Slashdot Mirror
Obama Authorized a Secret Cyber Operation Against Russia, Says Report (engadget.com)
Jessica Conditt reports via Engadget: President Barack Obama learned of Russia's attempts to hack U.S. election systems in early August 2016, and as intelligence mounted over the following months, the White House deployed secrecy protocols it hadn't used since the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, according to a report by The Washington Post. Apparently, one of the covert programs Obama, the CIA, NSA and other intelligence groups eventually put together was a new kind of cyber operation that places remotely triggered "implants" in critical Russian networks, ready for the U.S. to deploy in the event of a pre-emptive attack. The downed Russian networks "would cause them pain and discomfort," a former U.S. official told The Post. The report says CIA director John Brennan, Obama and other officials had at least four "blunt" conversations with Russian officials about its cyber intrusions beginning August 4th. Obama confronted Vladimir Putin in person during a meeting of world leaders in China this past September, the report says, and his administration even sent Russia a warning through a secure channel originally designed to help the two countries avoid a nuclear strike. Moscow apparently responded one week later -- after the U.S. election -- denying the accusation.
...if Russia hacked the election and they knew about it more than 6 months prior...
WHY DID THEY NOT TELL THE PUBLIC?
Think about that. If it was such a threat to our elections, why wouldn't you let us know? If this was Trump, the media would be ripping their hearts out and slapping them on the table while screaming "COLLUSION!" for not telling us.
How many fucking Russian trolls are working this site?! 24 troll posts from anons before anyone gets a word in edgewise has to be a new record.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Well, at least some good will come out of this. People need to know how corrupt the election process actually is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So the same newspaper that broke Watergate, the same one that has won hundreds of Pulitzer, is somehow now become completely untrustworthy because they hired a columnists who happened to work for the DNC? Sorry but it doesn't work like that. If you really think they are lying about the facts, you need to show a systematic history of them misrepresenting reality. They have been around for over 100 years and you'd be hard pressed to find a dozen articles that are factually incorrect.
Go ahead, I dare you. Because if attacking a single contributing political columnist, is the best you've got you've only made me trust them more. If you really think they have a poor track record, try and prove it.
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
This is the same paper that held a clandestine fund raiser with the DNC after their own lawyers told them not to [1]. It's stories rely heavily on anonymous stories and undisclosed facts, and the people who own it are not the same any more.
Top Obama officials and intelligence agencies have told me that their sources are nonsense. Who are you to question them?
[1] To spare you trying to decode the HTML email:
You cling to that like its a security blanket. But as was the case with so many other conspiracies built on the wikileaks DNC emails, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The Post's lawyers didn't tell them not to give the DNC any freebie tickets, they told them not to sell them any tickets.
The DNC getting freebie tickets to yet another DC cocktail party and handing them out to VIP donors isn't proof of a "cladestine fundraiser" its proof of the kind of utterly banal schmoozing that goes on all the time. Its the DC equivalent of the swag bags that celebrities get when they go to industry parties in hollywood.
Not that explaining this will make any difference at all to you. The conspiracy confirms your bias, the pedestrian reality would set you adrift. Much more pleasant to cling to the security blanket of conspiracy, even if its made of whole-cloth.
Actually, it did. Whatever the outcome.
I don't think Putin's goal was the election of a specific candidate as it was to destroy confidence in the election process. He's succeeded at that.
1/ Russia is an oil and gas economy with little else as relevant. As an example, the Saudi price war on oil has hit them very hard. A climate change denier in the White House is good for their business.
2/ Putin began his move into politics railing against Bill Clinton and the US military actions in Europe that he ordered. He still brings those up from time to time. He's ranted a lot about Hillary when she was Secretary of State. It's kind of looking personal - he appears to have actively hated Hillary for decades.
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention. As an extreme example, if Putin invaded Ukraine tomorrow (he going for slow and sure so not going to happen) it's very unlikely that there would be a timely response of any kind, not even sanctions.
4/ Flattery will get you everywhere - as the Saudis showed with turning Trump against our best ally in the Middle East, Qatar, flatter the guy enough and you can play him like a flute. Putin has done that sort of thing before and recognizes someone he can manipulate in Trump.
So Trump was the guy for Putin to back even if you ignore the bank loans and everything else.
(she won the popular vote, so most people agree she deserves it)
As much as I detest Trump this shows a clear lack of understanding of how are government works. We are a union of States, not a people's republic.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
YOU THERE!
Yes, YOU!
Stop with your use of facts and halt your reading of the actual article. This is Slashdot, we have no use for logic and reason and truth when there could be a good Trump-bash going on!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
At the bottom of the WaPo story, you will find:
"There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
So for all the angst and hand-wringing of the headline and opening paragraphs AND summary, we find the article itself states there IS NO EVIDENCE. But hey, it's the WaPo, so it has to be correct! But in this case, WHICH statement is correct - the attack-dog headline or the conclusion? They are diametrically opposed, so only one can be correct...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The US had two choices for President. One of those with the D in front of their name was propped up by a corrupt Democratic party, and media outlets like the biased gossip rag sourced in TFA. WaPo, as with NYT, NBC, CNN, and countless other media outlets (sorry, I refuse to call them "news" since they aren't) stated flat out that they were going to "destroy Trump". That campaign started right after he was announced as the R candidate. Now source all of the "leaks", media coverage, and talking points of the DNC and it becomes clear that those same media outlets are simply a mouthpiece for the entrenched elitists in the D party.
The candidate that the D party put up was a corrupt politician, and we have known about their corruption since the 90s (if not sooner). Unless you want to say that she was a puppet for Russia since then, any claim of Russian meddling in her loss fails basic scrutiny.
That said, the R party has some similar problems with entrenched and questionable office holders. Trumps biggest selling points are A) he's not a well known connected (re. corrupted) politician. B) he talked about some well known problems and said he would fix them. One of which is exactly political corruption. (so did Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, but they _were_ politicians and demonstrated dishonesty).
Enough people in enough areas voted Trump for him to win. Look at the map for pity sake! I have yet to see anything that demonstrates Trump as a bad President, I hear hyperbole and fabricated narratives by the same corrupt media I mentioned at the start. I see biased opinion polls about his approval ratings, which amazingly seem to match the "Hillary is gonna win" polls which showed how great she was and how bad he was.
Long story short, I don't believe the majority of media any longer. WaPo has less credibility than CNN who has less credibility than the Pravda at this point.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is the same Obama who gave a painstakingly detailed explanation to Trump on why the elections could not be hacked - from it being the states that run elections to a lot of machines not being on the internet... Yet after the election, all Dems can do is weep 'Russia, Russia, Russia'