Slashdot Mirror


Trump Signs Executive Order On Cybersecurity (techcrunch.com)

President Trump on Thursday signed a long-delayed executive order on cybersecurity that "makes clear that agency heads will be held accountable for protecting their networks, and calls on government and industry to reduce the threat from automated attacks on the internet," reports The Washington Post. From the report: Picking up on themes advanced by the Obama administration, Trump's order also requires agency heads to use Commerce Department guidelines to manage risk to their systems. It commissions reports to assess the country's ability to withstand an attack on the electric grid and to spell out the strategic options for deterring adversaries in cyberspace. [Thomas Bossert, Trump's homeland security adviser] said the order was not, however, prompted by Russia's targeting of electoral systems last year. In fact, the order is silent on addressing the security of electoral systems or cyber-enabled operations to influence elections, which became a significant area of concern during last year's presidential campaign. The Department of Homeland Security in January declared election systems "critical infrastructure." The executive order also does not address offensive cyber operations, which are generally classified. This is an area in which the Trump administration is expected to be more forward-leaning than its predecessor. Nor does it spell out what type of cyberattack would constitute an "act of war" or what response the attack would invite. "We're not going to draw a red line," Bossert said, adding that the White House does not "want to telegraph our punches." The order places the defense secretary and the head of the intelligence community in charge of protecting "national security" systems that operate classified and military networks. But the secretary of homeland security will continue to be at the center of the national plan for protecting critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid and financial sector.

173 comments

  1. Cyber by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're going to have tremendous cyber, folks. You and me, we'll have the best cyber. We're going to have so much cyber, you're going to say "Please, Mr. President, I'm so tired of cybering!" It's going to be some very great cyber, believe me.

    1. Re:Cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't you invent "Cybering" just this past week? I'm sure you did, you said it, so it must be that Cybering was invented by you. No wonder it will be best.

      So best, people will ask for more and more of the Cybering. Through the series of Tubes in a Wide Stance, because it is morning in America in this decade.

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

      Obviously, Trump just primed your butt.

    3. Re:Cyber by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      He cybered his butt.

      Dammit, at least try to stay with the lingo!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Cyber by quenda · · Score: 1

      Dammit, at least try to stay with the lingo!

      Woooshh! Trump invents the lingo.

    5. Re:Cyber by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      He cybers the lingo...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad.

    7. Re:Cyber by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Dammit, at least try to stay with the lingo!

      Woooshh! Trump invents the lingo.

      In Soviet Russia, lingo invents Trump!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Cyber by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Didn't you invent "Cybering" just this past week? I'm sure you did, you said it, so it must be that Cybering was invented by you. No wonder it will be best.

      So best, people will ask for more and more of the Cybering. Through the series of Tubes in a Wide Stance, because it is morning in America in this decade.

      No, that was Al Gore. Right after he invented the Internet.

      Come on people, it was missing and I know a lot of people were just waiting for this joke.

    9. Re:Cyber by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They're soviet now again?

      And when did Putin change his name to "lingo"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Much security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I feel safer already!

    1. Re:Much security. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > makes clear that agency heads will be held accountable for protecting their networks

      I can hear it now:

      head of government agency: I can't imagine how this could have happened! I used Microsoft, that is, the best that there is. There is nothing more I could have done to prevent this. I even accepted the help of the helpful Windows Tech Support people who called me and helped secure all the systems on my network.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  3. Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

    But can I point out just one of the more obscure stuff recent you may have missed?

    Kushner corp trying to raise $150 million from Chinese investors for a 15% stake in some project that magically costs $1 billion, 1 Journal Square:
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/06/news/jared-kushner-nicole-family-event/index.html

    Except it doesn't cost $1 billion, the land cost $27 million, and $1 billion would put it in the top 10 most expensive skyscrapers, for a basic 79 story tower.

    Why do billionaires not have enough equity or cash to fund this $150 million? Why expensive investors from china?... Because their projects are all in negative equity and they need to keep finding more investors to keep the company going.

    This is how Kusher and Trump corp both work: They do a project, perhaps it costs $300 million. They borrow from the banks, who take the documents as collatoral, and lend a portion of the money , e.g. $200m. Outside investors are told the project costs e.g. $600 million, and $150 million/25% is up for sale to them. In reality their $150 million is buying $25 million of equity, but they don't know the full picture because the details are kept secret.

    Money is scraped off the deal, in licensing fees, management fees etc. This is the profit for Kushers and Trumps, it's what keep their company going, and lets them pay the interest on their portion of bank loans.

    Their property empire requires a constant stream of new investors buying into a false valuation of a project. Threats of lawsuits keep dissent down, and the books are kept secret so nobody can see. This is why the press was barred from the Kushner China investor meeting, because you don't want anyone connecting the dots.

    1. Re:Distracted yet? by Mal-2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it's a Ponzi scheme, only one that can be floated for years or decades rather than falling apart in months. It's not legal, but due to the secrecy, nobody has yet figured out it's not legal. And now that the people running the scheme are in charge, it will become legal.

      Steal enough, and you can buy legitimacy.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, but how does that affect me, a simple man making 50k a year on the west coast?

    3. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Distracted? By your conspiracy theories or slashdot's daily bullshit?

      But seriously,

      "Their property empire requires a constant stream of new investors buying into a false valuation of a project. Threats of lawsuits keep dissent down, and the books are kept secret so nobody can see."

      THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT TECH BUSINESSES DO.

    4. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Trump just thinks that signing will protect him against FBI, Comey, Obama etc. but he actually doesn't know the content (text). At least this is the conclusion I get after observing Trump's general reactionary style. This would explain the timing as well.

    5. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should move out east (Florida) or central. $50k is no way to live on the west coast, but you could have a nice life in upstate Florida or Idaho on $50k.

    6. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an ass.

    7. Re:Distracted yet? by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 1

      Simplicity is good but don't forget curiosity. For shareholders, the consequence of having a self promoter con man as CEO is the possibility of loosing equity in the company. Looking at Donald Trump's past bankruptcies is a good indication of specular profits for Donald himself at the detriment of his shareholders.

      Now that business man Donald Trump is the president. We, the American people are the shareholders left holding the empty bag as Donald's family profits from his latest scheme.

      Simple enough.

    8. Re:Distracted yet? by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its not a Ponzi scheme and it is legal.

    9. Re:Distracted yet? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

      You can expect to see a lot more people getting fired. It's Trump's modus operandi. He's basically threatening to fire people in this executive order.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retard

    11. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the books are kept secret so nobody can see.

      On 'Shark tank', the third question the investor panel asks is "What (of your assets) can I sell"? Corporate law pushes the liability onto the investors, meaning investors have more reason to see the books. Surely, failure to disclose that $125 million is fees, constitutes fraud? That 'fee' allows the "Kushners and Trumps" to immediately repay (1/4 of) the principal and interest giving them 1/6th ownership of the building. Ultimately, they get 2/3rd ownership, paid by the investors, which can then be leased or sold for profit.

      I remember an episode of 'The apprentice' where Trump postulated a 50% mark-up for the skyscraper he had just built. If he got the investors to pay for the whole building, that means his profit is more than the cost of building another skyscraper.

      ... stream of new investors buying into a false valuation ...

      This suggests they aren't selling a building but a guaranteed income: That is, securitization; which is the exact cause of the GFC. It may explain why investors are paying a lot of money to own a small portion of the equity.

    12. Re:Distracted yet? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You should move to Thailand, 50k a year makes you a king out there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Distracted yet? by DrXym · · Score: 0
      There is also a strong suspicion that Trump's real estate properties are a front for money laundering and he was bailed out in 2008 by the Russian mob. It wouldn't be the first time Trump's business empire has been caught associating with the mob or laundering money.

      Running for president has drawn a lot of scrutiny and heat onto himself. I wouldn't be surprised if it proves to be his (and his family's) downfall too.

    14. Re:Distracted yet? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

      I think you're reading too much into it. Signing an executive order on something that is of little interest to most is not a distraction.

    15. Re:Distracted yet? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You can expect to see a lot more people getting fired. It's Trump's modus operandi. He's basically threatening to fire people in this executive order.

      Aren't incompetent government workers protected by their union? Is it only the agency heads who are fire-able?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Distracted yet? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's legal, alright. The Trumps just know when to get out of a Ponzi scheme, and leave others holding the bag. His investors always lose, but he always gets out with money. That's his genius. When the Donald tries his hand at an actual business, he fails. But he was brought up in the real estate game, so that's the one thing he knows, aside from selling his name. Now he passing it onto the next generation.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    17. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loosing

      Why do so many people insist upon using "loose" wherever they should be using "lose"?

    18. Re: Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the one hand, you think Trump is incompetent.

      On the other hand, you believe he has been a Russian mobster for a decade or more, evading all regulators and law enforcement.

      Just fucking listen to yourself.

    19. Re:Distracted yet? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct, I don't know the details. But it's mainly department heads who I expect to see fired.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bayrock, Felix Sater look it up. Just read for yourself, step out of the reality distortion field! Wake up for fuck sakes. Working with mobsters then running for president does indeed look incompetent on the face of it even if we didn't have constant reminders from watching him needlessly self destruct day after day. Trump is his own worst enemy. Can someone please get the launch codes away from him, please, please, please?

    21. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes. Tech businesses are frequently scams as well. Film at 11.

    22. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it sucks to live there.

    23. Re: Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's ignore this administration too, because that's what we always do. They both were unfit in unique ways.
        I am supposed to support this? Right boot, left boot on my neck is till a boot.
      Forget the tribes, this is just crazy.

    24. Re:Distracted yet? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      Are you stupid? And who the eff found this "Insightful." What is possibly wrong with this?

      You raise money because up front costs are a worry and you share the burden. Land costs are trivial compared to construction costs.

      For instance:

      Building costs in the NYC area is $200/square foot for very basic construction. Kitchens and bathrooms and radiant heating, and wood floors add tremendously to the cost. And that's not including elevators and balconies and roof gardens.

      Construction costs easily reach $5-700/square foot. Sale prices of luxury apartments are easily $2000 / square foot with many reaching far, FAR more. Therefore one 2000 square foot apartment would be 4 million dollars+.

      Again what possibly is corrupt about a builder getting investors? It would be unusual to find a construction project of this magnitude that does not have investors. And investors, for the most part are NOT stupid. They are very careful and there is a considerable amount of due diligence.

      Again - what is wrong with a real estate / construction company building? This is what they do. This is going to be one more building in Jersey City.

      New York City (along with LA, San Francisco, Vancouver, Sidney) has sold lots of apartments to Chinese people wanting to diversify their portfolio and provide an exit strategy for them and their families in case things go south.

      Again. What's the effing problem?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    25. Re:Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the Corrupt part of it is that they are over valuing it at $1B USD, so thus they are attempting to trick investors into thinking it's worth more than it is, so they pony up more cash than would normally be expected, since their returns will be lower than expected.

      Now, I think Corrupt is not the word to use here. Immoral, possibly. Unethical, certainly. But Corrupt? Not as much, although I believe they're corrupt for other reasons.

    26. Re:Distracted yet? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Not all of them, and certainly not at the agency director level.

      --

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

    27. Re: Distracted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can fire anyone. It's just a bit tougher sometimes than others.

    28. Re:Distracted yet? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Investors do their own research you numbskull. They should not, and do not, rely solely on the words and evaluations of the seller of a property. As one with half a brain might imagine, an investor of millions of dollars has their own staff of professionals in the real estate business that can compare similar properties. Kind of like Zillow, but with big buildings instead of houses. (I can't believe I just had to write something so incredibly obvious.)

      I really don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already am, though I am struck by the peculiar sensation that for you to understand it I would have to do just that.

      Also, caveat emptor. Look it up. I can't speak idiot anymore today.

      Cthulhu fhtagn! You humans are a dim lot.
         

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    29. Re:Distracted yet? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      loosing

      Why do so many people insist upon using "loose" wherever they should be using "lose"?

      Because Trump. You're not a loser, you're a loosah!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    30. Re: Distracted yet? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Trump is surrounded by lawyers. He can be both stupid and mobbed up. In fact it's probably his stupidity that caused him to be mobbed up in the first place.

  4. TRUMP IS OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OF HTIS MIND!

    1. Re:TRUMP IS OUT by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Of all the things he did, THIS makes you think that?

      All I see here is that he's yet another politician with zero idea what the internet is really like. Well, he's at least one step ahead of the rest, he knows what Twitter is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. What Election systems did Russia attack last year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary's server and the DNC servers were not government servers. Remember that the DNS refused to let the FBI look at the hacked servers.

    This EO has nothing to do with the "russian's hacking the election" mantra.

  6. Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because they aren't interested in that and certainly aren't doing that. That is the same with Trump. As my great-grandfather said, anyone that is talking about something certainly isn't doing something because otherwise they would be too busy to talk about it.

    1. Re: Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Anyone talking about something isn't actually doing it since otherwise they wouldn't have time to talk.

    2. Re: Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been married three times to women that constantly talked about sex. I didn't even have sex with two of them. People that have time to run their mouths about something typically aren't doing that thing or they wouldn't have time to talk.

    3. Re: Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People that talk aren't doing.

    4. Re: Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in my fifty-five years I've never heard of a woman that was really interested.

    5. Re: Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't interested in sex. Instead, they're only interested in what they can get in exchange for it.

    6. Re:Women often talk about sex... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women are interested in having sex. But what they want is good sex, and they lose interest in you when they find out otherwise.
      And if she does find someone that provides good sex, she'll wear that guy out.

  7. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just because no one can offer proof that it happened doesn't mean that it didn't. Since so many news sources have reported that it happened, all thinking people know it did despite the lack of evidence.

  8. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Trump administration would never admit to it happening, so of course they wouldn't have a statement about it happening.

  9. Re:What Election systems did Russia attack last ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary's server and the DNC servers were not government servers. Remember that the DNS refused to let the FBI look at the hacked servers.

    This EO has nothing to do with the "russian's hacking the election" mantra.

    You mean this part?

    In fact, the order is silent on addressing the security of electoral systems or cyber-enabled operations to influence elections, which became a significant area of concern during last year's presidential campaign.

    Well, it doesn't say the election system was hacked. It says a cyber-enabled operation influenced the election. A cyber-enabled operation targeting one candidate in an election fits that definition.

  10. Easy to cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... not going to draw a red line ...

    As North Korea (and China) just demonstrated, one day that line will be easy to cross and the USA will have to keep its promise or look stupid.

  11. Ahahahahhaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    omg the US is so fucked with this dipshit :(

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

      No, we are fucked due to our fucked infrastructure, combined with with the addict like desire to make "information" more "accessible" to every fucking moron and their hacked cameras and phones, when that's really just a ruse by profiteering conmen.

      It's like spending 90% of your road construction budget on building multiple 10 mile long wheel chair access ramps to a library with a caved in roof and crumbling foundations and overrun with vagrants using the moldy and charred books as toilet paper. All directed by old men who have only seen the place in idealized pictures.

    2. Re:Ahahahahhaha by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not just this dipshit, it's the system. It isn't the fault of one pig if the liver pie is rotten.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Ahahahahhaha by Philotomy · · Score: 1

      People tend to get the government they deserve. George Carlin had it right.

  12. Re:What do you mean? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Trump doesn't need them any more. Now he's in, he'll be able to rig the next election by himself.

    That's if there is a next election...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. What about the CIA's Automated Implant Branch AIB by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    If the US creates powerful new tools to detect and protect against all things cyber will the US and other nations get some new protection from the Automated Implant Branch (AIB) and Network Devices Branch (NDB) efforts?
    With the US government demanding better security products, the NSA and CIA contractors will have to work harder.
    Only a few of the better anti virus brands found the equation group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Fluxwire Trojan and Archangel efforts.
    "Found in the wild: Vault7 hacking tools WikiLeaks says come from CIA" (4/10/2017)
    https://arstechnica.com/securi...

    Wont someone think of the role of the clandestine services in this rush to improve US domestic cyber security?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Re: What Election systems did Russia attack last y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really. Gobblygook. It means nothing. Been about a year since DNC "hack." Nothing but repetition without proof.

  15. Kill Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al gore tried to warn us
    USB infustructure = showboat

  16. What does held accountable mean? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    Was nobody held accountable before when a network got hacked? Does it mean we're saying goodbye to Ajit Pai for the recent FCC DDoS? Can one get Betsy DeVos sacked by hacking the Board of Education website? I have so many questions.

    1. Re:What does held accountable mean? by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What this means is Trump and supporters will ultimately have the power to decide who will be held accountable and who will not, influencing industry because these "cyber attacks" are only going to get worse and more selective if you know what I'm saying. He is at heart a business man after all.

    2. Re:What does held accountable mean? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You mean Myers v. United States? Welcome to 1926.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:What does held accountable mean? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      What does it change though? He's already showed that he will fire whoever he wants for whatever made-up reason strikes his fancy. It sounds like he's saying that agency heads will automatically be fired when the department screws up, but why would he do that when he insists on appointing screw-ups?

    4. Re:What does held accountable mean? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess you better get hacking and see what happens

    5. Re:What does held accountable mean? by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that DDoS attacks are incredibly common, more so than people realize. A Trump competitor could have such an attack but be held more accountable than others simply because of who is in office and be perfectly legal however immoral. Think 1980s "war on drugs wars" but now it's "cyber."

  17. Oblig. Godwin's Law by Kokuyo · · Score: 0

    So what y'all are saying is that this is Trumps very own Reichskristallnacht?

    1. Re:Oblig. Godwin's Law by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Funny

      Jawoll mein hairpiece!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. The Property makes it legal by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because it's overvalued. As an investor if I misjudge the value of a property that's on me. There's all sorts of laws & rules about stating the value of a property and on paper Trump & Co follow those rules. That's what they're good at, running legal ponzi schemes. Similar to the crap Bane & Mitt Romney used to do. That's really what high end biz schools are for. They teach the very rich how to rob us all blind and get away with it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The Property makes it legal by Mal-2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Is "get elected so you can make the rules" part of the curriculum? It's Berlusconi in America.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re: The Property makes it legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, the rich had much of the house and Senate for years so they can push ridiculous legislation through.

      Look at Obamacare. While I'm a proponent of Universal healthcare, Trumpcare and Obamacare are essentially written for health insurance companies, not medical professionals treating common people.

      Maybe the ultimate solution is to have capitalism compete in the government until we the people are all under one giant monopoly.

  19. Nice try by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Picking up on themes advanced by the Obama administration"

    Yeah no, but nice try. The Obama administration has the worst cyber security record of any administration, especially when you consider both public and private hacks where the government should have stepped in (i.e. hacks by other countries against US companies or government contractors). Remember the Chinese OPM hack? Yah, that was under Obamas watch. 21 million plus personal records exposed. Remember when the Chinese hacked and stole plans for stealth drones and other military aircraft? That was Obama too. Remember the DNC hacks? Yah, that was on Obamas watch as well (sorry, Trump wasn't even elected yet). There is a list as long as my arm proving that the Obama administration was absolute shit at cyber security and he basically just shrugged and did nothing besides blabber.

    It remains to be seen if Trump can get the federal government IT and contractors to get their shit together on this issue, but dont piss down my back and say it is raining. If he starts firing department heads or charging federal employees with criminal negligence where appropriate, we might see the epidemic of hacking fall off somewhat as industry standard measures get adopted and enforced across the federal government.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Nice try by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The real question is why the US has to keep its data in plain text and internet facing.
      So all the contractors can bid on government work and has to stay in plain text? So one big no bid company cant encrypt all the US gov data and stop other contractors working on the same big data sets?
      So its kept in plain text to ensure tax payers can fund a wide variety of contractors to work with and on the same data?
      Or all the equipment is just so old it can only work with and on plain text data sets that are on the open internet?
      Or contractors only have the skills to work on data thats easy to read?
      Encryption was attempted and contractors did not like having to ask other contractors for access?
      Why did the personal records get exposed? Encryption would have helped. Not been on the internet would have helped.
      Who in the US gov needs plain text personal records without encryption and logging?
      Do the US clandestine services like to add, alter or seek workers from that easy to use plain text database.
      Encryption would slow down and log each access showing what other agencies are doing or the kind of cleared US mil/gov staff they are seeking per mission or project or per decade. Computer skills, language skills, ability to fly large transport aircraft at night and land in interesting conditions to support the US backed "freedom" fighters...
      One big open database that anyone one in the US gov/mil can look at keeps who is requesting what skilled staff secret.
      Until another nation finds the same plain text database and makes a copy in full.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was one of the 19 million who's data was leaked ....
      I was pretty sore about it until heard about the 113+ million leak

    3. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Obama administration has the worst cyber security record of any administration

      That's a bit disingenuous consider the fact that cyberattacks have been steadily increasing for over a decade. There is no such thing as perfect security and, as the number of attacks grows, the number of failures will grow as well.

      What the Obama administration did do was start taking the threats more seriously.

      It remains to be seen if Trump can get the federal government IT and contractors to get their shit together on this issue

      You mean the guy who thinks his 10 year old nephew is "so good with these computers, it's unbelievable"? Yeah. I'm sure he'll be making great decisions about cybersecurity and won't propose a security theater trainwreck that does nothing but put money in his cronies' pockets.

    4. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expecting the entire US government to implement perfect security without paying more for it is another pipe dream of Republicans and Libertarians. Good government costs money. Investing in billionaires (trickle-down economics) isn't the same thing as investing in American infrastructure such as roads, courts, and computer systems.

    5. Re:Nice try by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the government has a shit record for cybersecurity, but putting the blame squarely on Obama isn't really fair. Hindsight is always 20/20 and computer security has always been much more reactive than proactive. I'd argue the blame is Congress, the environment, and the government structure.

      1) Congress controls the purse and laws. They're the ones that make sure all agencies have the funding to do what they need to do. These asshats in the big white daycare on capital hill haven't managed to agree on a budget before October in over a decade. That means most agencies get a fraction of the money they plan for.

      2) The internet has changed in the past 10 years (as of 2012). We've gone from the beginnings of broadband to gigabit connections. From a millions users to billions.

      3) The Fed as a whole is woefully slow to move on to new technology. They typically move to a new OS after it has been out for at least 3 years, which means they may get around to Windows 10 sometime in 2018 or 2019. Even those "best of the best" agencies are subject to this. I helped a migration to Windows 7 2.5 years ago, after it had been in the wild for 5 years.

      Could these things have been changed by Obama? Not hardly. It would have been tricky even if Congress was willing to work with him. With a Congress too busy fighting with itself to make any progress about anything? Damned near impossible.

    6. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK LeftCoastThinker, Blame Obama because you opened an attachment or ran some random program or didn't update your router or didn't have the resources to investigate your computer problems at your private business... Surely he's responsible for your problems? But to blame him because Target corporation didn't do the right things. To blame him for any other US company having computer problems? Hmmmm... I find your logic flawed. Maybe you support more regulations on private business? Maybe if there were more regulations you could blame the PC maker or the router maker or yet another person or company for your computer getting snatched when you opened that attachment or followed some stupid link on a browser and clicked OK to install that application with elevated privileges? Let's see, who can I blame for my problems today? Good grief, really?

    7. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      putting the blame squarely on Obama isn't really fair

      Katherine Archuleta was personally appointed by Obama to head up the OPM despite being wildly underqualified and unsuited to the position (she was his former campaign director, though); she sat on her thumbs despite warnings going back years about security issues and attempted to cover up the hack, while Obama continued to publicly support her. The administration response basically amounted to handing out identity theft monitoring vouchers for a year. So yes, you can hold him wholly accountable for that one - and it's by far the biggest hack.

      The Chinese knockoff planes were publicly exhibited and demonstrated at air shows. Administration response: zero. Su Bin got 10 months in prison. There is no real penalty for invading US systems.

      The DNC hacks involved private servers, so all that stuff about Congress and the Fed goes away there, too.

    8. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Obama administration has the worst cyber security record of any administration,

      CITATION NEEDED

      especially when you consider both public and private hacks where the government should have stepped in (i.e. hacks by other countries against US companies or government contractors).

      In whose opinion? Yours? The business'? The Government? The GOP?

      The rest of that first paragraph lists a random bunch of "hacks" that you use to prove your case. Sorry, but your case removes unproved.

      Your second paragraph states that the only way the Trump can fix the issue is to fire people in high places or throwing people in jail. How would this help? Do you honestly think instilling fear of tyranny will magically fix all our problems?

    9. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption would protect physical access to the media, not remote access via hacked services.

      These services were made available because because idiots in upper level management positions were sold on the idea that everything should be web enabled "for convenience and to save money" (because they are too stupid to understand how much money gets pissed away creating these web based services and how often modern code needs to be rewritten for the latest fad - convincing your customer to go web based is the ultimate cash cow for a developer). For example, I was perfectly happy with all of my medical records being stored at separate locations in physical files but that idiot Obamma forced all of these records to be scanned and made accessible over network connections.

    10. Re:Nice try by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1
      Good point...but eventually something really nasty is going to come and when it starts really threatening national security (or with this presidency, Trump;s businesses) then you might see some action.

      But you are completely right, Congress has been obsessed with stopping Obama at every turn, throwing up roadblocks in every way.

      This is not a way to run a country. Even with government under one party, they still can't figure out how to pass a federal funding bill.

    11. Re:Nice try by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I work for the Federal Government and I can tell you that GW Bush started it. As always when something like that starts, it was comical. Much to his credit during the Obama administration they really went after it. We saw agencies using secure benchmarks, doing audits, actually patching systems and working to eliminate old systems. There are a lot of old systems out there. From CCTV to even entrance controls. Some of them were even running Windows 95 up until a few years ago. Probably still some out there. They seem to be bringing that forward. Of course, that'll cost. Security isn't free. As always the worst threat are the people at agencies.

    12. Re:Nice try by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I agree, Trump should just take all authority from congress and the supreme court. It would be far more efficient. /sarc off

      There is a reason that we have the government run inefficiently, but the hacks that I pointed to above were for the most part foreseeable and preventable, had competent people been in place. However, when you appoint people based on their loyalty and service to your lordship Obama instead of competency, you get the shitstorm of failure as we saw. And after the fact, if you give less than a year to someone who would have been executed (like the Rozenbergs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) in the past for treasonous espionage, you are pretty transparently a failure on the topic across the board.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  20. Re:What about the CIA's Automated Implant Branch A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's likely a reason most of the US/UK AV products missed those tools. And the same reason is likely why Kapersky is getting bad press right now. Really hard to drop an NSL on them. The others, no problem.

  21. Re:What about the CIA's Automated Implant Branch A by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    AC Just like what was attempted with the Magic Lantern software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Liar. Or you didn't read your own link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kushner is not involved in the operation of Kushner Companies and divested his interests in the Journal Square project by selling them to a family trust that he, his wife and his children are not beneficiaries of, which was suggested by the Office of Government Ethics. "

    Cited from your own link. You lied. Or you don't even read the articles you cite.

  23. Re:What do you mean? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Of course there will be! Even the Soviet Union had elections until the very end, with glowing approval rates of the reigning powers!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:What do you mean? by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just think of what would have happened with Hillary being elected. You'd see more things like this happening. Maybe you should be very glad that Trump was elected, instead of the other candidate that broke laws at every turn, pressured and threatened leaders of other countries to donate to her foundation. Spied on allies, and suddenly...just suddenly when she lost...the clinton global initiative shutdown, said organization took international kickbacks and offered access to government officials through "donations."

    It wasn't that Clinton was terrible, that the democrats were corrupt, that they rigged their own primary, that they sank their own ship. That even with rigging at least one debate via Donna Brazile leaking questions to Clinton, that she still couldn't win. That they decided in to say "screw it" with an internal review of where it all went wrong. Then voted in someone who is even worse then Clinton as the head of the DNC. Nope, it wasn't her fault at all. And just keep digging, because the bullshit you're spouting will guarantee Trump a second term. Just like the Liberal Party of Ontario's actions will ensure that by July of next year it won't be a party at all.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  25. Pot smoking pentester. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean i haz job now?

  26. Re:What do you mean? by sudon't · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm always a little amazed at the people who find the Clinton's use of their influence, to get money for a charity that does actual charity, more appalling than Trump's phony charity, which only benefits Trump. Is it really so awful to strong-arm rich people into giving money to do good work? Or are you simply blind to, or ignorant of, the illegal shenanigans of the Trump Foundation?

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  27. More fake news from WaPo by moeinvt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The basic elements of the story are probably true, but this line is pure propaganda.

    "Russia's targeting of electoral systems"

    Notice how they've been gradually amping up the rhetoric? First it was blaming the evil Russians for hacking the DNC and Podesta e-mails. Then it was Russia "influencing" U.S. elections. Next, they started tossing in the phrase "Russia hacking U.S. elections"(total BS) and now it's "Russia targeting electoral systems"? The implication being that Russians actually hacked the voting machines?

    WaPo also reported that evil Russians "Penetrated the U.S. Electricity Grid" when it was just some (apparently Russian-authored) malware found on one laptop at a VT utility. A laptop that was never tied into the electricity grid.

    I'm no Trump fan, but this anti-Russian propaganda is as dangerous as it is nauseating. I haven't even seen proof that "Russians", let alone the Russian government, were responsible for the original DNC/Podesta hack.

    1. Re:More fake news from WaPo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, no.
      Putin is not on par with Stalin (killed tens of millions), Mussolini (tried and failed at genocide, killed hundreds of thousands), or Hitler (killed million, tried genocide, kicked off WWII). He is a distinctly petty evil.

      He's more like Francis II - reactionary ruler of an old fading power, that doesn't know how to deal with all the change in the world or the diminishment of his power. Putin flails around, which sucks for the Ukraine or Georgia, but he can't invade Europe. He assassinates journalists because that is the limit of Russia's capabilities! He just isn't a real threat. There will be no millions dead because of him.

      Unless you mean from Russians that die from drinking too much.

  28. Haa ha haa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If laptops get banned from planes - the problem will grow bigger!

    Every POS IOT hardware device would need to be secure without backdoors , and updates for a reasonable time - else mandatory open sourced when not supported - so called end of life. Um that would upset Apple and Microsoft a tad. The FCC needs to do this yesterday.
    Apply a heavy import duty on IOT things makers who ship duff products like IOT webcams.

    In short that extra 10% would double IT budgets overnight - given that from Vault 7, the CIA stays mum on known severe exploits, while the CERT folk do a good job on a shoestring.

    As stated sensitive stuff should not be on the internet

  29. Re:What do you mean? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    On time there was a mistake and the announcer read out next year's results.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Re:What Election systems did Russia attack last ye by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    What about this line:

    "...Russia's targeting of electoral systems..."

    The word "systems" implies that the evil Russians were actually hacking the voting machines.

    The WaPo is the worst "fake news" outlet in the country.

  31. Re:What do you mean? by Mashiki · · Score: 0

    You know what always surprises me? That Clinton was an active member of the Obama administration while this was all going on and they bury their head in the sand over it while pointing their finger and going TRUMP.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  32. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    B-b-b-but her emails!

  33. Make it retroactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it retroactive. The ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION destroyed their own equipment over a non-existent virus attack.
    By their own admission the Malware Infections on EDA’s Systems Were Overstated and the Disruption of IT Operations Was Unwarranted.
    https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/OIG-13-027-A.pdf

  34. Ironic given recent news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just after firing Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Now this was not bad just for the optics. No American press was allowed but Russian press was allowed. No that's not worst part. The Russian press was allowed to bring in their equipment to take photos in the Oval Office. That's the worst part: Trump allowed foreign officials to bring in electronic equipment into a sensitive area of the White House. Many security experts are dismayed that was allowed to happen. Former security officers have noted that it was standing policy that no one was allowed to bring in their phone/cameras into the Oval Office.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Ironic given recent news by greythax · · Score: 1

      Far be it from me to defend President Garfield the Cat, but if the press can't bring in cameras, then how have I seen pictures in the oval office? Is it a staff photographer? Do the press borrow cameras for shoots? I would legitimately like to know.

    2. Re:Ironic given recent news by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the US press are allowed to bring in their own cameras, but the white house does have a staff photographer.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Ironic given recent news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      1) There is an official White House photographer and videographer for these things.
      2) In the past it might have been okay before phones and photo cameras became recording devices that could capture audio. Also the rate of miniaturization means that spy equipment are now smaller and smaller.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  35. One word could have made that non-fake, too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    What about this line:
    "...Russia's targeting of electoral systems..."
    The word "systems" implies that the evil Russians were actually hacking the voting machines.

    They could have made that non-fake just by adding one word: "... Russia's alleged targeting of electoral systems ..."

    But that would have brought down the whole propaganda operation by inserting doubt into the big claim, which is an absolute no-no if you're using the "Big Lie" methodology.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  36. Re:What do you mean? by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Trump would never rig the elections. He will modernize elections for the 21st century. A contractor will be selected based on the highest price, lowest quality work, to set up an HTTP only website that looks like it was designed in the 90's. Citizens will vote using this web site. In order for your vote to be accepted, you will have to check several boxes.

    [x] I am a Citizen of the United States
    [x] I have not previously submitted a vote in this election
    [x] I am a white, rich, christian, heterosexual male
    [x] I promise I am telling the truth and that the previous statements are equally truthful to this statement

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  37. You lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Earlier this year the press brought in their cameras, I've seen the pictures. So half your statement is an outright lie.
    Sean Spicer took a photo of the MLK bust in there with his phone, so the rest of your statement is an outright lie.

    Perhaps Trump didn't want US press in there because when they get into the Oval Office the write stories about MLK bust being moved out of the office when it was still there. Maybe if the US press would stop outright lying, like you, they might get treated better. Until then, I think they should be barred from the Oval Office, they are not news, they are DNC propaganda.

    1. Re:You lie by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Sean Spicer took a photo of the MLK bust in there with his phone, so the rest of your statement is an outright lie.

      You are aware that there is a reason that there is an official WH photographer, right? Second if Spicer did that with his own camera, he was breaking with the policy. Third, the Trump administration not caring about security rules and policies does not surprise me.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  38. Blaming the victims by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    People tend to get the government they deserve. George Carlin had it right.

    Blaming the victims may make a good kick-off point for a comedy routine. But it's also a handy way to spike efforts to fix the problem, thus benefiting the victimizers.

    After the media "sucked the air out of the room" when any of the other Republican primary reform candidates were talking (by focusing on Trump - whom they though would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to trounce), Trump/Pence was the only checkbox on the presidential ballot that looked like it might put a painful spike in Washington's increasingly corrupt business-as-usual, or stop a slide into totalitarianism or civil war.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Blaming the victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming the victims may make a good kick-off point for a comedy routine. But it's also a handy way to spike efforts to fix the problem, thus benefiting the victimizers.

      No, it's a way to correct the problem. Americans need to take responsibility for what we've done to America. Anything else, especially blaming the shitty candidate that we voted for is a way to spike efforts to fix the problem.

      If you're not trying to make the Republicrats lose, then you're responsible for the policies enacted by the Republicrats. Don't try to dodge it. The America that you have is the America that you chose. You deserve it.

      Don't like it? Then start taking elections, and the campaigns leading up to them, seriously. And face it, America did not take the 2016 election seriously. Anyone who suggests the voters acted even slightly responsibly, is a fucking liar. We put our enemies on the ballot and then selected one of them. DON'T BLAME YOUR ENEMY FOR YOUR MISTAKES. BLAME YOURSELF FOR YOUR MISTAKES. And then stop repeating them.

      We failed. We had the power. They didn't have it. They wanted it and we gave it to them. Now are you going to give America's power (your power) to just whoever asks for it, again in 2018, or are you going to start acting like you give a fuck?

    2. Re:Blaming the victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'victims' keep electing the scum from the two corrupt political parties. They get the government they deserve.

      They keep watching/reading/clicking on the corrupt media sources we have. They get the media they deserve.

      They keep buying from companies who have screwed them over in many ways (lobbying for laws detrimental to the people, privacy violations, etc). They get the companies they deserve.

      People need to spend more time focusing on these decisions than the ridiculous amount of time they spend watching TV, playing video games, and gossiping on social media. Their choices determine the future.

    3. Re:Blaming the victims by Philotomy · · Score: 1

      I don't see the majority of the U.S. electorate as a collection of victims, but as a collection of willing participants in the victimizing.

    4. Re:Blaming the victims by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      This guy. Well said.

      Bernie 2018!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    5. Re:Blaming the victims by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Rome is burning and all anyone can do is comment on how good it looks in 4k.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  39. Racist and unconstitutional by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

    Like every "executive order" issued by Trump, this one is racist and unconstitutional. If Clinton won and issued the same decree, that would've been most enlightened, of course.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Racist and unconstitutional by mi · · Score: 1

      That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

      There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent... Racist, racist, racist!

      Same reason you can't go to China

      WTF?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Racist and unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

      There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

      Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

      That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

      You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

      Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

      Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

  40. Just a thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... who is the head of the executive branch?

  41. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    her foundation was a joke as well. ask the kids in haiti still waiting for their promised help

  42. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the problem, again?

  43. Re:Russia BRIBED Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. is infested with Progressive posters and moderators. You'll never get any headway laying out anything that goes contrary to the Progressive hive mind about Clinton, Obama, and AGW.

  44. Re:Trump is going down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that you Kim Jong Un?

  45. Business vs. Government by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    President Trump wants people to be accountable. Isn't that exactly what we have been demanding for.. oh I don't know... longer than I have been alive? Comey had numerous problems, and up until he was fired both sides of the aisle voiced opinions of "incompetent", "abused his power", and "usurped Constitutional authority". Republicans were upset for numerous reasons, but primarily for making himself the Judge and Jury for the Hillary email crimes. Democrats because they feel he impacted the election of the same. All of those were from actions _BEFORE_ President Trump took office.

    I'm pretty happy with some of President Trumps actions. The ban on lobbying for appointees is exceptional, and this one is just as good.

    Which side is actually perpetuating the distraction here, the Dems who suddenly claim that the incompetent Comey is the greatest American since John Wayne, or the Republicans who let the incompetent claims stand and dismissed him since he had no support from the Deputy AG (whom Comey would report to)? The hypocrisy from the Dems is beyond palpable, and more and more people are simply dismissing them.

    --

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

    1. Re:Business vs. Government by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I am sure that Trump was laughing when he thought about some people flip-flopping yet again as he did something they've been demanding for months.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Business vs. Government by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But what are these Commerce Department standards, and are they any good? This may just be a way to make ALL government departments predictably permeable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Business vs. Government by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Incompetence and maliciousness often look the same, and the presence of one doesn't rule out the other.

      Of course the democrats were political pandering with both comments, same for the republicans. That doesn't reduce the optics of this. Their is a standard for political positions like this where you make a clean transition by asking for the person to step down, and they always resign in these type of positions. Outright firing would be seen as a attempt to cause disgrace to the person, a person Trump had complimented many times for his handling of those previous matters. Trump followed this even with Flynn, a person who lied to his administration and brought disgrace to them. That Comey was about to testify before congress, at least partially about the Russian investigation into his campaign and he was removed immediately, without consideration for a replacement and didn't have time to even wait for him to be notified in person to pull this off. Clearly it wasn't about what Comey did last year. That the administration can't keep the story straight about the firing, and Trump brought up the Russia investigation in the dismissal letter, as well as Trump bringing it up in his interview with Lester Holt that it was one of the issues while responding to a question about the Comey firing.

      It isn't proof of anything, other than the admin story that this was all about Hillary can only be true if Trump is totally incompetent.

  46. Re:What do you mean? by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since so many news sources have reported that it happened, all thinking people know it did despite the lack of evidence.

    That word, thinking. To quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means.
    Thinking people do not just regurgitate things reported in the news.

  47. THE SKY IS FALLING!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sky is fall.... blah blah blah

  48. expect no federal services online. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    expect no federal services online.

    1. Re:expect no federal services online. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      expect no federal services online.

      It's secure then, isn't it?

  49. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump and his supporters, or in general, Republicans.

    Do try to keep up.

  50. Hi, shill for the globalists. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0

    ... this is way bigger than just America. ...

    This isn't purely about partisan US politics, this is about a web of influential hard to far right politicians acting with Putin's backing - Le Pen, Farage, Banks, Trump, Assange, are all interconnected on this and not by chance meetings, but by explicit, intentional communications with each other. Even outside of the Anglo-American-Franco circle it extends throughout Europe, Hungary's Jobbik, Greece's Golden Dawn, Geert Wilders, as so on - they're all very clearly linked with a little bit of research into this pro-Russian, anti-Western political web plaguing the West right now, and it should be horrifying to anyone in the West that values their wealth and freedom.

    Sounds to me like you're in favor of a globalist new world order, think progress toward it is being nibbled to death by ducks, and are promulgating a new, McCarthy Era - style, Russian menace nightmare to counter it.

    Now that people can get unfiltered news on the Internet (astroturf and all) and the mainstream media are exposed as shills for the 1%, they can see how badly they're being screwed (even if they can't always tell how the power screwdriver works). Result: A bunch of movements to dismantle the machine. And a general population that can recognize ideas like yours for what they are.

    Unlike what they're opposing, they don't need coordination from some top puppetmaster. But (like the 13 colonies working with France) many of them are willing to find inspiration and accept support from wherever it might be found.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Hi, shill for the globalists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lmfao

      Red-pillers are so cute.

  51. Re:What do you mean? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Oh, no. It'll be even better than that. They'll use the newfangled 'AI deep learning algorithm' to predict your vote and vote for you. After all automation is the New Shiny Thing, it'll make everyones' life better! No more wasting time with silly old manual 'voting', that's so Luddite and Last Thursday!

  52. Trump woudn't know cyber from a hole in the ground by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

    This is beyond laughable, even for Trump and his shitty fake-ass 'administration', since he has no goddamned clue what he's talking about. 'Cybersecurity' is largely an endless game of Whack-a-Mole; it's almost impossible to close all the holes, even if you air-gap everything someone will 'social engineer' their way into access anyway. This is just distraction from the fact that his campaign (and probably Trump personally) have been in bed with his buddies the Russians since Day One, and he's desperately scrambling to try to redirect everyones' attention away from uncovering it. Goddamned traitor. Worse than Nixon.

  53. OP = Strawman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably has something to do with how before the Obama administration there wasn't a heavy investment in cyber anything? So naturally Obama has the worst record... They pretty much have the only record!

  54. Trump Signs Executive Order On Cybersecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and then tweets about it from his Samsung Galaxy S3

  55. Re:What do you mean? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    IIUC, there was evidence that some hacking from someone using a Russian handle over an ISP located in Russia happened. Of course, this could all be spoofed, so that's not real evidence that the attack originated in Russia, or that the attacker commonly used a Russian handle, or that the Russian government had any connection. And it's not evidence that nobody else hacked anything. And the story I read didn't even quantify the degree of penetration.

    As I said before in a different context, there are degrees and degrees. But there appears to be *some* proof.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  56. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you stating this because of the Obama Admin fiasco with the Obama Care website? That apparently pumped money into a Canadian Company using the most money in its irresponsible way.

  57. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so there will be appy apps?

  58. Re:What do you mean? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    NO!!!

    SHINY apps. Shiny.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  59. Re:What do you mean? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Partly, yes. I almost thought of mentioning that some way when I was writing that post, but didn't.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  60. Re:What do you mean? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Apps

    Nope. You won't need to do anything, your vote will be automatically made for you, no action on your part required. You won't even need to register to vote anymore; a Super Duper AI Deep Learning Algorithm Shiny Thingie will determine what political party you are automatically, register you, and make all your votes for you. No need for silly humans to bother themselves with learning how their government works, or any of those nasty annoying facts about candidates and issues, the Shiny machines will do it all fo ryou! Won't that be wonderful? All humans will have to do is eat, sleep, shit, and fuck.

  61. Re:What do you mean? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    The problem is that lying about "I promise I am telling the truth", would mean that you are also lying about the previous statement if " . . . and that the previous statements are equally truthful to this statement."

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  62. Re:What do you mean? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Remember to cash your Putin paycheck IMMEDIATELY
    He has a tendency to switch banks without telling the contractors.

  63. Re:What do you mean? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    2.9 million more votes
    yes, they did win

  64. Speaking from Ignorance by s.petry · · Score: 0

    Of course the democrats were political pandering with both comments, same for the republicans. That doesn't reduce the optics of this. Their is a standard for political positions like this where you make a clean transition by asking for the person to step down, and they always resign in these type of positions.

    You have obviously never worked in high level security of any type. One does not ask people with a certain level of access and clearance to resign or give them notice. You cut and cauterize immediately. If you don't understand the "why" you are not even trying.

    Comey can still testify before Congress, and most likely will. Flynn was removed from post and is being asked to testify, so why would Comey be a special case? Repeating leftist platitudes instead of thinking for yourself is a bad tactic. History and logic trump your appeals to emotion.

    Clearly it wasn't about what Comey did last year. That the administration can't keep the story straight about the firing, and Trump brought up the Russia investigation in the dismissal letter, as well as Trump bringing it up in his interview with Lester Holt that it was one of the issues while responding to a question about the Comey firing.

    It wasn't? Last year had nothing to do with the decision? Who told you so, aliens signalling you? Your crystal ball said so? Imaginary friend? While it certainly was not the only reason, a history of issues with Comey sure as hell includes that one.

    And who can't keep the story straight? The Trump Administration or the Leftist media who has been caught lying repeatedly? "Comey asked for money to investigate and was fired" which was a lie. "The Deputy AG said he would resign" was a lie, as is nearly everything else they claim in their FAKE news. The same leftist media who claimed Comey should resign for being incompetent and changed their mind when he was fired? You are a more articulate shill, but a shill nonetheless. Intentional or otherwise.

    --

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

    1. Re:Speaking from Ignorance by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >And who can't keep the story straight? The Trump Administration or the Leftist media who has been caught lying repeatedly? "Comey asked for money to investigate and was fired" which was a lie. "The Deputy AG said he would resign" was a lie, as is nearly everything else they claim in their FAKE news.

      To my knowledge, none of them have been denied by anyone with direct knowledge. Deputy only said he wasn't going to, never said he didn't tell anyone he didn't plan to. The only other denials are all "not that I am aware of, by those not involved." So your showing your inability to distinguish "truth" They may, or may not be true, but only your political bias turns them into "lies". Their is no reason to go further into your logic, as I am sure you will just keep changing the subject away from the facts. Trumps statements that "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story."

      The full thing is on tape, direct from Trumps mouth.

    2. Re:Speaking from Ignorance by s.petry · · Score: 1

      In other words, you have nothing. Worse, the only way to disagree with your opinion is to prove a negative. Good job with the irrational illogical arguments.

      --

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

    3. Re:Speaking from Ignorance by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      You would have to have something factual to dispute. There has only been one other director of the FBI fired, and he was asked to step down first, and refused. If it was about access to confidential information, anyone who knows anything about secrecy, knows the most important thing is to stop their access by making sure those who give them access are alerted to stop them, that was never done by Trump, Comey's office didn't know either. That along with your side rant about supposed lies, without any proof. I mean what was the point of that anyway? My only reference to media coverage was from video of trump admitting the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey, no bias possible their.

  65. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just think of what would have happened with Hillary being elected.

    Just think, we could have had a President who didn't claim to invent a decades-old idiom, a President who didn't appoint a racist to head the DOJ, a President who didn't fly on expensive trips for golf outings at personally owned resorts, a President who didn't boast of a wasteful attack with Cruise missiles over dinner, a President who didn't issue bogus executive orders then denounce judges for holding her accountable. A President who didn't have a spokesman try to sell cheap jewelry after resenting how companies dropped the product. A president who could maintain a coherent train of thought through an entire paragraph. A President who didn't concoct a stunt to hide all of their overseas foreign businesses.

    Just keep digging, because all the bullshit you're spouting only makes you look bad. It was that Trump is terrible, and the GOP went along with it. And few of them were ready once they had the consequences of it thrust upon them. Notice the lack of actual work being done. Even Trumpcare, they admitted not reading, and not expecting it to become law, for it to be a stunt.

    Nice Mashiki, nice.

  66. Re:Russia BRIBED Clinton by sudon't · · Score: 1

    Much as we love to see the veiw from Reverse World, I think it's a bit much to expect to be modded up. It's no longer Funny, and it's certainly never been Insightful. What puzzles me is, why you people are even on this site, (assuming right-wing Anonymous Coward is more than one person). In other words, why would a person whose worldview is anti-science, anti-evidence, and anti-progress be hanging out on a science news site? Just to troll? That would be pretty pathetic. You spew racial epithets like a child who's just learned a new word that offends grown-ups. What do you get out of that, I wonder. I do hope you're not an adult.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  67. You are the distraction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the distraction.

  68. Re:Trump woudn't know cyber from a hole in the gro by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Wow, we found another town's idiot. Your statement is just so ignorant. Question is, will your response be stupid. Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever.

  69. Re:What do you mean? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That only shows that the glorious Soviet news were ahead of its times!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.