Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Putin Claims Russia Proposed a Cyber War Treaty In 2015 But the Obama Admin Ignored Them (qz.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Russian president Vladimir Putin (who denies any Russian part in the hacking) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "The American side was silent, they didn't reply to us."

113 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Dru+Nemeton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the environment of this admission I can't be the only one who doubts this.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone else remember the hack that recently crippled a bunch of countries?

      The one developed by the USA?

      HERPaDERRRRRRRRP

    2. Re:Really? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the environment of this admission I can't be the only one who doubts this.

      I don't doubt it, but I think he is spinning it. Think about the problem of attribution in the cyber realm, then think about what good such an agreement would be? All it would do is become something for groups to use to try and attack others in public while doing absolutely nothing to stop any of the cyber attacks. The administration probably "ignored it" (meaning told them to take a hike) because they saw it as a nothing-burger proposed solely for propaganda reasons.

    3. Re:Really? by phayes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Treaties need to be verifiable and respected to be of any use. No possible good could have come of signing such a treaty with someone who claims that his military is just on vacation when they invade another country and that his hackers are just unemployed patriots.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As the subject says...REALLY? Think before you type. If it was 'pure propaganda' why wouldn't Putin/Russia simply announce it to the world back in 2015?

      Look, I think Putin's an 'asshat' for various reasons but assuming the Russian's wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that we are ALWAYS better than 'them'.

      Sure, it may be very difficult to come up with a treaty in this space that would have real impact but to not even try is just not reasonable.

      Look, when will people understand that even in the West the '3-letter agencies' AND our governments do not really have the "people's" best interests at heart. They are doing things daily that should get them locked up & we just ignore it. Wake up already.

    5. Re:Really? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the more realistic explanation is that it was ignored because it means the U.S. would have to knock-off (or obfuscate behind a third party for purposes of deniability, because lets face it we're not going to stop doing it) a lot of the stuff it's doing. Everyone likes to think that they're the good guys, but the U.S. has a long history of interfering in foreign countries so it's laughable to suggest that not carrying out our own operations. But as you point out, there isn't much point in a meaningless treaty when both sides know that both they and the other side won't actually uphold it.

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah let's believe the U.S instead. I mean today more than ever before, it's clear just how honest and sincere the US has been about everything, right?

    7. Re: Really? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't doubt that Putin may have proposed it and that the Obama administration turned it down. After all who here really believes that Putin would honor such a treaty?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Really? by hazardPPP · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the more realistic explanation is that it was ignored because it means the U.S. would have to knock-off (or obfuscate behind a third party for purposes of deniability, because lets face it we're not going to stop doing it) a lot of the stuff it's doing.

      Exactly. Russia doesn't have the NSA, it doesn't have a direct point of access to the world's biggest Internet companies...Russia can't do 10% of what the US does in the "cyber sphere". The biggest cyber warfare nation on the Earth is the USA. They are ahead of everyone else combined by light years.

      So of course Obama ignored it, Obama was a big fan of the NSA. As is the entire federal government. Any cyber treaty would severely limit what the US can do NOW, while only theoretically limiting what other countries MIGHT do.

    9. Re:Really? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yes, not everybody has forgotten, and the worst thing is that Dagobert "grab em by the pussy" Trump is still in charge, continuing to cripple his country and the rest of the world, as if nothing had ever happened!

      Man. SOMEONE'S pussy sounds awful sandy right now.

      Go stand over the bidet for a couple minutes. Maybe that'll change your disposition...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re: Really? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      ya think.

    11. Re:Really? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well it could be true-ish. He may have proposed a treaty.

      But that should immediately raise questions like, what would the treaty have agreed to? Were the terms fair? Did we have reason to believe Putin intended to honor such a treaty?

    12. Re:Really? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      We didn't hack, but a treaty could have prevented it. Putin, you are one dumb motherfucker.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Really? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure wikileaks has Hillary's email. Perhaps the treaty is in there? And she didn't notice it 'cause she was simply senile?

    14. Re: Really? by edis · · Score: 1

      Even if he would honor, such a treaty first of all is designed to tame advances of the other side, that has superior access to the underlying technology. Computing mostly originates in US. Being declined, now he plays again, but the other way round, like it was legal to abuse technology to participate in the elections, held by other countries. Like he wouldn't have to do wrongdoings, he had to do now.

      --
      Servant of karma
    15. Re:Really? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Oh dear...

      If it was 'pure propaganda' why wouldn't Putin/Russia simply announce it to the world back in 2015?

      Mostly because it'd be laughed at. Russia's been the poster child for psyops (including data manipulation and exfiltration) since WWII. If they unilaterally promise that they won't do nasty psyops things, there's no reason to believe them.

      ...assuming the Russian's wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that we are ALWAYS better than 'them'.

      That's a false equivalence. Assuming the Russians wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that the Russians wouldn't make such a proposal. It would also be a safe assumption that the Americans would make such a proposal, but only with enough exceptions that it wouldn't prevent the CIA or NSA from doing their respective nasty things. Each country still does what they want; they just have their own preferred method of getting there.

      Sure, it may be very difficult to come up with a treaty in this space that would have real impact but to not even try is just not reasonable.

      Without the right political climate, such a proposal could do more harm than good. If Russia proposed a treaty and the US supported it, that leaves China as the major rogue hacking state. If China is pressured to join, then the Russian and American influence on the proposal could be spun as having an impact on the Great Firewall, which would be an affront to China's sovereignty. That in turn causes the other vocal anti-American countries like North Korea to push against the new allied threat, leading to even more aggressive acts.

      Politics are difficult. It's not just "us vs. them", it's more "us against them and them against those guys and those guys against those other guys, but they're our friends because they owe us from last time and we want them to return the favor by convincing that other guy to stop pushing those guys to attack those guys who we still owe from that one thing they did fifty years ago". In that perspective, a treaty is as much a weapon as a missile.

      Look, when will people understand that even in the West the '3-letter agencies' AND our governments do not really have the "people's" best interests at heart. They are doing things daily that should get them locked up & we just ignore it.

      Yeah... I've worked for those three-letter agencies. The most amazing fact about them is that the people who work there are actually human people in disguise! It's true! They have families and friends, and watch football drink beer... or watch other-football and drink wine... or drink soda and wear a hijab. They're regular, normal, diverse people, and the most unusual thing (by American standards) about them is that they usually do in fact have the people's best interests at heart.

      Now, even with "the people's best interests at heart", there is also diversity in opinions on how to serve those interests. There are certain branches of leadership who hold privacy as a vital human right. There are others who feel that as long as there are no (prosecution or interruption) consequences, privacy means little. Those opinions are also weighed against the need to catch the "bad guys", who will never hesitate to abuse a bureaucracy to buy themselves some time to operate.

      It's wonderfully easy to say "lock them up", while conveniently forgetting that they can't do the same to you without a fair trial, piles of evidence, and a clear accounting of every oversight review and board approval. Sure, there are tons of anti-government websites and Slashdot posts complaining about the government's operations, but very little in the way of legal arguments that would be useful to the privacy-promoting factions on those review boards.

      Wake up already.

      I already woke up. That happened many years ago, when I realized that bad guys think they're the good guys. Then I got older, and realized that blaming people in groups like "bad guys" or "governments" is a slippery slope towards being one of the "bad guys".

      Please, grow up already.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Really? by a_claudiu · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Russia doesn't have the NSA, it doesn't have a direct point of access to the world's biggest Internet companies...Russia can't do 10% of what the US does in the "cyber sphere".

      No she haves KGB aka FSB. Citation needed for those 10%.

      Any cyber treaty would severely limit what the US can do NOW, while only theoretically limiting what other countries MIGHT do.

      Bullshit.

  2. Thank goodness we have Trump now by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1, Funny

    And a Putin-friendly Republican party. There will be peace in our time!

    1. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how are the republicans "putin-friendly" when they not only maintain sanctions, but are following Obama's same playbook. You do realize that Russia's main concern was Hillary would do something that would trigger WWIII because she was so incredibly hawkish that it made neocons blush. You can even see that in her emails, where she wanted to directly bomb russians in Syria, and start seizing assets from them. Pretty easy to figure out why the Kremlin was cheering when Trump was elected, it might just have something to do with that non-war. And if you don't think it wouldn't be nuclear? Look at it this way, the US has double the tonnage in the ocean of Russia and China combined. Plus better and closer force projection for troops. That means the only option would be a first strike using nuclear or limited nuclear exchange in the hopes of winning.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Regular formal communication, presence in the Oval Office, return of seized compounds, softer rhetoric.... oh, wait, you're a troll...

    3. Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Regular formal communication, presence in the Oval Office, return of seized compounds, softer rhetoric.... oh, wait, you're a troll...

      So you're saying that the US shouldn't have formal communication with a country that has a massive nuclear arsenal? Remember what happened the last time that went on, and the only reason we're having this discussion is because the USSR captain refused to pull the trigger. You mean the same presence that other nations have? The one that Obama pulled because reasons. So you want to argue that a Russia surrounded by NATO bases, shouldn't have some of their dignity back under a new administration. Are you that eager for a war or is it something else?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes but you're forgetting one thing: Hillary has a vagina. And that's just downright progressive. And diverse. Progressive and diverse both sound like good things. How can two things that sound good be bad? Do you think women are bad? You must if you don't want Hillary, A WOMAN, to have whatever she wants. You're basically a nazi, aren't you?

      -Gawker

    5. Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now by bestweasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Senate are serious about it, voting 98-2 for more sanctions on Russia; the House will probably follow suit. Trump would like to be buddies with Putin. The investigations should eventually find out how much sympathy and influence Russia has in the various other factions in Trump's Administration.

    6. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So how are the republicans "putin-friendly" when they not only maintain sanctions, but are following Obama's same playbook. You do realize that Russia's main concern was Hillary would do something that would trigger WWIII because she was so incredibly hawkish that it made neocons blush. You can even see that in her emails, where she wanted to directly bomb russians in Syria, and start seizing assets from them. Pretty easy to figure out why the Kremlin was cheering when Trump was elected, it might just have something to do with that non-war. And if you don't think it wouldn't be nuclear? Look at it this way, the US has double the tonnage in the ocean of Russia and China combined. Plus better and closer force projection for troops. That means the only option would be a first strike using nuclear or limited nuclear exchange in the hopes of winning.

      This is utter bullshit. Russia's government is a criminal mob organization masquerading as (or attempting to) a democracy. They SHOULD be marginalized and Hillary's Russian policies and strategy simply recognized them for what they are. Russia's primary concern is oil exports. She was going around the world promoting fracking technology as a means for countries to be more energy independent, and as an alternative to getting it from Russia. And there was no way the Exxon deal is ever going to happen with anyone other than Trump in office. He's simply a useful idiot.

    7. Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Nobody here is saying Putin is a swell guy. He's an autocrat, but the US policy is worse in a lot of ways, and none of those ways are at all helpful to the Russian people.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      he republicans are all talk to appear tough for the public ...

      Someone not paying attention to the senate or house recently. Yep sure looks like it.

      Hillary and Obama did not threaten the start of WW3 as much as they threatened to stop Putin's theft from Russia

      So let's go with that. You wonder why the Russian government seriously believed that if Hillary was elected that there would be a war. Would you perhaps like to claim that the inquisitr is a right-wing publication to save face before you find out that it's a left-wing publication.

      THAT is why Putin was so desperate that he worked to get Trump elected ...

      Yes, he worked so hard that we have no proof that they were involved. Or that the DNC email leaks show the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, like the fact that Hillary was acting as a front in a cash-for-access program using the clinton foundation to the state department. Would you like to now claim ABC News is right-wing? Or perhaps the washington post which also reported on it.

      Remember that part where the previous administration claimed that Russia was behind the DNC leaks, but there's no actual proof because the FBI never had access to actually investigate it. That Comey said that in itself was a "odd occurrence" and in turn there is no positive proof because of that. Remember that part where the founder of wikileaks came out and stated that Russia wasn't the source. The same wikileaks that the left cheered on for leaks under Bush and were quite happy when the information was supporting their side. Shall we continue?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Russia's primary concern is oil exports. She was going around the world promoting fracking technology as a means for countries to be more energy independent

      Actually this is utter bullshit. Russia's primary concern is natural gas exports. She was going around the world trying to undercut Russia's ability to apply pressure on the EU because Russia supplies ~30% of their natural gas...via a pipeline through Syria. Now ask yourself why this was so important, that the US decided to involve itself in Syria and back the opposing side to overthrow Assad. While Russia supported Assad. Remember that part where the US was funneling weapons to terrorists because they were fighting Assad? How about because they supported a different NG pipeline that would be from Qatar. The same country that's now under pressure by the rest of the middle east for funding terrorists and directly interfering in Egypt.

      Or are you going to argue that Russia shouldn't support it's allies like the US does in the middle east? Are you figuring out just how much of a clusterfuck this really is yet.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Love the US sticking it's nose into the Qatar situation and making it much worse lately. Then going and selling billions worth of weapons to both sides. Brilliant.

    11. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Altus · · Score: 1

      Well we are moving to pu sanctions back in place on Iran which cuts off a big competitor to Russian oil interests by driving the price of their oil back up to the point where Russia is competitive again.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Syria is between Russia and Europe?

      The pipeline through Syria would further weaken Russia's position. But so will the natural gas liquefaction facilities in Qatar and the east coast of the USA. They are kind of screwed.

      Russia is, more or less, a resource export economy during a resource glut. About the only thing that can help Russia is a big middle east war involving Saudi and Iran.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Maintaining the stalemate between Sunni/Shia is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

      See also: Iran/Iraq war. That was a GOOD war.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Is that what you call it when you help the Saudi's to bomb civilians in Yemen? Bet you're really happy setting up drone strikes on civilians and calling airstrikes on hospitals.

      And now Trump is basically letting the military do whatever it wants, including setting troop levels in Afghanistan. Talk about giving up the pretext of being Commander. Guess it was too hard.

    15. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't see how arabs fighting arabs is our problem? More an opportunity. Keep em busy until the oil is irrelevant, than ignore.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Thank goodness we have Trump now by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What do you mean going to? That deal was approved under the Obama regime and there's no actual back-track mandate available in the deal.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. A treaty only makes sense between equal players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and the US arrogantly thought that they were better hackers.

    1. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      I'm beginning to think that cyberwarfare is a negative-sum game for all involved and the only way to 'win' is if NOBODY plays.

    2. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Negative for the government entities perhaps, but as a citizen I'd find it quite refreshing to have the governments dirty laundry aired. I don't know if that requires cyber espionage from other countries as Snowden showed that this can be done internally as well, but governments that can get away with working from the shadows tend to become tyrannical beasts. Even the threat of eventual discovery may be enough to keep some evil at bay.

    3. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      It's bad for groups that keep lots of secrets, that's obvious.

      I'm still waiting for the Ds or Rs to be fully triggered and the mutual dirt dump to start. Anybody that's been watching for a few decades, can come up with examples where 'important people' were about to go to prison, when suddenly the dogs backed off. From both sides of the isle.

      I recognize MAD when I see it, even if I don't have the actual dirt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Russia has been ruled by one man and his associates for decades. He has a clue about operation security.

      Compare that to the political parties in America. The media. No group larger than two has a chance of keeping a secret, long term. Parts of America aren't really trying, overconfidence. Thought media was on their side and were just down to a little 'cultural cleanup'...surprise!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Leaking dirty laundry, yes. Leaving the world's infrastructure incredibly vulnerable, not so much. So, probably stop the hacking game, but provide asylum to whistleblowers.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      and the US arrogantly thought that they were better hackers.

      The US probably thought that Russia had absolutely no intention of stopping hacking. All this was was a ploy to try to bind the US in some agreement while Russia lies about how they couldn't possibly be behind the hacking!
      What, the hacking, did you think Russians were behind it?
      Oh, are you bringing up the hacking charges again? Russians were not nearly as involved as you think they were.
      Talking about the hacking during the election again? Ok, we Russians were behind it, but that was a long time ago, and it was totally justified.

      Just see the timeline for the Ukraine invasion denials to see where on that historical pattern of denials/admissions we're at.
      I thought Trump could boldly lie, but he's got nothing on the Russian government.

    7. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      You could probably remove the "cyber" from that statement.

    8. Re:A treaty only makes sense between equal players by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1

      Hey, Everybody, It's Joshua from Wargames!

  4. Blaming Obama? by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know Putin didn't think that talking point up on his own. The guy who has changed his story three times about Russian hacking now tries out a new strategy.

    We can't stay united with people who think it's okay for Russians, or any country, to meddle in our elections...as long as the meddling is working for them. If this was Hillary Clinton working with the Russians the hypocrite right would be burning the country down.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Blaming Obama? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The guy who has changed his story three times about Russian hacking now tries out a new strategy.

      Does Russia have it's own version of Twitter? Does Putin use it, like, all the time? I think you see where I'm going with this. How do you say 'fake news' in Russian?

    2. Re:Blaming Obama? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      While I think we should have these treaties, there is no way that the Russians would actually follow it any more than they followed international law when they annexed Crimea.

    3. Re: Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh here we are. Are you the pro-russian troll, or the teabagger obsessed with the Clintons? It has become so hard to tell these days.

      See that ID? Yeah. So what are you? A paid shareblue poster trying to cover up for the Clintons. Maybe you can explain why when Clinton lost the election that the international arm of the clinton foundation shut down almost right away as the donation stream abruptly stopped. Would you like to explain why when people wanted to talk with the Obama administration they'd be stonewalled, then suddenly when they made large contributions to it they had access. And they used it to directly gain access to special favors at the state department.

      Why talk about the topic at hand when we can talk about a completely different topic?

      Maybe you should ask the parent poster.

      It's getting old and us moderates are tired of the idiots on both sides. Before you go there (I know you will), no, I ddidnt vote for the candidate you likely call Killary.

      If you're an actual moderate, then you wouldn't be lashing out when someone points out that she was the worse candidate and likely the one that would have caused another world war. You were the one who said that not me.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that most governments consider treaties "gentlemen's agreements" nothing else, unless there is some type of oversight. As long as neither side is openly doing things, and aren't violating the spirit of that agreement anything goes and it's always been like that. USSR or Russia, US or GB everyone plays by those same rules. But wouldn't it be interesting to find out that this was actually the case? It would sure lend credence to the CIA and NSA being state actors using their tools to fake attacks from other foreign actors in order to apply pressure against them. Something that was directly listed in the last 2 rounds of wikileaks documents,

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Blaming Obama? by nucrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, if you want to point out all the flaws of Hillary Clinton and the radical Democrats who assaulted or shot at Trump Supporters or GOP members, feel free to also point out the racists who were incensed about the removal of Confederate statues or Samuel Houston's statue which is even more entertaining because he despised the Confederacy. Feel free to also point out the Trump supporters who shot and killed various people for "looking" Muslim. I own the fact that yes there was Bernie Supporter who shot up a GOP team. That's sad and I don't know where he managed to get the message that violently attacking GOP officials was okay. Violently attacking anyone is not okay. Yet the GOP needs to own their own extremist and that's something they don't care to do. Most of the time they don't acknowledge this happening. I think the most we managed to get out of Trump was a, "Stop It" and that was after he was questioned and begged. Bernie has apologized time and again over this single individual.

      --
      Place something witty here
    6. Re:Blaming Obama? by butzwonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you say 'fake news' in Russian?

      Prawda - now known as "Russia Today".

    7. Re:Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So you support the removal of historical statues and scrubbing of history? That's what you're talking about when you're saying that. Would you like me to point out all those fake hate crimes that Clinton and Bernie supporters claimed in order to get in the news and try making the "look at all this violence" that isn't actually happening and several of those people were criminally charged for false police reports. How about those muslims that were filing false police reports against Trump supporters. You want to talk about Loretta Lynch calling for people to violently attack people in the streets. How about when Tim Caine and Hillary did too.

      Here I'll even help you for your next reply. Maybe you would like to toss in a claim that the kid in Quebec was a Trump supporter? Except he only like Trump because he holds a "US First" stance, much like LePen and several others. Want to know what's interesting on that one? He was a freverant leftist, who supported groups like the PQ(a leftist nationalist pro-separation Quebec group). You know there was another group like that in the past too, it was called the FLQ. They were marxist leftists with a pro-nationalist, pro-quebec separation stance. Just think if they were around today. How would you argue the marxist organization that just bombed downtown montreal, or kidnapped a politican and murdered him. Would that be a pro-Trump organization in your book?

      How about groups like BAMN? That are far-leftist violent marxists, who believe that they're "fighting for free speech" by violently assaulting people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Blaming Obama? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *Drum hit*

    9. Re:Blaming Obama? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I agree, we shouldn't be supportive of meddling in elections just because it works in our favor. That means that Clinton, and a good chunk of the US intelligence agencies, should be stopped.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Blaming Obama? by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      So you support the removal of historical statues and scrubbing of history?

      Scrubbing of history? I support the removal of statues of people who fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. I know it's very chic now to try to whitewash the history of the Civil War and pretend it's just local state control over the big bad feds, but at least in the 1860s the Southerners were a bit more honest about what they were actually fighting for.

      The Confederacy is one of the greatest symbols of our shameful past, where we thought it was fine for a man to keep another man like property. It neither needs to or deserves to be honored, and those statues were a casual, everyday "fuck you" to non-whites, a constant reminder that for many, they are not welcome even after 150 years.

    11. Re:Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Hey, you at least acknowledged that the Quebec attack happened! That puts you one ahead of Trump.

      The real question is, why should Trump acknowledge it? The guy liked him because of a pro-nationalist stance that's it. But let's compare that to someone like Jessee Benn. You know about them right? They're a self-proclaimed Hillary supporter, who wrote for the Huffington Post and wrote an article calling for the murder of Trump because "impeachment isn't enough" in his eyes. Hillary is going to say this is unacceptable right? The DNC? They've been pretty silent so far. Or perhaps someone would like to argue that this type of stuff isn't going to do anyone any good.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Blaming Obama? by ph1ll · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it done to you then don't do it to others.

      Aside from all the elections America has interfered in, the US recently targeted its allies and hacked the phone of the German leader.

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    13. Re:Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Scrubbing of history? I support the removal of statues of people who fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. ...

      So you are supporting the scrubbing of history by removing those statues. You should really dust off a history book, because slavery was actually a very small part of it. There was far more to the issue then just that. If you don't want to look like a book burner, perhaps you'd be better off wanting to show the entire history of it? Which do you think is more likely true: That bigotry and racism grows when exposed, or when it's suppressed and hidden from sight. Where there is no counter arguments against it.

      The Confederacy is one of the greatest symbols of our shameful past, where we thought it was fine for a man to keep another man like property. It neither needs to or deserves to be honored, and those statues were a casual, everyday "fuck you" to non-whites, a constant reminder that for many, they are not welcome even after 150 years.

      And burying that history helps who? So does this also apply to say WWII memorials? How about Nazi memorials? Yeah, burying history helps nobody. Just like trying to pull "all whitey's are racists because of slavery" helps no one.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Blaming Obama? by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      I agree, we shouldn't be supportive of meddling in elections just because it works in our favor. That means that Clinton, and a good chunk of the US intelligence agencies, should be stopped.

      I've seen Hillary (?) Clinton seen accused of a lot of things, but this is a new one. I'm not going waste energy asking for proof, but what exactly is she supposed to have done this time?

    15. Re: Blaming Obama? by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Maybe you can explain why when Clinton lost the election that the international arm of the clinton foundation [observer.com] shut down almost right away as the donation stream abruptly stopped.

      The Clinton Foundation isn't shutting down. They started shutting down parts of it as long ago as last summer. One of the explanations at the time was that they were actually trying to get rid of some of the international programs that would represent conflicts of interest if she were to be elected president.

      The other stories you cited, about Clinton Foundation donors getting access to the State Department, have already been investigated. Basically, it appears that some donors seemed to be trying to use their donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to get access to talk to Clinton about State department business. The investigations showed that it didn't work. Even the article you cited says, "The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting."

      Not that I particularly like Clinton anyway. If you can prove she committed a crime, lock her up. If there's proof that Trump committed any crimes, lock him up too. Bad acts by one political party doesn't excuse bad acts by the other.

    16. Re:Blaming Obama? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So you are supporting the scrubbing of history by removing those statues.

      That's not scrubbing history, they're usually going into museums. I have no interest in whitewashing. The northerners sure as hell didn't fight the Civil War to free the slaves, but most of the Southern states seceded to protect slavery.
      What this is doing is removing them from a place of honor. Our places of honor should be reserved for people who, you know, actually deserve honor.

      You should really dust off a history book, because slavery was actually a very small part of it. There was far more to the issue then just that. If you don't want to look like a book burner, perhaps you'd be better off wanting to show the entire history of it?

      Over half of the Confederate states put, in their article of succession, the preservation of the Southern way of life through the institution of slavery as a primary motivation, or even the sole motivation for succession. Sure, it was all states rights, but funny that the "states' right" that they talked the most about was slavery.

    17. Re:Blaming Obama? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Reading the New York Times?
      Reading the Washington Post?
      Watching CNN?
      Taking in a little Shakespeare in Central Park

      Did any of them also offer to pay for a legal defense?

    18. Re: Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If you can prove she committed a crime, lock her up.

      Comey already did that remember?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Blaming Obama? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's not scrubbing history, they're usually going into museums.

      Which is why several of the statues are now sitting in city junk heaps right? If you're removing them from a place, you're white washing it. If you want to add a counter plaque feel free I doubt you're going to get much in the way of complaints.

      Over half of the Confederate states put, in their article of succession, the preservation of the Southern way of life through the institution of slavery as a primary motivation, or even the sole motivation for succession. Sure, it was all states rights, but funny that the "states' right" that they talked the most about was slavery.

      You must have read one that belonged in a different timeline, because the ordinances of secession spell out something that's fundamentally different then that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re: Blaming Obama? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Comey's conclusion was that there was nothing there to prosecute-- essentially that there were some bad decisions, even some reckless behavior, but nothing criminal.

    21. Re: Blaming Obama? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      But to add to this, I don't really care. I have no attachment to Clinton. Lock her up. Whatever. Go dig up Nixon's corpse and put that in jail, too, if it makes you happy.

      But the past misdeeds of some other politician should not serve as an excuse or as cover for the current president to commit crimes. Let the investigations go forward, and if there's a case that he committed criminal acts, lock him up.

  5. So what? by chispito · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Putin right now: We do not hack other nations, those are independent patriotic Russians.

    Putin if he signed a treaty: We do not hack other nations, those are independent patriotic Russians.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:So what? by mugurel · · Score: 2

      This. How quiet (and efficient) would politics become if one could filter out all of this bullshit.

    2. Re:So what? by mugurel · · Score: 2

      Do you think so? Did he have a hard time explaining why Russia bombed the Free Syrian Army after they stated their intention of combating ISIS in Syria?

      There's not much explaining going on most of the time, just plain denial.

  6. Flagged as Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most likely it came from a .ru domain, got flagged as spam, and ended up in Obama's junk folder.

    Even if he could find the email, the link will have been sanitized with a [Malware Domain] marker.

  7. Pics (with timestamp) or it didn't happen by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Your move, Putin.

    1. Re:Pics (with timestamp) or it didn't happen by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Our intelligence services may be corrupt and inept, but they can at least tell the difference between a legit pic and one that's been shooped.

  8. Contradiction? by Edward+Nardella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Russia was not involved but if there was a treaty they would not have been involved and they would not have done the hacking they did not do.

    --
    My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
  9. I bet there was a button involved by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    And it was red and sat on a yellow base.

    Wonder where Putin got that idea?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  10. Putin statement suggests contradiction by evolutionary · · Score: 3, Informative

    Putin denies any involvement in hacking (which the FBI says is nonsense) while publicly declaring he proposed in essence, a cyberwar treaty that "might have avoided all this". How could what is going with the question of Russian interference with our voting system be avoided if there wasn't any in the first place. This suggests what we all suspect: that we have actions (call it retaliation if you like) on both side. Who started it, well, that question probably goes back to the cold war.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:Putin statement suggests contradiction by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      ..while publicly declaring he proposed in essence, a cyberwar treaty that "might have avoided all this".

      Here's what Obamas' reaction to that email must have been. Only a fool (and someone with the initials 'D.T.') would fall for something as obvious as that.

    2. Re:Putin statement suggests contradiction by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Who started it is the most childish fucking question in the world.
      It doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that adults in positions of power stop acting like goddamned children before they get us all killed.

      This lingering concept of "I want to rule the world." stopped applying when we could press a button and shield ourselves from the sun for thousands of years (Not that it matters because >half the population of the planet will be dead at that point).

      We'll go back to exploration and conquest when shit hits the fan from climate change or something and we get thrown back into the dark ages. For now, lets just all get along before too many innocent folks die for nothing.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    3. Re:Putin statement suggests contradiction by bongey · · Score: 1

      The FBI got a warrant based off the Trump Dossier alone, that any 12 year old could realize is fake, we are suppose to believe that same FBI's assessment on who carried out the hacking against the DNC. Reality the FBI HAS to find that it was RUSSIA otherwise they conducted illegally surveillance on Trump's campaign and fallen for Dossier that only Buzzfeed and CNN would even mention.

  11. Sooo.... by drakaan · · Score: 1

    ...the logical response is to start an all-out campaign of cyber aggression and psyops? Sure. That makes sense. Propose a treaty and then declare war when you're ignored.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    1. Re:Sooo.... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Tit-for-tat is an effective strategy. The problem is that you are assuming that Russia declared the 'war.' The US has been caught writing sophisticated malware to damage nuclear infrastructure. We have 'reasonable confidence' of Russia sending out phishing emails.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Sooo.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I don't doubt we had something to do with Stuxnet. But the Israelis took a victory lap over it. Credit where it's due.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Putin sez: We propose a treaty to stop doing... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... something that we are not doing. Yeah, that sounds legit.

  13. That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 2

    I'm sure you wouldn't want anything to happen to it...

    Putin proposing a "cyber war treaty" is like the Mob proposing that they will "protect you".

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you realize how big the NSA is?

      American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' on each other than the total Russian cyber budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.

      The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc).

      I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 2

      The 3 letter agencies do more than just spy on Russia... Besides which, as I stated elsewhere, there is no point in signing a treaty with anyone who claims that his Military is just on vacation when they invaded a neighbor and that his hackers are merely unemployed patriots.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A toothless treaty that you're not going to abide by anyhow...

      I'm not arguing for the treaty, just saying it wouldn't make sense for the USA to curtail the NSA when apparently so far ahead. At the time the spooks were basking in the afterglow of Stuxnet, not the butthurt of their bosses being shown to be cyber clowns.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead.

      They probably are. It's just that American (and everyone else's) infrastructure is still in the stone age.

    5. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Never argued against the 3 letters not wanting a treaty (nor that their development/use of 0days is somehow "wrong" or that they "should" have just silently turned them all over to the makers so that they could be patched -- which they ended up doing anyway months before the exploits were revealed).

      As for appearances, Putin may rue overusing his little green men & "patriots". The 3 letter agencies are not without resources as you pointed out & everyone now expects him to use them. There are many ways to use that against him.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    6. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Russia has it's own issues. We can't help, we can only hurt. We're just going to have to accept that Russia will follow it's own course.

      What can you say about Russian pride?

      How old is Putin? What kind of succession planning has he done?

      All the currencies are in for a rough ride. Baby boom gets good and settled into retirement and we're strapping nitrous to the printing presses at the mint.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Allow Putin to continue to continue to hack everyone else's elections with no consequences? Allow him to continue to seize territories from those he hasn't had the appetite to turn on yet?

      I have no problem with Russian pride when they're not using it to trample on the rights of others.

      Putin is 64. Whether or not he has groomed a successor or ossifies until his 90s matters little to me as long as his foreign adventurism is contained.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    8. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Russia's pride is currently breaking it's back, financially.

      And the rest of the world has it's own fish to fry, with our demographic/retirement issues. Russia has that too.

      We don't want Russia collapsing either, think about Russian weapon/rocket engineering talent selling itself to the highest bidder in the middle east.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Agree about the effort Putin is forcing Russias into. If oil prices don't come up Putin is going to have as much success as Maduro.

      Russia's recent demographics are actually getting better recently (but again, I agree globally).

      Not so sure that anyone would be willing to bankroll the Russian rocket scientists a second time should they need it after another Russian overextension in a couple years. With NK building solid fuelled ICBMs today and almost certainly willing to sell to anyone willing to help them avoid sanctions, that barn door may not need closing.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    10. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We paid to keep Russia in the rocket business after the fall of the USSR.

      And nothing, basically, has changed, we don't want the rusky _talent_ taking its knowledge to the third world.

      We don't want a power vacuum or violent revolution in a nuclear power. Russian space is a great source of pride for them. Everybody needs a little pride, it's not like it's a sin.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware that we bankrolled the fUSSR rocket scientists or I wouldn't have written "willing to bankroll the Russian rocket scientists a _second_ time".

      Again, I have no problem with Russian pride when they're not using it to trample on the rights of others.

      I just don't think that the now much smaller pool of russian rocket scientists are large and unique enough for us to want to bankroll again when NK is building it's own solid fuelled ICBMs & the Russians still don't have Angara flying regularly even though they started developing it in 1992. Space-X was founded from nothing in 2002 yet flight-proven F9s are flying, FH will launch before year end and DragonV2 is coming within 2 years. And that's without getting into the problems they've been having with Soyuz.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    12. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I suppose just accepting that everyone crazy will have ICBMs soon is one POV.

      And in furtherance, it looks like even India and Pakistan are growing up a little...nukes do that. N Korea on the other hand, China has got to do something soon.

      Who else is 'on deck'? Japan doesn't need help, if they want to they can. Most of western Europe is the same...slackers! S Korea? Malaysia? The Venezuelans are crazy enough, but they can't afford the bills. Brazil swears 'they're out', so does S. Africa. Burma? Thailand? Chile? Egypt? Libia? Saudi? Kuwait? Will Dubai install a solid gold ICBM complex? The thought of world-wide MAD is a little scary. Too many shaky cases. But if that house is truly out of the barn, we better get used to it.

      Russia is a mess, there is no doubt, worse every day now. I'm saying we have an interest in stability in Russia.

      Using them as a political boogie man seems unwise. Vladimir's Ukrainian adventure baffles me too, don't see how the current situation is a 'win' for Russia.

      The situation is strange in many ways. Russia has a guantanamo style lease on a navy base in the baltics that's a significant % of...Latvia...IIRC...don't quote me, one of the baltic states, right on the Polish border. Leftover from the edges of the USSR.

      SpaceX should run a serious, profession, staff raid on the Russians. Yesterday. Russians like money... Musk has the money and connections to fund the next Bell Labs. Too many of the schools are hot messes right now, China is keeping most of it's good grad students, turned the average university upside down. I digress.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Does my acceptance/refusal that NK has solid fueled ICBMs change the fact that they have them? Nope. Does yours? Nope.

      The only power that could "peacefully" stop NK's mad course is indeed China -- who have refused to do so for decades. I'm right there with you hoping that they do so before it is too late but reviewing their past inaction and projecting forward does not inspire hope that they will do so.

      You're thinking of Kaningrad, It was never a part of Latvia but was a German enclave that was the heart of Prussia. After WWII Russia ethnically cleansed it, seeded it with Russians & annexed it. After the breakup of the Warsaw Pact & the fUSSR it is still part of Russia even if it isn't contiguous to the rest of Russia (much like Alaska). For the Poles, having a Russian enclave to the north is probably better than having a German one, even today.

      I've called for steps that would punish Russia for their acts of aggression to others to get them to stop doing it. That's a far cry from calling for Russia's destabilization & saying that Russia should get a free pass on their adventurism because they are "too fragile" will not fly.

      I doubt that Russia would allow the few people they have left that Space-X would want to leave. I also have my doubts on whether integrating them would be positive for Space-X, the culture is just too different, the NOFRN limitations too important and the risk that the recruits would be moles/agents too high.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    14. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Russia still has some really talented material scientists, just to start. Who built the lean burning turbopump? Get them all. All the guys that debugged the common pump, multi nozzle engines...it goes on. ULA is flying with Russian engines.

      The people I'm thinking of are the kind you build teams around, not cogs in machines.

      Russia is a mess, if they want out, they'll find a way. But many will be Russian patriots.

      Russia is bleeding money from all orifices. She will come around. Don't 'corner' bears with thousands of nukes, just don't.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... by phayes · · Score: 1

      No question that Russia has excellent materiels scientists that were able to develop oxygen rich engines that usually don't RUD, but Space-X has gone in different directions where the russian expertise just isn't applicable.

      Spaces-X's in-house development teams certainly don't need to be broken down and reformed around people that Russia isn't going to let go anyway -- they're already doing great & have largely outperformed _everybody_ else.

      Nukes are terrible weapons but having them doesn't give Russia or NK or China or the US or the UK, or France or India or Pakistan or Japan or Israel a free pass to invade their neighbors and interfere with their elections without repercussions. Stop pretending that the consequences MUST lead to WWIII.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  14. Scandal Rag by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    When is the "news" going to stop sounding like a scandal rag newspaper?

  15. You didnt get peace, so you went to war? by Joviex · · Score: 1

    We decide not to sign and you decide to unleash the beast? Makes sense? lel.

  16. ShrÃdinger's cake? by chaboud · · Score: 1

    Putin-ish: "We totally didn't hack the election, but it wouldn't have been a problem if the US had signed this treaty that we sent in 2015, which would have stopped us from hacking the election, which we totally didn't do..."

    We've been missing the point. Putin is a dark comedy masterpiece. Can we all just applaud his ability to drop these lines without bursting into laughter?

  17. Re: Shrodinger's cake? by chaboud · · Score: 1

    And, by the way, that was properly spelled before Slashdot's system munged the ever loving fuck out of it.

    Diacritical marks are, apparently, for suckers...

  18. And the US would? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    My, how quickly we forget about the Snowden leaks. How quickly we forget about topping nearly a dozen countries in the Middle East, sponsoring colored revolutions all over the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

    The US Government (at least certain sections) was caught treating everyone as an enemy.

    I'm not in any way endorsing or approving of Russia, I am saying that if the US behavior is no better we should be fixing our own. Nowhere in the list of Noble Traits will you find the word "hypocrite".

    Something to consider: Russia's defensive claims of Tit-for-tat would not have merit if the US didn't provide a tat for them.

    --

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

  19. Message from Russia Waiting for You by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

    It probably got blocked by the SPAM filters.

  20. Putin Lies. And so do his puppets. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    This is what we in the trade call "Fake News".

    And, no, Putin's puppet does not actually have all those "followers". They're bots.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  21. 1998: Russia asks UN to devise intâ(TM)l rule by mrkoot · · Score: 1

    FWIW: in 1998, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation addressed a letter to the Secretary-General of the UN asking the UN to establish international rules to prohibit what has since DOD JP3-13 become known as Computer Network Attack. Here is that letter: https://disarmament-library.un...

  22. If it isn't covered by treaty it is ok to do? by BC+in+Albany · · Score: 1

    So, Putin is claiming that because we don't proactively have a treaty (that the public is aware of) that it is ok to knowingly violate items that might have been covered by the treaty? Seems like a bad practice to me, seems if you think it is a bad idea, you shouldn't start by doing it to others. I don't tell new people I meet, no kicking me in the shins, perhaps he does start his conversations with that.

    1. Re:If it isn't covered by treaty it is ok to do? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I think what Putin is saying is "if you don't want to get hacked, don't be hacking others." We've got plenty of evidence of the US engaging in far more sophisticated hacking than anything Russia is accused of.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:If it isn't covered by treaty it is ok to do? by BC+in+Albany · · Score: 1

      That is one way to read it, I was seeing it as more specific to the election issues, which I suppose we'd be free to do to them now, assuming they had open and fair elections and it mattered. I'm not savvy enough to know if it does nor not, thought I've gotten the strong impression that it does not.

    3. Re:If it isn't covered by treaty it is ok to do? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You say that as if we weren't already doing that.to them, and plenty of other countries.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  23. Of course Obama ignored him - Everyone did by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    2015 was back when the sitting American president didn't have his lips wrapped around Putin's unit. I remember only hearing about Putin maybe once every-other month. Now he is in the news every day since Trump's mouth became his cock holster.

  24. "Thanks, Obama"? by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

    Am I doing this joke right?

    --
    So say we all
  25. Don't have to be better by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    When it comes to hacking, you don't have to be better. You don't even have to be good. You can suck and still cause a lot of trouble. We've seen it time and time again. Years ago there was ransomware, where they weren't good enough to send themselves the key to decrypt the machine. Some left the key on the machine. Sometimes nothing was actually done, just send them money. How many of those lame "We're from Microsoft or Apple and we detected a problem with your machine" calls. Still works because they still do it.

    In the DNC's case it didn't even take that. Podesta's password was password it was reported. Can't fix stupid.

  26. Ummmm... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    1) We don't speak Russian.

    2) Treaty would not stop those "independent patriotic Russian hackers".

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.