Slashdot Mirror
NSA Chief: Nation-State Made 'Conscious Effort' To Sway US Presidential Election (aol.com)
The head of the US National Security Agency has said that a "nation-state" consciously targeted presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to affect the US election. From an AOL article:Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments in response to a question about Wikileaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal. "There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's minds," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials suspect Russia provided the emails to Wikileaks, after hackers stole them from inside DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year, reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by Wikileaks.Further reading: Quartz and MotherJones.
I am tired of the military-industrial complex requiring a boogie man to support their funding.
Hillary didn't lose due to Wikileaks. She lost because she promised absolutely nothing other than to be not Donald Trump.
Donald Trump promised to bring back jobs lost to off-shoring. He promised to bring back the parts of America that are hurting.
Hillary Clinton promised to say one thing and public and other things in private. She promised to continue the status quo of the elite ruling over us with little to no input from the public. She lost because her selling point was "first woman president!" and not policy.
She lost for a thousand reasons.
Wikileaks is not one of them.
They inadvertently did the job that our own media should have been doing, if it hadn't been entirely co-opted by the ruling party.
The lying media should be ashamed of itself, but isn't.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The US has been mucking around influencing foreign governments for many, many decades. Kinda sucks when someone does it to us.
Just so I'm clear about your statement, you are saying it was incumbent upon the "lying media" to hack into the computer systems of one or all candidates (fair and balanced), breaking untold number of laws set forth by the computer fraud and abuse act, and disseminate the findings of which to the viewing public?
That's an interesting point of view.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
But i sincerely think it made little to no difference in the result. The Dems are certainly trying to pin what's probably their worse election in history to the CIA but the sad truth is that Clinton was never a good candidate. She certainly was qualified for the job though, but that has little to do with what ends up appealing to the voter.
If she weren't running against Trump her number would've been way worse. And this is fucking Donald Trump we're talking about.
People are wanting to audit the presidential results, people are also claiming that Russia swayed the election...
Almost without exception, all of these same people are against stronger voterID laws. Just how do you think elections really get rigged anyway? You can spend vast amounts of money to sway someone and fail (see: Hillary) which is why real election tampering creates the votes it needs.
No other nation but the U.S. has such laughable weak authentication around voting. If you want to see results get more and more whack, by all means block voterID laws...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what?
I was and am very much against Donald Trump, but I'm not sure what hacking his organization would have accomplished - every kooky thing he seems to believe was already right out there in front of us. Unless he was secretly boiling and eating babies, I don't know what additional info about him could've swayed the election... and, even then, it might not have mattered.
He famously said "I could shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters", and apparently he was right.
#DeleteChrome
The Snowden leaks showed us that the NSA uses lying, misinformation and subterfuge as its three main weapons. They have zero credibility and anything they publicly state are lies until proven otherwise.
I'm not sure how to take this statement. Apparently the NSA is good enough to detect a "hacker" and yet powerless to stop it. So if this was an example of "cyber-warfare" are we to expect that the US is completely open and vulnerable, since no counter-measures can be taken? It seems that "the enemy" is so good that they can get in, do damage, get out and get away with it.
Or MAYBE... this guy is just making all this shit up and John Podesta, who uses a GMAIL account - was simply phished. "I was hacked" is the usual excuse to try and hide your own bumbling incompetence when something like this happens. Risking a diplomatic incident to try and distract from your own or your colleague's incompetence is monstrous.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what?
I care. The Soviet^W Russian^W WikiLeaks dumps were giving only half the story. It's like a trial where only one side gets to present evidence. Sure, the opposition can cross-examine, but if the opposition can't call its own witnesses, the jury isn't going to get a complete picture.