Slashdot Mirror
Expiring Section 702 of FISA Helped US Conclude Russia Hacked Election To Help Trump, NSA Chief Says (reuters.com)
Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: A top U.S. intelligence official said Thursday a controversial surveillance law that allows the broad electronic spying of foreigners played a major role in understanding Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. The statement from Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, may bolster efforts by intelligence agencies to fully preserve the authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before it expires at the end of the year. Privacy advocates have for years said Section 702 allows for excessively broad surveillance, including warrantless access to some American communications, and should be reformed to include new curbs. "I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority," Rogers said. Rogers said allowing the statute to expire on Dec. 31, unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, would degrade U.S. intelligence agencies' ability to provide "timely warning and insight" on a variety of criminal and national security threats.
What a load of slashdot this one has. The headlines are pure bullshit and the article does NOT show any proof of ANYTHING.
It isn't fake, the NSA chief really did say that...
"I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority,"
I would like to see one piece of evidence they gained from the 702 authority. From the report they released, there was not one piece of evidence they presented that required special authority. There was not one piece of evidence thy presented that was new, or unknown by the security community up to that point. Never trust an NSA spokesperson, or an FBI spokesperson.
That is, trust them, but verify. Which means don't trust.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
OK smartypants, you're going all "vocabulary" on us with your terminology analysis, and that's nice but I'm wondering...
How many definitions of "hacked" are there, and do any apply?
OK, so they probably didn't hit it with a large bladed weapon.
They probably didn't break into a computer to do it.
What about finding an unusual but creative solution using whatever tools were at hand? Are you really sure that doesn't fit? It seems to me that even if no crime occurred for there to be "evidence" of, this one still might be true.
What about social engineering, also known as social hacking? It seems like that one fits the worst of the accusations. And with that type of thing you don't expect there to be strong evidence until late in an investigation. And indeed, intelligence officials and members of congress with security clearance have said that there is significant circumstantial evidence of this already. That doesn't mean that there was automatically a crime, but it seems rather specious at this point to deny that there is any evidence at all. It seems more accurate to say that the specific details of evidence uncovered so far has not yet been made public because the investigation is still ongoing.
Your accusation is false in multiple demonstrable ways, and your vocabulary sucks.
First, of all, elections are won and lost not by single things but by collections. One can have more than one mistake or more than one event leading to an election win or loss. Second, the evidence that serious attempts at hacking Clinton did occur is overwhelming, and saying otherwise is simply ignoring the evidence. We even know the exact phishing attempts that lead to the hacks http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack?. Third of all, if you do want to actually point to other things that had an impact also, the statistical evidence that Comey's actions mattered is an almost complete slamdunk. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/. Facts matter.
We were fed up with the government so we elected Trump to fire everyone.
All campaigns were receiving hacking attempts, well before the party primaries. The DNC was hacked during their national convention. Podesta's Gmaill was well after, and should have been anticipated since attempts were coming for several months against both parties and their candidates.
Keep that tinfoil hat on nice and tight. If there was evidence of collusion it would have already led to criminal charges because the investigations started in JULY_2016. 9 Months later we still have no evidence, and no charges. We have no idea what Flynn is actually guilty of, only speculation. The only thing I have heard any substance to is that he didn't disclose money from RT for an appearance. Other Russian propagandists paid far more money to Bill Clinton, so is he being investigated too?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.