motive? Pretty obvious, which is to get Trump elected as president.

      Now how would have the wherewithal to do such a thing, and have a reason to help the Republicans as well, specifically Trump.

      And why has data form the GOP not been leaked. The party that outed Valerie Plame and Fabricated Evidence to get us into war with Iraq, and is proud of it probably has more interesting things than the DNC's promotion of Clinton over Sanders, and her Wall Street speeches. Not sayin', just sayin'.

      You can draw your own conclusions, but a police detective would consider those issues a fine place to start looking.

      And those are the publically accessible things. You do know that some things gotta be kept from the public for a while. Then again, there are people who believe that FDR planned Pearl Harbor as a ploy to get us into WW2, and that the holocaust never happened. Which speaks to my first paragraph.

      SoI could see the conspiracists claiming that the Kenyan terror baby did this because of whatever weird ass reason, maybe in order to take our guns away and put everyone in FEMA death camps something, like he was going to do for the last 8 years

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    55. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by swalve · · Score: 1

      I don't think the POTUS is an anonymous source, Champ.

    56. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?

      "The FBI, and the election officials in Arizona (R), Illinois (D) and Florida (R) could all be lying!

      It's not proven until Breitbart, SputnikINT and RT.com say it is."

      TRumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So can you link me to the proof then, you bloodthirsty warmongering faggot?

      My my, are you the projecting guy who turns everything into something gay? You forgot to post as AC.

      Now call me a faggot! That'd be hot!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    58. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Trump does a good enough job on his own to prove he's unfit. Hillary is much more effective in the silencing criticism and in the suppressing evidence department.

      Voting for either of those clowns is insane.

      Yeah, she's killed 52 people now, not to mention th eones Bill had killed over his career.

      Vote Cthlulu - why settle for the lesser of evils?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    59. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      What evidence has Obama put forward to back up these claims? Keep in mind, anonymous government sources don't count!

    60. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      Come on don't tease the poor guy for wanting evidence for statements leaked by the government.
      If you need evidence I'm sure some could be made up, let's see Iraq WMD, everything ever about South America.

    61. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imprison three young girls for making fun of him

      They deserved to go to jail.......not for what they said, but for what they did. If they hadn't been sent to jail, the highly religious parishioners would have attacked them and torn them to pieces.

      If you don't think they are highly religious, consider that they attend church for 4 to 8 hours, while standing. Those women would have been arrested if they had done that in America too, and possibly have been tainted for life by being labeled a sex-offender.

    62. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If the NSA is actually doing all the hacking they are accused of, then they would know where it was coming from. If they are not doing all that spying, then they really need to spend more money on public relations.

    63. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 0

      Looks like you forgot to check the Anonymous Coward box there, Olsoc.
      Classy reply.

    64. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ichthus · · Score: 0

      If Putin will kill a critic with polonium, imprison three young girls for making fun of him and enact legislation making being gay a crime, do you really doubt that he'd take the relatively low-cost step of trying to help out his pal and debtor Donald become president? Especially if he can gin up a new cold war to distract his subjects from the Russian economy which is in free fall?

      If the dems will fabricate a narrative that a US embassy was attacked and the occupants murdered because of a YouTube video, and then arrest the creator of that video in an attempt to add credence to their lie, do you really doubt that they'd take the relatively low-cost step of to trying to tie Trump to Putin by blaming the Russkies for the email hacks? Especially if they can gin up a new cold war to distract their constituents from the content of the emails and Hillary's credibility which is in free fall?

      --
      sig: sauer
    65. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a good time to start a new political party. I think Americans would really jump on that bandwagon.

    66. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they hadn't been sent to jail, the highly religious parishioners would have attacked them and torn them to pieces.

      So benevolent Putin put them in jail for their own good?

      Those women would have been arrested if they had done that in America too, and possibly have been tainted for life by being labeled a sex-offender.

      In Soviet Russia, sex-offender votes for you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and Hillary's credibility which is in free fall?

      You might as well start calling her "President Clinton", so you can get used to it. Call it aversion therapy.

      http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

      And just so you can get the bad news from conservative sites, too:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

      https://electionbettingodds.co...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      This would be that same FBI that didn't think Hillary Clinton did do anything worth bringing charges over? That FBI?

      --
      -- Alastair
    69. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      But timezones match working hours, ip ranges and easy to discover code litter.

      All of which are dead easy to fake if you're doing a false-flag operation, and should be at least obfuscated as a part of normal operational security.

      Unless, of course, that's what they want you to think. (So clearly, I cannot choose the cup in front of you.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    70. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      But then you have the people who hate both parties (but not everyone in them) and still want proof. My vote (deployed military) went to Gary Johnson, and I do not want Clinton or Trump elected, but I still think we need proof. You can't think of everything as a partisan issue.

    71. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is pure insanity."

      So in other words business as usual for US foreign policy?

    72. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She may indeed be the next president. The question is: What to do when the cure is worse than the disease?

    73. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      we certainly believe

      Now that is what I call evidence. They are pretty sure so it must be true. Glad we have that all cleared up. I don't have a horse in this race, but these arguments are ridiculous. If the government wants to release actual evidence they can, but until or unless they do there is no evidence. Just because the government claims something doesn't make it true. And they don't have to be lying. They could just be mistaken.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    74. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      How do you know the allegations are completely unproven?

      We don't, but we all knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the US Government said so.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    75. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by popo · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      There is zero proof that the Russian government hacked the DNC. Zippo.

      What this is, is a president desperately trying to stay true to his promise to not put more boots on the ground. (Commendably). But also keep favor with the war-party heading into an election where the Democrats are traditionally unloved. (Not so commendably).

      But... The war-party knows only too well that this is a trap: A back-door into starting the war they've been dreaming about for decades.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    76. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I must make one small correction: Being gay is not a crime in Russia. Not officially anyway. Police harassment is commonplace though, and they do have a law since 2013 which forbids any promotion of 'non-traditional' sexuality to minors, including any public statement where there is any possibility at all that a minor may see it. A law which the government interprets sufficiently broadly that they considered prosecuting Apple for including the same-sex couple emoji in the iPhone.

      So if you say you are gay in Russia, the police may well arrest you for promotion of homosexuality to a child, on the grounds that a child may have heard you say that. And even if they don't, your local gang of thugs will come around to beat the crap out of you. And then the police will arrest you for provoking them, and let the gang off with a caution.

      But the actual being gay part? Not a crime. They don't need it to be.

    77. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.

      To use your police analogy, sure, maybe Russia can benefit -- and that gives us motive. In police terms, that's enough to possibly get a search warrant (a bit thin, really), but not to arrest you or throw you in jail, let alone convict you of a criminal offense.

      Right now it's going something like this:

      Hillary: "Hey, Joe Bob can benefit from stealing my car, he must've done it!"
      Me: "But where's your proof that Joe Bob actually stole your car?"
      Hillary: "Joe Bob did it!"
      Me: "Where was Joe Bob on the day your car was stolen?"
      Hillary: "Joe Bob!"
      Newspapers: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
      Citizens: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"

      Meanwhile, Joe Bob is a few thousand miles away vacationing in Hawaii, where he's been this whole time, and Hillary's car is actually in her neighbor's garage, and they're letting people come look at it. They moved it there because she forgot to lock it, and they don't like her, so they want the public to see the deplorable state she's kept it in.

      And to the other poster on this, yeah, this is not a partisan issue. This is a "someone is trying to put us on a collision course with Russia" issue. If they're going to do that, they damn well need to provide evidence that Russia is the bad actor here. Motive is not even remotely close to evidence. I've not seen anything that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to the claim.

      That someone can, or might want to does not in any way mean that they did.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    78. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      For them theoretically hacking a private org?

      It's not that it's a public organization or a private organization that matters. What matters is that another nation-state is attacking a US entity.

      One of the most important jobs of the federal government is to protect us from other nation-states; to "provide for the common defence." The US would mobilize a defense/counterattack if Russia bombed your warehouse, so is it really so hard to imagine they'd do the same if Russia attacked your data warehouse?

      That Russia apparently went after a political organization certainly makes things expedient. But even if they had gone after something else, when you have a nation-state attacking, you take action. If nothing else, what the heck is a single corp/org/person supposed to do against the entire cyberwarfare division of Russia?

    79. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      You are making a lot of claims of their state sponsored actions. Show me.

    80. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually truely believe that your government acts on your behalf ?
      You believe you live in the greatest democracy the world has ever had,but you it have two things that you have a "right" to do,vote in a rigged,worthless election,where either one group of elite will take control from another elite group or to kill yourself..
      The American public are exactly the same as the rest of us in the world,ants to service the wishes of a tiny elite who control anything and everything of any importance.
      If you live in such a wonderful "democracy" get up on your hind legs and demand to see such evidence that exists but your all so busy trying g to cut each others throats for an extra handful of rice that A) you won't demand anything and B)nothing would happen even if you did.
      Try living in the real world instead of the insular,parochial little cocoon where you are spoon Fed everything you think you know.

    81. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No one wants to read links that lead to propaganda organizations ...

      So...you're only News is Faux?
      Or was that Newsmucks?
      Or perhaps something from AEI?

    82. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      OT: "Grippeth". You are using the present participle instead of the imperative.

      "Thou mayst needs be myndfull, lest he grippith thine wench by ye pudenda"

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    83. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that you look like complete idiots to the rest of us.

      If you go to war with Russia over Hillary fucking Clinton and her corrupt buddies then I will lose any bit of respect for the US populace that remains.

      Even if Russia was involved, you guys fuck with other countries internal business all the time. You are always doing it to somebody. Get over yourselves and stop acting like spoiled brats.

    84. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      I addresses are not enough anyway, it is not hard to make an attack look like it's coming from another country, just proxy the attack through a previously hacked computer from that country. You think any state sponsored hackers can't do this when mear amateurs can?

    85. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by KevvinBrandsma · · Score: 2

      You make it sound like the entire CIA is stupid as f*ck, don't you think they know about proxies? Everybody knows about them, they exist for years and still hackers are arrested.. Why do you think that happens? Right, cause proxies aren't some magic fix for everything

    86. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Another day, another 50 kopecks. *cha-chinggg!*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    87. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What to do when the cure is worse than the disease?

      If Trump gets elected, I guess we'll all be finding that out pretty quickly.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    88. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Bzzzzzt---wrong. "Grippeth" is second person singular present *indicative*. The present *participle* is "gripping".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    89. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty much. Why do you ask? Other than to imply that you somehow know more than the FBI?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    90. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No mod points today, sorry. Hopefully someone with eyes and a brain attached to them will mod you up.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    91. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      We don't, but we all knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because a Republican administration said so.

      TFTFY.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    92. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I knew you liked him better than me, dammit.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    93. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the word "unproven." OP was asking for proof.

    94. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for Correcting The Record shill.

    95. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      Just because you've not seen the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist.

      We're not talking about the government going after a US citizen, who should be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. There the government needs to make evidence public. We're talking about a foreign power, where there really isn't a court of law to go to (and the intelligence services may not want to reveal their methods and means).

    96. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The other fun question is if the private sector has so much info how could so much plain text data move to such an ip range using detectable methods?
      Why is so much data been kept as plain text facing global networks?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    97. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears to be a false flag narrative to get you all to believe that Russia is your enemy, which they are not, but our gov controlled by dual citizen outsiders with money and blackmail are willing to push the WW3.

      Obama made an exec order to take over the country with DHS and UN if our energy grid breaks, under the guise of Solar flare order bull.

      Now we launch an attack against russia, then they fake a return attack against our US power grid, our CIA does it, they shut off the power and declare martial law.

      Its all a false flag setup. Wake up out of your Fluoride Lobotomies folks, your easily suggestible under its control.

    98. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Looks like you forgot to check the Anonymous Coward box there, Olsoc. Classy reply.

      A guy goes full potato, calling someone who disagrees with him the classic All Caps gay pejoratives under his name, I point it out, and I'm the one who should be afraid to post under my real pseudonym?

      I wrote that, and I'd write it again.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    99. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      But then you have the people who hate both parties (but not everyone in them) and still want proof. My vote (deployed military) went to Gary Johnson, and I do not want Clinton or Trump elected, but I still think we need proof. You can't think of everything as a partisan issue.

      I dunno the parties of the conspiracists.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    100. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      OT: "Grippeth". You are using the present participle instead of the imperative.

      "Thou mayst needs be myndfull, lest he grippith thine wench by ye pudenda"

      Grammar corrections on jokes? Dood!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    101. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like the entire CIA is stupid as f*ck, don't you think they know about proxies? Everybody knows about them, they exist for years and still hackers are arrested.. Why do you think that happens? Right, cause proxies aren't some magic fix for everything

      Dunning–Kruger effect. If one does something on the intertoobz, they can be found. It just depends on whether the effort is justified. My IP's and phone numbers were just devices to move the conversation forward.

      And in this case, effort is justified. The one sided nature of the hacks, and some other history makes this really interesting.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    102. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The president kept going on about WMDs in Iraq. When Canada was asked for help we said show us the evidence and our Parliament will vote on the matter. The US wouldn't even show the "evidence" to the party leaders. So we didn't go.

      Whenever anyone from anywhere proclaims something bold without providing evidence I don't believe them or at least have my doubts. Especially when politics is involved. Look at who the players are and how they gain. A little scientific reasoning goes a long way.

    103. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary's first war as president and she hasn't even been elected yey.

    104. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      russia does not like to become New Sodom ? Excellent !

    105. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I wrote that, and I'd write it again.

      Same. I didn't make a mistake.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    106. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a lot of money to be made in war...

    107. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You can't think of everything as a partisan issue.

      Yes they can. For these hyper-political types, every single issue centers on politics and their team winning and if you disagree then you are evil or stupid (looking at his reply, he went with stupid/crazy for you).

      Skepticism, consistent reasoning, and logic do not exist in their world. If you disagree with them on any point or don't take their favorite politician on their word, then you are flawed.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    108. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      You really didn't add anything, but thanks for the post.

    109. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I do have to agree with you there.

    110. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The president kept going on about WMDs in Iraq. When Canada was asked for help we said show us the evidence and our Parliament will vote on the matter. The US wouldn't even show the "evidence" to the party leaders. So we didn't go.

      I agree that we don't know the truth in this matter, beyond Vlad Putin's desire to fuck with the US and see Trump elected.

      My argument was that the information about the Russian hacks was not coming from "anonymous sources", but from state and federal officials on both sides of the political aisle. If you want "anonymous sources", you'll have to go to Wikileaks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    111. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately we just recently believed the government about another government we then invaded. And it was all lies.

      Remember that overhead picture of a truck that was for sure chemical weapons ? And we all said "well that just looks like a truck but I'm sure they know better "?

      They didnt. We should have questioned more.

    112. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, the DEmocrats have been embarassed by these leaks.

      But I thought the leaks were big fat nothingburgers that only 'revealed' what everybody already knew and already didn't care about? Also, class act bringing up the government fabrication to justify war, while trying to dispel the possibility of government fabrication to justify lesser hostilities.

    113. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, because there's a huge difference, because when a Democratic administration said so, it's different.

    114. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it just wants to be the new Fascist Spain.

    115. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      *I'm* a dual citizen, Elroy. What would you like to make of that?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    116. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'd rather prefer the New Sodom to re-emergence of any kind of Eastern Bloc potentially involving my country.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    117. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Are we sure at this point that Trump isn't actually a "deep cover liberal", as you people like to call it?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    118. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      What's worse, this is insanity even if Russia is behind the hacks. By publicly announcing a 'cyber strike' in advance, the Russian government would be practically forced to retaliate for it in order not to loose face in front of their own people. This would be a certain recipe for a quick escalation and cannot be in anyone's interest.

    119. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      ....Ulz
      this is euh, more like absurd ... unproven would mean like no one has seen any concrete proof at all (to the guy replying first to this) i suppose but what lulz me is the terminology like reports covert action ... for blabla CLANDESTINE operation and this is the super-ulz part : designed to HARASS
      for real ?
      to harass ? ... and embarrass ... and this is posted like ... as a warning or what ... pardon my lmao , im sure vlad is shaking in his panties now, frightened stiff hiding under a desk or something.
      lets just ignore the part where this little kid asks his leader of the free world "daddy ... what are we gonna do tonight" ...?
      "Well, son .. tonight we will play harass the superpower BUT YOU KNOW BULLYING IS BAED, RIGHT?"
      moderated "ridiculous"
      might i propose and oldfashioned duel between america and russias finest , televised where the proceedings go to homeless syrian victims who got targeted by eebul haxx0rs and lost their 900 dollar smartphone in the process?
      like the good sports you's all is ...Ullzzz... its getting out of hand ... this is right before the narcist of the free world winning however it is becomes supreme commander ... AND the well known fact that the russians have and have always had severe Leonidas-cramp when it comes to this xerxes bow to me shyte.
      and who's in the middle ... thats why it called the sinking continent then ehj ?
      allright ... i better not save my 20 euros here in case they call ferris bueller home from his day off and it escalates to wargames

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    120. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.

      Trump does the same thing all the damn time, and he uses his rush to judgement as proof of how awesome he is.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

      If you're going for a Hillary conspiracy on that same thin premise, I suppose we'd have to say Trump mush have had advanced knowledge of the NYC bombing...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    121. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about Trump here; I'm talking about Hillary. This is not a conspiracy; this is politicians playing dirty politics. I'm not a Trump supporter either, btw. I feel that both major parties (and their respective candidates) jumped the shark long ago.

      I mean, really? THIS is the best we can do for Presidential candidates?

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    122. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by flacco · · Score: 1

      > Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim.

      I would say that the US doing something as fucking crazy as engaging in a publicly announced "cyber"-attack against Russia qualifies as evidence. I am fairly certain the US does not want to get into a "cyber"-war with Russia. It feels compelled to respond.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    123. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      ... the Russian government would be practically forced to retaliate for it in order not to loose face in front of their own people.

      Let's not forget that that Cyberattacks Can Count As Act of War

    124. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      U.S. posturing = evidence. Gotcha.

    125. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the evidence against her in the public domain one need not "know more than the FBI", one need simply not be overtly corrupt. Hillary *clearly* violated (at a minimum) several statutes that would put you, me, and everyone else on slashdot in prison.

      Or are you implying that you think that American "psuedo royalty" should be above the law?

    126. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Do you have any sources? Election systems shouldn't be hackable. They should be networked but not on the internet. That's really poor planning.

      I only saw the bit about 32 states on yesterday's CBS Evening News. They focused on Arizona, where IIRC the state voter registration database was breached (but supposedly not downloaded or tampered with).

      They said there had been something like 190,000 attacks and probes, of which 11,000 considered serious. Unfortunately I didn't get the context for that (i.e., whether it was just election infrastructure, or what the time frame was).

      You're right though - neither the election infrastructure nor any other part of our national infrastructure (public and private) should be exposed to attacks via the internet.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    127. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      And they were telling us that Donald Trump would start WW3. Yeah sure.

    128. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, a car analogy! Now I get it. ;-)

    129. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one other possibility:
      The US government wants a war w/ Russia and is lying to everyone about Russian hacking to create a Causus Belli.

    130. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Nuke Russia? Exaggerate much? No one is saying to nuke Russia in response.

      What they suggesting is to counter-hack Russia, something that I would be especially surprised (and disappointed) to hear had not already been happening for the last decade.

    131. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No one wants to read links that lead to propaganda organizations ...

      So...you're only News is Faux?
      Or was that Newsmucks?
      Or perhaps something from AEI?

      He probably puts his trust in RT.

    132. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It's an exaggeration until it happens. Also it's beyond hacking. I've seen people calling for kinetic attacks in response to alleged Russian hacking.

      The elites want war with Russia. They have to manufacture the consent of the people. This is how they're doing it. You're helping them. Why?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    133. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These three are the flagships of anti-Russian propaganda. And, even from these sources:

      "Roberts said FBI investigators did not specify whether the hackers were criminals or employed by the Russian government.". So, they didn't provide any proofs. They said magic word "Russians". You should be afraid now.

    134. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a good time to start a new political party. I think Americans would really jump on that bandwagon.

      A new party whose candidate swears to wear a body camera and live stream the whole time they are in office. The "Transparency Party."

      Hey if its good enough for police its definitely good enough for politicians.

      They could finance their whole campaign selling the advertising rights to bathroom breaks.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    135. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup, the one that accurately said Clinton did nothing worth bringing charges over.

      Thing is, I've looked at cases of negligence with classified material, and they aren't criminally prosecuted. (There was this one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but was let off that, and that's the closest I've found.) You may think such negligence should be criminally prosecuted, and I'm OK with that, but the fact is that it isn't, and that prosecuting Clinton would have been an unprecedented move for political reasons.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    136. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Back in '03, I was seeing evidence that Iraq didn't have a real WMD program (I knew they'd gotten some from us earlier), and Bush seemed to want to attack Iraq for his own reasons. Currently, I wouldn't expect to be seeing significant evidence that Russia wasn't behind it, but I've seen no indication that Obama wants to pick a fight with Russia either. I had better evidence that the case against Iraq was faked than the case against Russia, for whatever that's worth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    137. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you haven't seen anything that lends the slightest bit of credibility to the claim, you haven't been looking. There's not nearly enough evidence publicly available to arrive at a conclusion, but there's some pointing in the direction of Russia. The US government has a lot more knowledge of what's going on than you or I do, so it seems reasonable to me that they might have good evidence for what they say. I gave up trusting US intelligence agencies for good in 2003, but I consider it likely in most cases that they would be telling the truth.

      If this was a state-sponsored Russian attack, it's a public one, so I think we need to take it seriously and retaliate in some way if that's the case. .

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    138. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know the allegations are completely unproven?

      Because there are a few of us Adults that Remember the past and all the Facts which occured happened in the past.

      Based on the Facts in the u.s. from the past 40 years, I would say that lying 100% of the time qualifies We The People to assume the u.s. government is still lying now.

      What dark, moist hole have you shoved your head in for the last 40 years where you think ANYTHING from the u.s. gov is legitimate?
      My 14-year old knew better in 2012.

      Retards and illegals everywhere!
      We The People are doomed!

    139. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      All the leaks have been proven authentic? The ones not independently verified can't be trusted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    140. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The important thing is whether this is an act of cyberwar, not whether it can be proven so to the public without compromising US capability. Putin knows, and if he knows Russia did this and there was retaliation that's the important thing.

      Not that I trust the government, but I don't distrust them either. It seems likely to me that there is evidence that we haven't seen that would convince us. I sure don't know enough to justify retaliation, but people in the government may.

      The unfortunate thing is that we won't find out until it's long past.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    141. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Trumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.

      In the 90s, the NSA supposedly measured its computing power in acres. If Trump becomes president, they'll have to measure their hacking prowess in tonnage. ("Get thirty tonnes of hackers on this 'Politico' site! Make sure they fail like the New York Times!")

    142. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Trumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.

      In the 90s, the NSA supposedly measured its computing power in acres. If Trump becomes president, they'll have to measure their hacking prowess in tonnage. ("Get thirty tonnes of hackers on this 'Politico' site! Make sure they fail like the New York Times!")

      One of the issues with the Don, is that many of his solutions are quite far outside the law, either through direct illegality, or unconstitutional in nature. Even his threat to put his opponent in jail and th emethod of doing so (presumably orders to once upon a time respectable Chris Christie, his presumptive Attorney General, are very interesting. The last time a sitting President attempted to nail his political opponent was Richard Nixon, who ordered Elliot Richardson to fire the special prosecutor for the Watergate scandal, Archibald Cox. Richardson resigned rather than do that. Nixon then ordered the Deputy AG William Ruckleshaus to fire Cox. Ruckleshaus also resigned. Now the pickings were getting slim. The solicitor General who was third in commandGeneral Robert Bork was in a bit of a fix. He made up a plan to fire Cox, then resign. Richardson Pursuaded him not to resign, because that would leave a nasty power vacuum. This was called the Saturday Night Massacre.

      Later on, a Federal Judge found the firing an illegal and improper act as specified by the regulations.

      Congress went batshit crazy. In the end, Leon Jaworski was appointed, continued just as Cox had done, except Nixon couldn't fire him. The rest is history.

      Point is after all that, we have precedence, and even mainstream Republicans might find that the US slipping into complete extralegal chaos just a little too much to abide.

      And that's just one example. The problem with the Don's plans, is that they require scrapping the constitution, and dictatorial powers.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    143. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If the dems will fabricate a narrative that a US embassy was attacked and the occupants murdered because of a YouTube video

      The thing is that BOTH narratives were true. People keep posting "because of a YouTube video" as if it was absolutely laughable that the video could incite large groups in the Middle East. Most of the people at the US Embassy were there to protest the Innocence of Muslims, and a small number of terrorists used them as cover to storm the compound and kill US diplomats. In the initial attack and aftermath, the state department did not know which was which, which is a little damning in itself, but it's a bit of a far cry from "fabricate a narrative."

    144. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, they deserved to be thrown in jail...for performing a concert at a church? I guess I belong in jail than as I used to sing with the choir.

      So, what exactly did they do other than embarrass Putin?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    145. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you read what the FBI director announced about Clinton? It clearly goes through her crimes. For some reason, it then goes on to say that no prosecutor would take the case, which doesn't follow logically, but it is a Democrat run organization investigating the Democrat candidate for president.

      https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    146. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      old pussy grabber's

      Oh my god, so he has heterosexual contact with willing participants of the opposite sex?! What a horrible person he is, he should be burned at the stake for being a heterosexual white male.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    147. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The WMD that were actually found and destroyed in Iraq? Perhaps you should update your line, as it shows your ignorance.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    148. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Another one?!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I count 26 candidates from named parties, and several running as independent. We don't need more parties, we need one of the third parties to increase its support.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    149. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      old pussy grabber's

      Oh my god, so he has heterosexual contact with willing participants of the opposite sex?! What a horrible person he is, he should be burned at the stake for being a heterosexual white male.

      So if Trump came up and grabbed your wife's cunt, you'd say hey, no problem.

      Seriously what the fuck is the matter with you? A person who says sexual assault is just boys being boys, has some serious problems, And let's say you have a prepubescent daughter, and someone came up to you and told you she was hot and he couldn't wait to fuck her in a few years. That's also boys being boys.

      You're one sick fuck, Good day sir.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    150. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It was consensual. What don't you understand about that? If my wife decided to be consensually groped by another guy, I would divorce her. These women had no issue with it until a month before the elections, and suddenly, the accusation makes this sexual assault, without any evidence, and without any charges being filed.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    151. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

              "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. 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. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

      Here is the full statement if you want:
      https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    152. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    153. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

      So you are claiming that our intelligence agencies are lying to get is in a war with Russia?

    154. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      You're almost a week late on this, but sure.

    155. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claims made by the article/statement you linked? This is just a repeat of the same claims we've been hearing, with still no substance to back them up.

    156. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Well, your statement was 8 days after the https://www.dni.gov statement was released, so I assume you had not seen it. Do you now consider that we have proof it was Russia? Curious.

    157. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I have seen proof that there are more claims it is Russian.

    158. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      You are claiming that 17 intelligence agencies have all colluded to deceive the American people? That seems like a much bigger claim than simply taking at face value that our intelligence agencies, men and women sworn to protect us, are telling the truth.

      Or are you suggesting that I should have the actual intelligence data that intelligence agents used to make the decision that led to the statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" . Because if that is what you are claiming I should have before I decide to believe the intelligence agencies, that is frankly absurd. In what other highly specialized or classified field would you expect a layperson to have all the data before believing the specialist.. .

      Look, I have a healthy skepticism about the truthfulness of intelligence, especially after the Iraq war, but when you do not have evidence, your default position should not be that there is a complex conspiracy. Occam's Razor.

      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Sagan

  2. Fuck it. by ruir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when is slashdot a propaganda tool?

    1. Re:Fuck it. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Oh come on. Where have you been?

    2. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? In what way is this propaganda? It is from a national news source with quotes from government officials. This is facts, not propaganda. How you interpret the quotes is on you.

    3. Re:Fuck it. by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Do you think propaganda does not come from the government?

    4. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All news sites are now. They're literally coordinated--read the email leaks.

      And you can say "but Russia could be faking it" but just WATCH the damn news for yourself and note how coordinated they are. Suddenly everyone will do a story about X on the same day to fake a groundswell of support for whatever. It's PR.

      They're making waves and dragging people along with it. They talk about it in the leaks and you can look up in the past where they actually did that.

    5. Re:Fuck it. by bongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slashdot has pretty much been blocking any anti-clinton stories. Even when they are from neutral stories from people like Glenn Greenwald.
      I have 3 submissions one from wsj and two from the intercept just die.

      *Hillary wants "Manhattan-like project" for secure communications the government can read. https://theintercept.com/2016/...

      *Glenn Greenwald writing about the cozy relationship with the press. https://slashdot.org/submissio...
      *WSJ Story about the press burying clinton stories. https://slashdot.org/submissio...

      All we get nonsense stories about the russians and Obama trying to start cold war 2.0 just to get Clinton in the White House.
      Very obvious which candidate the /. editors want.

    6. Re:Fuck it. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The best propaganda comes from somewhere other then the government. Consider the USA with its independent press (all owned by a select few). See sig for other ways that the USA has inverted the normal totalitarianism.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re: Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. I keep hearing faked hack. But they're risking war over faked emails?? Sounds like the docs are real to me.

    8. Re: Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another CIA troll!!!! Do not believe any "evidence" he may post. Its only part of his grand CIA trolling.

    9. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of propaganda, we're almost due for the daily article about "climate change."

    10. Re:Fuck it. by ruir · · Score: 2

      Which Russia trolls? We Europeans just do not believe in the boogieman, or that communists eat children, or that north korea and Russia are the devil incarnate. Give us a break.

    11. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Propaganda for who and against who else? I'm having a difficult time deciding.

    12. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best propaganda comes from somewhere other then the government.

      The very best propaganda is true.

      From Wiktionary: "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." No falsehood needed, not even the cognitive dissonance of truthiness. If the people are suffering from a cognitive dissonance (as many of Trump's supporters are), then the truth is sufficient.

    13. Re:Fuck it. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      We Europeans...

      You don't speak for me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately all you Trump supporters make up for it by spamming your paranoid anti-intellectual drivel in the comments section instead.

    15. Re:Fuck it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's a tool for lots of things. One of them is propagandizing geeks.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I must inform you that at least two of those stories have no technology angle and are thus largely unfit for Slashdot.

      I'd prefer it if Slashdot blocked all Clinton and Trump stories though ... I live in Europe and there's always a Clinton or a Trump in the evening news these days for some reason I cannot fathom.

    17. Re:Fuck it. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not trolling in the slightest. I'm a citizen of an EU country, which makes me just as European as ruir. So, no, he doesn't get off with a lofty "We Europeans...", any -1, Someone's Butthurt moderations I might receive notwithstanding.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. Cyber doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The agency has begun opening cyber doors.

    1. Re: Cyber doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they've also been peeking in cyber windows, and they bought some cyber treats in case they run into any cyber dogs

    2. Re: Cyber doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they've also been peeking in cyber windows

      Ha, their plot will be foiled because the Russians ditched windows for Linux.

    3. Re: Cyber doors by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'Ha, their plot will be foiled because the Russians ditched windows for Linux."
      Russia studied US actions in Serbia and will be able to absorb any induced issues.
      Power grid, mass media. Turn off the lights and block the wider public from their favourite broadcasters.
      Discontent will drive people to new faces and well developed US funded slogans.
      The next step is to fund NGO's and groups to push local issues or create issues to sway elections and demand a change of government.
      Another color revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      NGO's, civil society then get vast amounts of cash to change to supporting US backed policies.
      The only big question is just how much Western infrastructure Russia added to its grid and how networked it was.
      Expect a flood of placed stories on US founded web 2.0 media and some attempt to game the Russian speaking social media.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re: Cyber doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it comes to be like you described, i promise i'll buy a hat and eat it with mayo. The "color revolution" scam doesn't work on nuclear armed countries with somewhat capable leadershit (and kick-ass missile forces).

      "Discontent will drive people to new faces and well developed US funded slogans." Ahahah. Such ignorance of russian rulers and russian mob mentality. East of Ural mountains, there's plenty of concentration camps and mines for all who disagree. Russian military are people, who considered bombing Ukraine's capital and major cities as a contingency plan, when Ukraine declared independence in 90-91. You underestimate the resilience of a totalitarian system that doesn't give a fuck about any of its parts except the top. In that aspect, they're alot like USA.

  4. must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    since we're talking about it before it happens.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It's clandestine because someone is using a computer to do it. That's the definition now.

    2. Re:must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      since we're talking about it before it happens.

      Uh, dude, they said to not say anything to the Russians about it. I know I'm not going to tattle, are you?

    3. Re:must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Looks at his mechanical typewriter at the basement level of Kremlin* Great, I'll have time to prepare for it by buying a new tape! You won't make me type some embarrassing character pictures of my boss, and if you do, I'll have the tapes for it!!

  5. WWnext by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is how it starts? Fine. Let's get it over with.

  6. Saber Rattling by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Strong leaders just go ahead and do that cyberstrike.

    Weak leaders hint, mince and taunt, but never come to the table with force.

    This is why the USA is losing prestige worldwide. We have become a wimpy bully instead of a strong, clear force.

    1. Re:Saber Rattling by AJWM · · Score: 1

      This.

      You just do it ... and make it look like the attack came from China.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Saber Rattling by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hold on, Tex. Often the threat alone can achieve the same goal as the attack, but with less lives and money. Read "Art of War". But, you have to know when to use what technique skillfully. "Always do X" is low-brow.

      In this case the public doesn't have enough info to make a judgement about which technique is best.

    3. Re:Saber Rattling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they put you on the front lines when the war comes to see if you still think the same.
      I in the other hand am deployed in S. Korea right now worried about N. Korea doing anything stupid and end up starting a war, but what it looks like is that USA now is going to start a war with some one even worst then N. Korea. The main ones that talk the most are the ones that are not going to be anywhere close to the fight. To go to war over somebody hacking my pc, wow how evolved civilizations have we become. That's why in the Bible it is written the sinful nature of men.

  7. I'm with Snowden by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia"

    Usually the first step in covert actions is you don't tell anyone. Especially not the enemy.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re: I'm with Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Snowden is a naive young man that didn't understand there is a much more dangerous game being played.

      He committed treason against his own soil.

    2. Re: I'm with Snowden by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      there is a much more dangerous game being played.

      THAT game is doomed to failure. It has been tried multiple times throughout history, it has never worked, and it will never work.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re: I'm with Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by treason, you mean patriotism, right?

      What he did was for the good of the people who had no idea what was happening or why. The government is supposed to have a number of checks and balances that prevent exactly all the things snowden showed us. It was high time for it all to be exposed. He did us a service, and he did it selflessly. He is one of the true American heroes.

    4. Re:I'm with Snowden by Imrik · · Score: 1

      They're trying to hide that they started performing cyber strikes a couple weeks ago.

  8. Embarrass the kremlin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarrass the kremlin leadership? Shit, their job's already been done for them :P

    1. Re:Embarrass the kremlin? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Embarrass the kremlin leadership? Shit, their job's already been done for them :P

      This is a country where the dictator regularly posts simi-homoerotic shirtless pictures of himself. Go ahead and try to embarrass him. Just remember when the DOD tried to launch a online anti-IslamicState social media campaign they actually ended up encouraging more people to join.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Embarrass the kremlin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a country where the dictator regularly posts simi-homoerotic shirtless pictures of himself. .

      He's posting pictures of gay chipmanzees?

      Please give more details.

  9. Hanging chad.. new fad or maybe they new system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we used to have an electoral system using paper which worked for so so many years... which harks and echoes to me as the very beginning of the computer age (it was called punch tape). In Y2K the state of Florida was ridiculed for results based on paper (hanging chad was the catch-phrase) and thus by proxy it spawned the digital age of the voting system. Now the entire system is tangled up worrying about hacked results from a foreign power. We should be more concerned about our own state-sponsored media bias and agenda than any foreign power trying to muddy the waters. Paper results cannot be hacked (though it can be slewed by a system that for some inescapable reason doesn't require state or federal ID to vote) .. digital can be manipulated.

    Peace out.

  10. Don't vote for the Underwoods by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what you get when you elect people who see the federal government as their personal army. And yet that s nothing compared to what would happen under Clnton.

    Yeah, let's all get our panties in a bunch over the buffoon and his crude behavior and lack of class, meanwhile the spawn of Satan is getting ready to go back to the White House to monetize the presidency again. Who cares if American lives are lost in the process, as long as it's not her princess she doesn't care. There's already a trail of corpses behind that couple that makes Gacy look like Mother Teresa.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Boronx · · Score: 1, Troll

      Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.

    2. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what you get when you elect people who see the federal government as their personal army. And yet that s nothing compared to what would happen under Clnton.

      Yeah, let's all get our panties in a bunch over the buffoon and his crude behavior and lack of class, meanwhile the spawn of Satan is getting ready to go back to the White House to monetize the presidency again. Who cares if American lives are lost in the process, as long as it's not her princess she doesn't care. There's already a trail of corpses behind that couple that makes Gacy look like Mother Teresa.

      Made up bullshit, has been since the 1990s. You know for all the republican bullshit against Hillary and the Clintons the American people realize that whatever the republicans say about democrats, if you replace the words democrat with republican then the truth of the statements goes up from 0 to 100%. Freud had a name for that.. "Projection". The reason why Trump has no chance in hell of winning is because every American who does not have their head up their ass sees these lies for what they are. Go ahead now kids.. mod me down and prove me right!

    3. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by bongey · · Score: 1

      I really do think part of the House of Cards added items from Clintons in re-making the British show.

    4. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that unhinged ranting?

      I may yet vote for Clinton (but probably Johnson), and I can't disagree that Clinton is evil and corrupt.

    5. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.

      Show me then a single word in lucm's post that is wrong. Trump is a crude buffoon but he's calling for avoiding wars while the Lying Bitch has already caused one or, stretching it a bit, two, without even being president yet. Yes, she rather than Obama. And there's far more damage than mere wars she's about to cause.

      And, as someone who used to be a Satan worshipper (as a dumb teenager...), I strenuously object to naming the witch[1] a "spawn of Satan". In my country it's a crime to "insult religious feelings"[2]. She's worse than Putin, she's Lennart Poettering level of badness.

      [1]. Offending Wiccans, drat.
      [2]. Although despite the law's wording, in practice only one religion is protected.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by AJWM · · Score: 1

      She's worse than Putin, she's Lennart Poettering level of badness.

      Oh, come on now. I mean, I don't like her either, but nobody is that bad.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that even the polls that have him losing don't have him losing by ludicrous amounts like you would expect that "people realize that whatever republicans say about democrats", etc. There aren't enough Republicans to account for his numbers, so he's pulling from independents too. Even if Hillary wins every state in the nation, Trump won't possibly go below 35% of the popular vote (and he could absolutely win the election).

      Maybe Hillary was a terrible choice because she's a terrible choice?

    8. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Freud had a name for that.. "Projection".

      We have a winner.

      (Those who've been watching and paying close attention may have noticed that the 50-Kopeck Army do it quite a lot, too.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't more than one person develop PulseAudio?

    10. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Show me then a single word in lucm's post that is wrong.

      Show me a single word that has clear evidence behind it. Let's look at lucm's claims:

      Obama (apparently) sees the Federal government as his own personal army. To start with, I really don't understand that statement; What does "[seeing] the Federal government as his own personal army" really mean? Disregarding that, we have the unsupported statement that Clinton would be much worse (presumably her vision of the Federal government).

      Clinton is apparently supposed to be planning to "monetize the Presidency again", which is another thing that sounds like it should be bad but which I don't really understand. She's the spawn of Satan, which I rather doubt, and the claim that there's a trail of corpses behind her is just malicious speculation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Get the facts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three-letter agency that lies to the general public is lying.

  12. Cyber Strike by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

    Don't contemplate an unprecedented cyber covert action against the messenger.

  13. Shit or get off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit or get off.

  14. Distraction by fred911 · · Score: 2

    This is typical of people acting irresponsible. The real blame here is the people responsible for securing the data in the original place. They are the ones at fault and are using the media to distract from the fact that they are the failures in the first place. Had they done their job, secured their data, they wouldn't be searching high and low for someone to blame.

      If I leave $100 bill on a table in public and return to find it gone, I'm the one to blame. It's time the parties responsible for securing systems with worldwide access to stand up and admit their failures and to start doing their jobs.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Distraction by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. You should KNOW someone will take it, but it is still that person's personal failing for keeping someone else's property.

    2. Re:Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if that someone thinks it is a very large tip? Cash gets left on tables all the time.

    3. Re:Distraction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Similarly, if your house gets burglarized, it's your fault for not making the house more secure. If you're the victim of a violent crime, it's your fault for inadequately defending yourself. If you get bilked out of your life savings, it's your fault for not being more careful.

      In all of these cases, there's someone perpetrating a hostile act against you, and I'd say it's the perpetrator's fault. Taking inadequate precautions may be unwise, but it isn't in itself blameworthy.

      Is this different just because it's on a computer?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Why am I reading about this on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, really. Not that this is news that doesn't matter, but why is NBC broadcasting that the CIA is planning a huge cyberattack? If this is a serious attack then shouldn't they wait until they carried out the operation before telling the world. They're giving a heads up to Russia by publishing this story, and I'm assuming that NBC got the greenlight to tell the world about this, because I can't imagine that they'd publish this story if that wasn't the case.

    1. Re:Why am I reading about this on slashdot? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Given the removal of protections like the Smith–Mundt Act "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act" domestic propaganda is now legal.
      Once all this would have just been passed to a waiting international press.
      Now its been pushed domestically.
      "Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (18 March 2011)
      https://www.theguardian.com/te...
      or "British army creates team of Facebook warriors" (31 January 2015)
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
      So the past legal press protections are gone and contractors love the over time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. "Where life had no value..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... Death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared."

    APK

    P.S.=> From For a Few Dollars More https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1Y5tbo8RVIk#t=72 ... apk

  17. Please don't lead us into war! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.

    Specifically, it's noted that if we actually wanted to do this, then we would not advertise it ahead of time (scroll down a few entries).

    We did a similar thing in Syria the last couple of days by announcing an attack, then filming the attack.

    Obama you're a lame-duck president, you've done almost nothing in 8 years, and please don't get us into WWIII before you leave!. Please PLEASE put the welfare of the people ahead of your political agenda this one time!

    On a different point, note that if whistleblowers were protected and shielded in this country the hackers could come forward and identify themselves as non-Russian agents and defuse a potential war.

    But that won't happen because they'd get royally screwed and their lives and freedom would be over. (Not that I blame them.)

    For example, here's a couple of wikileaks sources facing serious charges.

    Note that the hacker gave leaks to Motherboard under the agreement of anonymity. Here's what happened:

    “When Cracka leaked to Motherboard he asked not to be named as he wanted to confidentially leak information, Lorenzo disregarded it and listed that it was from him — he even wrote that Cracka asked not to be listed like a total piece of shit,” Liverman noted.

    Journalistic integrity at its finest.

    People thought a couple of months ago that Trump would be the one to get us into WWIII.

    I wonder what they think now?

    1. Re:Please don't lead us into war! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.

      And by the street do you mean Fox News and Drudge Report?

    2. Re:Please don't lead us into war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama wasn't involved when World War 3 started. This "Russian hackers" thing is just more of the bullshit that helped Clinton get elected. It's surreal seeing how much trust people had in the media. That being said, it's a portent of the coming shitstorm.

      World War 3 started essentially because of the way that TPTISA locked BRICS out of the Western economy. You'll know World War 3 is on the horizon when BRICS moves away from the US dollar in early 2019.

      There's still time to make sure you're in a position to survive the year from hell. Stay away from major cities beginning in 2018.

    3. Re:Please don't lead us into war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wonder what they think now?"

      I never thought he would get us into WWIII, but then thats because he's a hilarious loon with no chance who's going to lose bigger than any candidate in 30 years.

    4. Re:Please don't lead us into war! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The unusual thing is not that this is an act of cyberwar, but that it's a public act of cyberwar. If it is to be countered, it should be done publicly. The actual counterstrike, if there is one, will not be announced in advance, but the intention can be revealed now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. its h b gary 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    our cybersecurity is so pathetic a la OPM hack, they are really taunting them like this??

  19. War under false pretenses by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm. How is it unproven? Because you and other civilians haven't seen or read the evidence, you believe there is none? Or, it's it because certain news outlets and other propaganda deny such evidence? Anyway, I can see a clear case for avoiding any proactive action on our part but also see good cause to do so. It's a difficult decision to make that the average person can't contemplate due to our lack of insight and knowledge.

    Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

    If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

    Everyone *else* in the world, including the UN inspectors, claimed that there were none.

    Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.

    I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.

    Do you disagree?

    1. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jc... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1

    2. Re:War under false pretenses by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It just shows how truly fucked up and corrupted this country is when so many get called right wingers for NOT wanting to go to war without concrete evidence from reputable sources just because the war mongers have a D instead of an R, and as far as the FBI is concerned? After their very own head got in front of congress and admitted under oath that Hillary was guilty of at least a dozen crimes, any one of which at the very least would warrant stripping of security status and at worst were worth a MINIMUM of 5-10 years a pop and he STILL refused to press any charges or bring it before a jury for the people to decide? If the FBI told me it was raining I'd want a second opinion, they are about as untrustworthy as the CIA at this point.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When proof comes to you in the form of, "We know where the WMD's are. They're north, south, east, or west of Tikrit" common sense tells you it's complete bullshit. "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on me, shame on you, once you get fooled you can't get fooled again".

    4. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mention that turd Bush Jr. God, I was glad when we got him out of office. The new guy promised to get us out of war, do you remember?

      I do. I thought he was a marxist, but it seemed like we got four more years of Bush. Now after a second term I sit here and wonder what Bush would have done different? Perhaps he would have put forward a failed plan for reforming healthcare. "Obamacare" was after all designed by republicans originally.

      We are STILL at war. On both of the old fronts and wouldn't you know it! Obama managed to open up some new ones!

      What do we want? Four more years?

      War, more years.

    5. Re:War under false pretenses by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.

      Don't be a gloomy Gus, negative one! Halliburton made out like a bandit on that one, so its all good.

      I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.

      Do you disagree?

      I don't declare anyone decalring war on anyone.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:War under false pretenses by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

      If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

      That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.

      They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".

      Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".

      The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.

      On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether or not Russia is doing the leaking.

      With this on the other hand, the publicly available evidence is pretty damning, there's no significant political pressure to skew the investigation, and most of the off-the-record stuff from analysts is more convinced than the public statements from the administration.

      They could always be wrong, but I think it's really damn likely that Russia is behind the attacks.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It just shows how truly fucked up and corrupted this country is when so many get called right wingers for NOT wanting to go to war without concrete evidence from reputable sources just because the war mongers have a D instead of an R, and as far as the FBI is concerned? After their very own head got in front of congress and admitted under oath that Hillary was guilty of at least a dozen crimes, any one of which at the very least would warrant stripping of security status and at worst were worth a MINIMUM of 5-10 years a pop and he STILL refused to press any charges or bring it before a jury for the people to decide? If the FBI told me it was raining I'd want a second opinion, they are about as untrustworthy as the CIA at this point.

      Who THE FUCK said anything about WAR besides YOU?

    8. Re:War under false pretenses by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Nobody's saying anything about going to war, or even threatening war, except for obvious paid Kremlin shills responding to anyone who even hints at confronting and standing up to Putin. And, of course, those foolish enough to be taken in by them and the false equivalence which they seek to propagate.

      Y'know, it's entirely possible to complain to your neighbour about letting his dogs shit in your yard *without* giving him a shotgun blast to the face. Just sayin'.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's saying anything about going to war, or even threatening war

      Nobody: CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

      FTFS: "...the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election," according to U.S. intelligence officials..."

      We had previously claimed that cyber-actions were acts of war. Are they not acts of war when we do them?

    10. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.

      But Trump was not among the dead. Not even among the amputees. Damn!

    11. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the US should just roll over and take it. Right.

    12. Re:War under false pretenses by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      admitted under oath that Hillary was guilty of at least a dozen crimes

      Did he? Should be easy to list out at least 2 crimes then. I thought as you did, until I actually read some of the details. I doubt I'd try to prosecute either.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:War under false pretenses by Zxern · · Score: 1

      What do you think is going to happen if the US engages in cyber attacks against Russia? Russia is just going to sit there and take it?

    14. Re:War under false pretenses by Zxern · · Score: 1

      The US hasn't "declared" war since WW2. But Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 still happened didn't they.

    15. Re:War under false pretenses by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Lying under oath to congress, destroying evidence after being issued a subpoena, lying to the FBI...those 3 alone are worth 20 years according to FBI statutes and we haven't even talked about what was revealed in the emails like the pay to play or the "FOB" deals in Haiti which could easily have gotten her on the RICO act and frankly they have gotten mobsters on conspiracy with less.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:War under false pretenses by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      This is more of a Wag The Dog situation. Barack needs to draw attention away from the continuing and damaging leaks of information about his party. What's a little War with a nuclear power when it gets your party back into power? But it's still funny to watch Putin shitting his pants.

    17. Re:War under false pretenses by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Lying under oath to congress, destroying evidence after being issued a subpoena, lying to the FBI..

      You make assertions, but offer no proof, much like all that claim she should be in jail. You assert she lied under oath, probably based on stories like this one. If you read through the transcript, a hostile series of questions were asked (then again, you want them to be hostile in this situation) but nowhere do I see any proof of lying, although I do see what I suspect is a level of technical ignorance I imagine is quite common among that level of government. She stated initially that no classified information was sent. After the review that stated there was some classified information, the statement became "no marked classified information". That's not evidence of a lie, that's making a truthful statement based on new knowledge. Note that Jim Jordan claims she committed perjury based on Comney's testimony, without providing hard proof. If you wish to argue that she knew it was classified before the review, you'll have to provide proof. I'll give you a hint - if there was actual proof, they would prosecute, or at least move to impeach her, since Congress is Republican dominated. Note that a successful impeachment would effectively remove her ability to run for any federal office.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    18. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the options available to us are start a war or "roll over and take it"?

    19. Re:War under false pretenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you tuned out, the US armed forces found the WMDs. It was in the news for about 2 days, but because it made Bush look like he was telling the truth, it dropped out pretty quickly. It turns out Bush knew they were there because the US sent them there previously to combat Iran (illegally) with mustard gas (the WMD).

  20. A new low. Going lower! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new low. Going lower!

  21. Don't worry, someone will Correct The Record. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, someone will Correct The Record.

  22. Re:The Donald by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here is photographic proof of Trump grabbing a pussy...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  23. I can't read that by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    jc... http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

    I don't have access to that, it's paywalled.

    Do you have a non-paywalled link? Or can you post the text?

    1. Re:I can't read that by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Maybe try this. And sometimes NYT paywalls mobiles but tends to leave computers (or computer-looking user agents, anyway ;-) alone.

    2. Re:I can't read that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC here. Text of part 1 follows. It's quite long, and there are 8 parts total. I'm using uBlock and PrivacyBadger and don't hit the paywall. I've bolded a section further down that clarifies that these were not the WMD they were looking for.

      Published: October 14, 2014

      The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

      It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

      Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

      He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

      The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

      All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

      Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

      From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

      In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

      The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

      The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

      [Photograph: Andrew T. Goldman in North Topsail Beach, N.C. In August 2008, Mr. Goldman was part of a team near Taji, Iraq, that was trying to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs. While holding a cracked shell, he noticed a strange smell.]

      The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

      The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

      [Photograph: Eric J. Duling at his home in Niceville, Fla. The cache that contaminated his explosive ordnance disposal team in 2008 was not the first discovery of chemical weapons in the war.]

      “I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.

      Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or g

    3. Re:I can't read that by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I just tried both the link, and googling for the same story. They are not paywalled. Here is the first section of the story.

      The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.
      It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
      Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
      He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
      The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
      All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”
      Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
      From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
      In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
      The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
      The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

      --
      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.
    4. Re:I can't read that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could read it, you lazy shit. The NYT lets you read articles for free. Unless you whore yourself out on too many links.

    5. Re: I can't read that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow...dude was just asking for a non pay walled source.

    6. Re: I can't read that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to ulfkotte of faz, the gas weapons were furnished by cia and bnd.

  24. Another stupid CIA idea funded with your taxes by shanen · · Score: 2

    Recommend everyone who thinks this is a good idea should read Cyber War . In short summary, America probably has good offensive capabilities, but pretty much NO defenses and HIGH vulnerability. The Chinese are actually best positioned to fight and win any cyber war, and I wouldn't even be surprised if they are framing the Russians right now...

    However, my main disappointment just now is with the state of Slashdot. No prior mention of "defense"? Where has all the insight gone?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Another stupid CIA idea funded with your taxes by bongey · · Score: 2

      Probably right on that.
      Why would a Russian from Russian use Russian VPN to hack america?
      And use codenames fancybear and cozybear.

      More likely the real hackers purposely leading bread crumbs back to Russia.

  25. Further by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The claim defies history and basic reasoning. Wikileaks gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a US Soldier fed up with the system. The Guardian (now looks like a leftist rag) gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a NSA contractor fed up with the system. Obama has jailed a record 31 Whistle blowers during his term so far, and wanted a 32nd in jail who fled to Russia. They also want Assange in jail or dead. Make it 33.

    The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen. We have countless people working in Federal law enforcement fed up with the system who are forced to leak information for fear of being jailed or worse. The damages from these dumps are not anti-America, they are anti-corrupt politician. Russian gains nothing from seeing Hillary lie, they probably laugh and think "just like us".

    Write your Congress and Senate representatives and demand a halt to any action. It could be blowing smoke, but given the massive amount of visible corruption I'm not so sure. I sure as hell don't trust Obama or Clinton who have on numerous occasions stated that they want to censor web sites "they" find unfavorable. Consider that the US is currently bombing Yemen without any public inspection of policy and media refuses to talk about it. They are way too busy fabricating false victims to smear Trump to talk about the real world.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think 33 whistleblowers is a record? You're a moron.

    2. Re:Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how he is modded up 5 and all you have is your shit karma +2.

      I bet you think that the horde of women who call Billy out as the sex offender he is as being liars. Funny, do you also believe like Hillary, how she once professed that all women who claim sexual assault should be believed?

      I bet you are the typical democrat who can't help but talk out of both sides of your mouth. One set of opinions in private. Another set of opinions when you grace us with your ignorance here.

    3. Re:Further by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Heh.......so what you are saying is that John Podesta released his own emails, then wiped his phone as a coverup? Well played John, well played.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Further by quantaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.

      Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.

      First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.

      Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.

      Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found. So you apparently think that not only did the hit squad leave him alive, but that he wasn't really interested in telling the cops about the hit squad who'd just assassinated him.

      Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Further by popo · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    6. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.

      Sounds just like Benghazi and a movie doesn't it? The establishment jailed the person who made the shitty movie, Hillary remains at large.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You do realized that registered accounts receive email when people respond to their posts right? Or would you rather believe that the sanity police are watching your every move?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re: Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. does not make sense because hillary kills only in arabia, eh ?

    9. Re:Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Russians can post to slashdot too!!

    10. Re:Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that Clinton's at least as connected to Russia as Trump is, right? Not to mention that, given her time as SoS, she's been in a position to help the Russian government, and, indeed, has done so? Why would they want Trump over her? He's never been in the position to do them as many favors as she's done. It seems pretty blatant that this is all distraction. Hell, Putin may have even agreed to be used as scapegoat, in exchange for later favors. It seems like the kind of thing he'd find amusing.

    11. Re:Further by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You conveniently omitted all the fraud and tax evasion charges going back to the late 1980s that Nakoula had managed to rack up, even before he made the film. The film itself was fraudulently produced--few if any of the actors involved had any idea what the final version would actually be like, their lines were overdubbed later without their knowledge, and every single one of them later disavowed their roles in the film. He produced it under conditions (e.g. assumed name) that directly violated the terms of the probation that followed his 3-year stay in Federal prison on bank fraud charges.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

      You would be better off to shill someone else' comments. The best you can get from Politifact on the issue is that she may not have "intentionally" lied. Given the person's continual stream of lies, I find it highly dubious that it was intentional.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The "proof regarding Russia" is classified because the specific details within the proof invariably give away the source of the information. Since the source can be used to trace US Govt capabilities, it is classified (with good reason). This does not mean the info doesn't exist (but since Bush bastardized the "quality of information" concerns of the IC to go into Iraq, he set a dangerous precedent that has been used more and more. As a result it's hard for the public to know anymore whether the US is acting on good intelligence or not).

      2) Your assumed Assange is still alive. I would expect a news story about Wikileaks tweeting it's fail safe codes this morning to put that into question.

    14. Re:Further by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Clinton is honest for a politician, near as I can tell. Unfortunately, this isn't a high bar.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      In order to make such a claim you have to deny the last 2 years of Congressional investigation into Benghazi, her private email server, and her bank accounts (private and the foundation).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:Further by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the US wants Assange in jail? Considering he hasn't actually broken any laws, I can't imagine why you would feel they would want him more than for instance Greenwald. Greenwald could actually be charged for treason, as he is a US citizen, whereas those laws don't apply to Assange as he is not a citizen.

      It takes quite the tin foil hat to attribute a plot to frame Assange for rape, have him extradited from the UK (A five eyes close ally of the US) to Sweden to face the rape charges, then somehow extradite him from there to the US, without the UK's approval to face charges that don't even apply to a non-citizen.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of evidence, back when Wikileaks started to leak the Chelsey Manning dumps they wanted him and several claimed he should be killed. You can say it's political speak, but those talking points have merit. The UK police wanting to arrest him as soon as he leaves the embassy is another clue.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:Further by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The UK police wanting to arrest him as soon as he leaves the embassy is another clue.

      Yeah, it is a clue that he is charged with the violent crime of raping two women, and is evading justice inside of an embassy. Also, what some people said is not evidence, you need quite a bit more to not just look like your tin foil hat is too tight.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re:Further by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Oh got it, I refuse to do your homework for you so am wearing tin foil. Stop being lazy or stop being a shill. Go back to your safe space, or stop being a shill.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Further by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, I am not being lazy here, you are making claims that the US government wants to jail Assange. That is tin foil hat territory. It does not make me a shill to point out that there is no evidence of this being the case.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  26. Not mounting a response would weaken U.S. credibil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of fucking idiots we have in DC. First of all there's no proof, secondly it's because the Cliton campaign is butthurt that they got hacked and will use any excuse, thirdly... why make a public statement that they're going to retaliate? I'm sure the Kremlin has already hardened their security, which was probably already better than anything DC has. Morons.

  27. Or the story is bunkum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or this story (of a 'cyber strike') is just made up crap by media trolls during an election cycle.

    You've been hacked, do you a) patch your security holes + b) Sack your NSA chief for withholding known 0 day vulnerabilities from US corps.

    Or

    c) Do some kind of symbolic shit of no consequence in the hope it might deter Russia from hacking US again. Wouldn't Russia simply patch their security holes and sack their FSB chief for withholding 0 day exploits?

    It all seems to be built up from Biden's comments on a 'response' and have nothing to do with the real world.

  28. Irony? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone else not find it hilarious there are reports of a covert CIA "cyberattack" plastered all over the Internet?

    "Hey, we're gonna attack Russia soon, but don't tell anyone, k?" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*

    1. Re:Irony? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Not just you.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    2. Re:Irony? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      And if they still end up hacking them? It makes Russia look real bad that it was telegraphed and they could do nothing about it. The fact is the hack probably already happened and this is just to make Putin nervous.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    3. Re:Irony? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      That would be interesting. Another theory is that the Kremlin leaked the story. Then, if nothing happens (because nothing was ever planned), they can talk it up at home: "Look how protected we are against American aggression!" If something already did happen (as you posit), they can blame the Americans and... what's the expression? Circle the wagons?

  29. Not sure this is a great move by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Putin is a former KGB agent with a mind trapped in a cold-war mentality where the west and the USA in particular are the greatest threat to Russia and out to get him.
    I'm not sure it is such a good idea to fan the flames of his paranoia.

    1. Re:Not sure this is a great move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, can you blame either side for having their heads in the sans?

    2. Re:Not sure this is a great move by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it's a smart move to just ignore him.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    3. Re:Not sure this is a great move by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Did he tell you this himself? If not, I assume your source is completely trustworthy and unbiased?

  30. Excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are hacking the Russians because they revealed the truth about the Democrat party? And now our President is butt-hurt his party is exposed? He'll run a clean election and no big issue but good grief...this retaliation is too stupid

    1. Re:Excuse me by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      What did the hacks expose? That politics happens? No shit. There is nothing earth shattering in there.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
  31. shhhh!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be vewy vewy quit.....I'm hunting wabbits. Uh-huh-huh-huh-uh....

  32. Goddamned evidence or GTFO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamned evidence or GTFO.

  33. It is also relatively stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what - it very likely won't work.

    All they will do at the first sign of such an attack is disconnect the router connection from outside the country.

    Then register a complaint at the UN Security Counsel.

    Why do you think Russia has been moving off Windows?

  34. You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater by Brannon · · Score: 0

    so there's really no point in listening to anything you say. You're not physiologically capable of ingesting any information that doesn't reinforce your irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton. Whether it's because of a deep-seeded hatred for women (did your mommy not hug you enough?), or just maybe the sight of a powerful woman is a trigger for your micro-phallyic self-loathing, or maybe it's just that you're too fucking stupid to realize that you've been brogrammed by right wing talk radio to hate someone they are threatened by--either way you are a lost cause.

    1. Re:You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are rational reasons for hating Clinton. The ties to Wall Street are the ones that matter for me. (Well, in addition to being a lizard person--I'm a mammal supremacist and speciest towards lizard people.)

      Whether it's because of a deep-seeded hatred for women (did your mommy not hug you enough?), or just maybe the sight of a powerful woman is a trigger for your micro-phallyic self-loathing

      Woah, there! You're dangerously close to asserting that anybody who dislikes Clinton a.) is male b.) suffers from a medical condition (warning: penis!) c.) for some reason hates women because of that medical condition. A guy I knew who said he suffered from that would indicate that he was perfectly capable of pleasuring a woman in other ways. I forget why it even came up. Probably lots of alcohol.

      What would you say to a woman who isn't voting for Clinton? Or is that unpossible in your mind? What about Stein voters? Are they also all sexually inadequate men? Are Stein voters sexists now too?

      I was encouraged that the media did not go down the macho white knight rabbit hole you just went down. Does bigoted shit like that get you all the Hunnies? No? Yes? Good for you.

      Protip: there's still a chance I might vote for Clinton. But please be my guest and fly off the handle and post something equally bigoted in response to this comment that will completely turn me off to the idea. Obviously I must be a Trump supporter. Because how dare I question the Lizard Queen?!

      Disclaimer: No, I've never had a girlfriend. I made out with a girl once while drunk. I can confirm that I am not attracted to women no matter how much you want to pretend I am in your response. I have no problem getting boyfriends. Some of us don't view women as sexual objects or define our lives in terms of creeping on women and popping cherries. I know that's a radical concept to a white knight like you.

    2. Re:You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deep-seeded

      The expression is "deep-seated", chump.

    3. Re: You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah marxist, you are blind to facts, as long as they go against your ilk.

  35. deconfliction units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, you don't remember the news reports about NSA deconfliction units? Neither do I.

  36. Good call! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    NBC and Joe Biden are absolutely the worst type of Trolls. SJWs unite and take them down!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  37. SECRET, CLANDESTINE, COVERT Operation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure glad they won't have any idea this is coming... and that it is being kept so secret, and covert an operation!
    Can you imagine if they got word of this??
    Like if the vice president went on national TV and discussed it? Or if it was reported by news agencies? That would be disastrous!

    It's a good thing we know how to run secret, clandestine, covert operations like this!

  38. Found a readbale link by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Okay, I finally found a way around the NYT paywall (and I feel "dirty" for having done it the way I did... :-)

    The article refers to old chemical weapons left over from previous (to the Iraq War of 2003-2011) decades.

    The article makes it pretty clear that these were not the WMDs referred to by Bush to justify the war. Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):

    All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

    It was well known that Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons in previous decades, but Bush was pretty clear that Hussein was manufacturing new WMDs in the months running up to the war. No manufacturing facilities were ever found.

    I'm not sure why you took the trouble to post the link. It's a complete non-sequitur, which I immediately suspected because there were no corroborating stories about having found WMDs during the 2nd Iraq war.

  39. Troll by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I did not make a single mention of Hillary killing anyone. I eluded to a strange murder related to the DNC leaks to discredit the allegation that Russia is responsible.

    Go take your medication and leave the sane people alone.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Troll by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I eluded

      You escaped our understanding? Oh, wait, you did.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Troll by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I did not make a single mention of Hillary killing anyone. I eluded to a strange murder related to the DNC leaks to discredit the allegation that Russia is responsible.

      Go take your medication and leave the sane people alone.

      I remember you. You're the guy who demands absoluute control of a topic. Well, tough you insulting person. The murder you alluded to is one of the more than 50 murders tht the lady is supposed to have made happen. All part of tha amazing deaths caused by the Terror family from Arkansas.

      So whether you like it or not, you broached the subject. And your "not making a single mention of Hillary" is so Trumpian.. I''ve been hearing - now I'm not sure, but a lot of people have been saying, and it is mysterious isn't it, another one of those people who just disappear orm the face of the earth - it's sad though, who knows? But seems that a lot of people die, and we need to look into that.

      Is it possible for you to make an intelligent post, or do you have to rely on silly pejoratives as the major thrust of your argument?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Troll by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I eluded

      You escaped our understanding? Oh, wait, you did.

      Yeah, I decided he might have actually meant that, so I decided to not mention it after I took my meds as dictated.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  40. How dare they!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because... the united states would never engage in manipulating the politics of another country... see... we have every right to be soo... soooooo... offended by this "transgression". How dare they insinuate that the Clinton family is ANYTHING but perfect! They never sold out the USA or any of our neighbors like... say Haiti for example. These are people who totally contribute 5-13% of every dollar given to their charity that is deeply focused on the suffering people of this world!

    Sure, their daughter was paid a million her first year working for the foundation. Yes, the foundation did pay for a personal jet to fly her to a round table on global warming. You really didn't think the Princess and newly minted CEO of the foundation could fly coach with us peasants, did you?

    No, the problem in this country has nothing to do with politicians like the Clintons. It has everything to do with Wikileaks and their filthy filthy lies we attribute to the Russian boogy men.

    Fear Russia, not incompetent leadership!

  41. spy game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians know that they can only make tbe CIA disclose some of its cyberweapon technology ( zero day attacks etc. ) by provoking such a response in the hicks.

  42. Clinton's way of dealing with embarrassing leaks by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Blame Trump for her own lousy security.

    Drone-kill Assange.

    Start a cyber war with Russia.

  43. Harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership by Z80a · · Score: 1

    So i assume they will plant a lot of my little pony pornography into putin's computer and tell everyone?

    1. Re:Harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      So i assume they will plant a lot of my little pony pornography into putin's computer and tell everyone?

      Uh, why would that embarrass him after this photo? He's not even a closet pony porn lover. He's right out there in public about it, bare chested.

  44. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin and his cronies rely on off-shored cash,just publishing details of what's held by who would do very little damage,what would really hurt Putin and the elite in charge is to make accessing that cash and assets difficult or impossible...
    If their just going to deny its theirs anyway if details published,then just steal it or lock them out from it,they can hardly kick up much fuss if it's not theirs can they ?
    I'm sure the American gov could find so.etching to spend a trillion or two on,even if it's only a few very,very expencive bridges,and a few millimeter thick coat of 22k gold would make them look very pretty !!!

  45. Please do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please shut down Moscow M1 traffic exchange point Catalysts.
    This have to be done when new information shitstorm begins hiding real warfare attack in the east of Ukraine.
    Or when Putin decides to re-elect himself.

  46. Offensive weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership ...

    Has everyone forgotten, Obama inherited a demoralized, exhausted and shrinking military, so he kept them out of Libya and other flash-points. When Iraq was unable to defend itself (the benefit of 13 years of US occupation) from the invasion caused by the civil war in Syria, the US military returned to work.

    I don't know how much of Stuxnet was done on Obama's watch, but using computers to destroy real-world machines (bomb-making machines according to the BBC; yep, Iran's making WMDs, just like Iraq. Anyone remember how that went?) was very effective. In the case of Russia, which machines do they target? Does Russia have internal networks in factories like the Iranians do? I can understand why the USA needs to plot its reaction to an attack on a private business. The fact they're protecting this business, and making it into a media show, shows a lack of direction. After the success of Stuxnet, that is a big drop in confidence and competence.

    Or maybe, the USA used their one advantage for a bitch-fight against Iran and now everybody is prepared with harm-minimization mechanisms.

  47. War With Russia to Cover the Criminality by hackus · · Score: 1

    I mean do they think we are stupid?

    Imminent collapse of the entire Western Banking System due to incredible never before seen in the history of the world lawlessness and money printing.

    So they can say, "See we had to go to war with Russia so the banking system would collapse and we could blame them so you don't suspect all of the criminal activities since 2007 actually did it."

    They start a war with Russia to cover this up and there is goingto be a serious WAR at home.

    Never go full retard.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  48. The post-factual society is the real danger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia wants a world where Putin can manufacture his own reality. Where Russia never occupied half of Ukraine. Where the Syrian "government" is vigilantly and legitimately fighting terrorists.

    DNC leaks is just one arrow in the assault on fact-based, sane, public discourse. Not by what the leaks reveal, but by the increase in conspiracy-theories on the one hand, and self doubt on the other hand. The increase in "pick your own facts" is the real threat to the west in general and US in particular. Also exemplified by russian troll-armies and Trump quoting fabrications from Russia Today in his rallies. I hope when the CIA retaliates it will not be with a troll-army of its own, but with something that can start to build a common set of indisputable facts to roll back the post-factual chaos.

    1. Re:The post-factual society is the real danger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, self-doubt is poison to reason and rationality. A good patriot never questions the Administration, and never questions their devotion to the Administration. To allow any attention to the leaks is to pick your own facts; you must disregard the existence/authenticity of the leak to maintain a sane world.

      Who the fuck modded this drivel up?

  49. CIA planning disinformation about Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is hard to believe at the CIA could do more to dis-inform the world about Russia than it already is doing, as it has a $billion+ budget, and thousands working every day to lie, fabricate, and distort. Highly sophisticated operation. Also, as Henry Kissinger has observed, "For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one."

  50. Disgusting war-mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no clear evidence, just accusations from the biggest propaganda mill in the world. They will attack Russia, and when Russia MUST respond, the U.S. and its cronies will play the victim, point fingers and say "look what evil Russia is doing!". Direct your criticism at the U.S. in this matter, not Russia.

  51. Looking in from the outside... by A+Pressbutton · · Score: 1

    On was it a russian ...chances are it was.
    was it the russian govt - that is a big step and really hard to prove - don't forget, much like many other private organisations/individuals, these guys are for hire - it could have been my hamster who paid for it.

    On Clinton / Trump
    It worries me that you Americans - on both sides - seem to lose sight of the fact that someone may disagree with your politics and still be a good person and have genuine and reasonable reasons for holding their opinion.
    Personally I think it is at least partly because some of the bad things the other side says are true (on both sides) and to stop thinking about that you hold closer to your chosen man|woman and shout louder at the other woman|man.

    There also seems to be a view that if you dont vote trump|clinton you are effectively voting clinton|trump

    Personally I think they both have serious issues.
    If I had a vote in this election (and I dont) I would not vote for either. I would look for a way of saying that neither of these are good enough for the job.

    In the UK they report on the number of spoilt ballots.
    if that number got be be something like the margin of victory, in a reasonably democratic country it should give the political classes as a whole pause.

  52. protect us from doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this entire problem of the public not automatically having faith in their government's pronouncements can easily be solved.

    The problem is due to foreign information sources dirtying the intellectual atmosphere by spreading lies that destroy faith and create doubt about establishment statements and intentions. The solution is to protect the public from these corrupting lies. Obama needs to cleansing the Internet of un authorized information sources. And then the problem of a confused, doubtful public go away.

  53. This can escalate badly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am not from the US.

    With that stated, how much of you industrial equipment protected against online attackers?

    I can see this escalating with your society / civilians getting alot of shit, with your grid failing, medical systems being disrupted, etc.

    Although I am not from the US, I can see us innocent outsiders getting drawn in with our systems getting hacked as proxies to launch attacks from, as bots, etc.

    This could be the start of a Cyber World War and end up with the internet being split into different stand alone nets.

    Stupid dumb fucks starting shit without thinking things thru and for stupid reasons.

  54. I only hope this will fully blow in U.S.'s face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russians are much more skilled in mathematics, unlike their U.S. counterparts. Their skills are at least a level higher than all american Snowdens and other triple-checked, triple-cleaned numb-nuts etc.

  55. So if Hillary loses, its the Russians fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if Hillary loses, its the Russians fault!

  56. No by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Most of us have to go read the actual sources because there is virtually no real journalism in the US. Stop pretending that the only options are the furthest right compared to the left. Believe it or not, even while being taught compliance we learned to read. Anyone who understands the goals of the left understands what I just stated regarding compliance with education. We can't get that from media because media refuses to talk about real issues in a factual way. We get to these conclusions by using logic and reason while evaluating evidence.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:No by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      So, your sources are.....?
      I noticed you did NOT mention your sources.
      Yet somehow your conclusions exactly match the Drudge wing of the crazy-party
      Hmmm.
      Sounds like the lady doth protest overmuch

    2. Re:No by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are a bigboy and can find wikileaks, Senate transcripts, and Congress transcripts all by yourself. When Trump is alleged to say something, I read the transcripts and watch the full speeches. Just like you could do. I should not have to list sources, because they are root sources. The same sources others can use, and use pretty regularly, to come up with opinions you won't find on NBC, or in The Globe, or Huffpo, or any of the other leftist sources. Amazing what you can learn if you try, but you won't. Easier to believe what you are told and hope for your cookie.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:No by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Congressional transcripts are reliable. Wikileaks isn't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:No by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Why not ask the State Department for the emails then? Oh wait.. they have been busy working with the DOJ and FBI to destroy evidence and hand out immunity like candy.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:No by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Feel free to distrust the State Department, but putting blind faith in Wikileaks is dumb.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. Wouldn't do that, if I were in Obama's shoes. by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    Because, think for a moment: what else could they leak?

    There are just too many skeletons in the locker.
    They (Russians) probably have a good idea of just how corrupt every single elected official in most of the Western world is.
    And there's an election coming up not only in the US, but also in Germany.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  58. Yeah, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's either already happened, or it's never going to happen.

  59. The Ruskies are just contributing to transparancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems they are just helping out in improving government transparency.

  60. Wow by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

    I find it telling that people here actually have a hard time believing a former KGB agent is using propaganda to influence a rival's election. Are you all too young to remember the cold war? Putin is a product of that time and it is apparent.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  61. Simple by s.petry · · Score: 1

    They are desperately trying to add credibility to the narrative of "Russia did it" so that people stop looking at the contents of the email. As I have stated at a staggering frequency in posts lately, the media is no different than the Pravda we used to mock. What we are witnessing is not simply appalling, it's outright frightening.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  62. Re:The Donald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab 'em by the cyber!

  63. Political Elites by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    The political elites don't like it when the sheeple find out how bent and broken the system actually is. If the system was not so bent then the emails would have done any damage but would have highlighted how good it is. But instead the exposed emails show how the elites and the bent corporate financiers are giving each other blow jobs then the next day raping an pillaging your average tax payer.

    1. Re:Political Elites by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Gosh, it's too bad that using the term "sheeple" immediately discredits everything the person who used it says.

  64. Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the low IQ people start ranting. US and Russia already undoubtedly have infiltrated each other multiple times with tons of damaging data. US can release some at any time as can Russia, and either of us could take down infra on the other side but rationally will not. Story over. Lets move on. One day US and Russia will be best buds again, in the meantime, its a fun story, but I doubt Biden would announce this before it happens. Pretty sure the infiltration and data is already obtained and now its all psychological games. Back to coding I go, enough shattering of the trolls arguments.

  65. Re:Clinton's way of dealing with embarrassing leak by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    "Hire competent staff" is just not in the government playbook.

  66. Isn't that the NSA's job? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    They're the 'cyber-warfare' agency, right?

  67. Attacking IPs are BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The washingtonpost has:
    "IP addresses listed"

    An IP address means nothing. Anyone with any knowledge of hacking has heard and know how to do a "pivot". Anyone with any knowledge of hacking knows the first rule of hacking is "Never hack from home."

    If the attacking IP was from Russia then this really points to somewhere other than Russia from the attacker doing a pivot. Maybe from the USA?

    This is a False Flag Attack. Come in from Russia, blame it on the Russians and hack your own election.

    Someone else said "The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen."

    Yep we need to be looking at this. This isn't the first time someone told on the Clit-tounges and ended up getting shot in strange ways. A Brenie supporter leaking this makes way more sense than the Russians doing this. But then again we have let her get away with Treason so why not murder too.

  68. Covert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  69. former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    OK several things.

    First most of this story is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. However what I found most disturbing is the accusation that Wikileaks is now working for the Russians to hack the USA. Really? For real? OK I get it that the US is pissed about the leaking of embarrassing ambassadorial private messages, and images of the US military seemingly killing civilians at will. Oh no wait, it's Sweden wanting Assange on rape changes from years ago. Nope, its that he is a Russian saboteur... Seemingly justice is dead, and the US is willing to use whatever excuse they can throw towards their ends. That is scary stuff. Do I or anyone else really believe that Wikileaks is working with Russia to coordinate cyber attacks on the US? Nope. Please.

    Second, "Former", "Acting".... So this guy making the accusations, isn't anybody, and when he was somebody, it was only temporary. Great credentials to cite.