Slashdot Mirror


Congress Seeks To Outlaw Cyber Intel Sharing With Russia (onthewire.io)

Trailrunner7 shares a report from On the Wire: A group of House Democrats has introduced a bill that would formalize a policy of the United States not sharing cyber intelligence with Russia. The proposed law is a direct response to comments President Donald Trump made earlier this week after he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After the meeting, Trump said on Twitter that he and Putin had discussed forming an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to prevent future attacks, including election hacking. The idea was roundly criticized by security and foreign policy experts and within a few hours Trump walked it back, saying it was just an idea and couldn't actually happen. But some legislators are not taking the idea of information sharing with Russia as a hypothetical. On Wednesday, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced the No Cyber Cooperation With Russia Act to ensure that the U.S. doesn't hand over any cybersecurity intelligence on attacks or vulnerabilities to Moscow. Recent attacks such as the NotPetya malware outbreak have been linked to Russia, as have the various attacks surrounding the 2016 presidential election. "When the Russians get their hands on cyber intelligence, they exploit it -- as they did last month with the NotPetya malware attack targeting Ukraine and the West. It is a sad state of affairs when Congress needs to prohibit this type of information sharing with an adversary, but since we apparently do, I am proud to introduce the No Cyber Cooperation with Russia Act with my friends Brendan Boyle and Ruben Gallego. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us in sending a clear message that Congress will not stand for this proposal to undermine U.S. national security," Lieu said in a statement.

179 comments

  1. Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are people actually falling for this shit? And you thought Trump was the bottom of the barrel? You poor souls!

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

      Russians spying on the US? Preposterous.
        Next you'll be telling me there are Russians pretending to be Americans on Slashdot!

    2. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Everyone's spying on the US. And vice versa.

      The French, the British, the Germans, the Canadians... Even Zimbabwe probably has a couple of paper cups and some string glued to the Whitehouse.

      They're all at it. But you don't see the same bills outlawing sharing with them.

    3. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      tfw you can't tell if someone is making fun of Russia paranoia or if he really thinks people he meets online who disagree with him are secretly paid Russian shills.

      When you've reached the "My opinion is so indisputably correct that anyone who disagrees with me must be a foreign agent trying to sabotage the country." stage, it's long past time to step out of your bubble for a while. (And while you're at it, you might also consider seeing a psychiatrist...)

    4. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody else besides Trump (and Putin I guess) is suggesting that their government should make a joint "cybersecurity" unit between their gov't and Russia to help prevent future cyber-attacks on their elections.

      It was, as usual, something that popped into Trumps head (or perhaps was suggested by Putin), and Trump was mentally unable to figure out, by himself, that it was a bad idea.

      We've elected a stupid, ignorant man simply because he is "different" and was on tv.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re: Oh please! Really? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the one hand: France (oldest ally), the UK (special relationship), and Canada (friend with benefits), all democracies and members of NATO.

      On the other hand: Russia, a major geopolitical adversary for most of the last century, a kleptocratic dictatorship run by an ex-KGB lieutenant who fiercely and violently crushes any non-token political opposition.

      Can't see why we'd favor one over the other.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    6. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government has been headed by CIA directors so calling out Russia is the pot calling the kettle black.

    7. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Notice the sly way there are Russians pretending to be Americans on Slashdot becomes anyone who disagrees with me must be a foreign agent. You're obviously keen to discredit the idea.

      Notice also the unwarranted +2 Insightful.

    8. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #RedsUnderTheBed

    9. Re: Oh please! Really? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now, now, the housing situation in Russia isn't THAT bad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Russia ceased to exist for most of the 20th century. You're referring to the Soviet Union, an evil empire. Their Communist philosophy told them to conquer the whole world. Russia is just a country like any other. A lot of people forget that Russia was just the first country overrun by Communism. :(

      Obama cancelled the special relationship and removed the bust of Churchill from the White House. It's not hard to see why, Britain was a great evil throughout the world. If France is such a great ally, why did America spy on them? That's not something you do to friends. Opinion polls show that France, much like the rest of the world, thinks poorly of America. In fact, they rate America as their greatest threat. Russia, nope. Russia is ringed by NATO bases and has a huge border to defend and not enough troops to do it. There is a big faction of the Deep State that wants a new Cold War with Russia, and it's not hard to see why. In a world without manufactured threats, how are they going to justify their requirements for more power? Remember how well Iraq worked out for them.

    11. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      George Bush didn't asasanate any critical journalists. Putin does.

    12. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Can't see why we'd favor one over the other.

      which is why you make for a great troll!

    13. Re: Oh please! Really? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Next you'll be telling me there are Russians pretending to be Americans on Slashdot!"

      No, but there are Russians pretending to be Americans on TV.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    14. Re: Oh please! Really? by sound+vision · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The teams of Russian shills that get dispersed across the internet are no less real than the 50 Cent Party of China. Might I suggest researching it, as well as Russia's. since you appear not to know these types of projects are in deployment. The only good thing is, it doesn't matter if its shills or not. A bad idea from a shill is no more difficult to discredit than a bad idea from someone who listened to a shill. The real challenge getting people to think critically. I know the cognitive dissonance between "my favorite reality TV star is president" and "the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" hurts, and the propaganda machine gives you easy out to assuage that pain. But that sort of running from bad or difficult things stunts your intellectual growth. If you insist on doing it, please also refrain from voting or ever being in a position of authority.

    15. Re: Oh please! Really? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, the governments, especially intelligence communities and arms industry of the US have enjoyed a wonderful symbiotic relationship with Russia. What do you think the cold war was? The leaders of both nations were able to use it as an excuse to keep other nations weaker, build their arsenals, pump and dump illegal arms deals (becoming the largest global arms dealers means nobody else will have superior arms), polarize their nations and divide them, justify expanding their reach and power for the sake of "national security."

      Why do you think it flit from cold war to war on drugs and then jumping into the fray on a nice holy war? What else do you do when your cold war doesn't last if not jump into a holy war with staying power? Now it would seem a faction wants us to get on board with a new war that allows the above, cyber war.

    16. Re: Oh please! Really? by shaitand · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's a bold claim. What makes you assume George Bush's will hasn't resulted in at least one of his staff taking out a journalist before? In the US you have to be more subtle than Russia but plausible deniability is easy. You have policies against such and then set standards that are impossible to meet without violating those policies. You simultaneously cultivate the most despicable practices while having absolute deniability and cultivate the most discrete execution of those policies because you'll act on any violation you can't pretend not to have noticed. Putin can just order what he wants.

      But then I'm not actually in Russia, I'm in the US, if nothing the corruption and bias in the media has become painstakingly obvious and overt since at least the Sanders Clinton primary showdown so it is unlikely the news we get with regard to Russia is accurate and what we "know" about Russia is likely largely propaganda.

    17. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that we know of.

    18. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The teams of Russian shills that get dispersed across the internet are no less real than the 50 Cent Party of China. Might I suggest researching it, as well as Russia's. since you appear not to know these types of projects are in deployment.
      The only good thing is, it doesn't matter if its shills or not. A bad idea from a shill is no more difficult to discredit than a bad idea from someone who listened to a shill. The real challenge getting people to think critically. I know the cognitive dissonance between "my favorite reality TV star is president" and "the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" hurts, and the propaganda machine gives you easy out to assuage that pain. But that sort of running from bad or difficult things stunts your intellectual growth. If you insist on doing it, please also refrain from voting or ever being in a position of authority.

      Relax, the Russian shills are still vastly outnumbered by our own bullshit spinning propaganda arm, the creditable media that never lies or gets us into any conflicts over false pretences.

    19. Re: Oh please! Really? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      #LittleGreenManInMyHead

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

      Curbing bad behavior from a country is more efficient if you involve the government of that country. Not that there was bad behavior to begin with. This is all bluster from the Democrats that are trying to stay relevant.

    21. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia ceased to exist for most of the 20th century.

      Nope. Russia remained in existence the whole period.

      You're referring to the Soviet Union, an evil empire.

      It was an empire. Evilness depends. But it was Russian.

      Their Communist philosophy told them to conquer the whole world.

      No, their militarist philosophy told them that, though saner heads prevailed.

      Russia is just a country like any other. A lot of people forget that Russia was just the first country overrun by Communism.

      Russia had been ruled by a Tsarist despot with little support of the people, that collapsed under the weight of prosecuting a pointless war (much as the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires did, and the British and French might have, if not for American support). A group of people, deciding to call themselves Communists, used the veneer of that philosophy to justify their despotism for quite some time.

      Obama cancelled the special relationship and removed the bust of Churchill from the White House.

      Man, idiots still believe that crap?

    22. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What actions has Trump taken that shows any favoritism towards Russia. Remove economic sanctions? No. Returned seized Russian assets in the US. No. Shown any reluctance to conduct military operations in Syria? No.

      The US can ignore Russia because Russia is not a super power. The only "power" the Russians have ever had is a large nuclear arsenal which is thoroughly contained by the US arsenal. And yes that also takes US nuclear out of the picture. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. And the US now has the power to control the price of oil. Russia relies on 80% of its budget on oil exports. The US could pump enough oil at anytime to make sure the global price never rises above $20 a barrel. The US government can subsidize domestic oil production to make sure the producers do not lose money when the price of oil drops below the break even profitability break even point.
      The past 3 Presidents was willingly to forgive all of Russia's sins all in an effort to reset relations. How did that work out? So far Trump has launched cruise missiles and executed a sustained artillery attack on Syrian government forces when they got too close to a US base. The US has shot down a Syrian jet conducting a bombing run on US allies in Syria. The US has shot down every Syrian drone that gets to close to US bases and staging areas. Russia is supposed to be Syria's ally but do not seem to be to good at supporting it's ally. Shit. Turkey shot down a Russian jet and the best response Russia could come up with was telling their citizens to cancel their vacation trips to Turkey. If Russia isn't careful they will end up as a Chinese client state.

      With all the bullshit Russian investigations going on they are ignoring one monumental piece of the puzzle. Obama knew the Russians were trying to hack the US election 6 months before the actual election and did nothing. He made sure Trumps campaign offices were being surveilled using a FISA warrant. Then his administration unmasked Trump supporters and published the FISA warrant details. He slapped Russia's hand right before he left office but how can that administration justify not taking some serious and very public actions when they first found out about Russia's attempts to attack a US Presidential election? So far there has not been one piece of evidence showing Trump doing anything illegal. All of the actions being investigated involve people who were private US citizens at the time.

    23. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 0

      I understand.

      For you right and wrong are synonymous with legal and illegal. Whatever Trump and his family and his campaign do is right until a judge says "Guilty" and the prison door closes behind them. Therefore, all investigations of them should stop immediately.

      It's totally find for Trump's son, son-in-law, and head of his campaign to meet with someone they all were informed ahead of time was an agent of the Russian gov't, which wanted to help his campaign, to give them dirt on Hillary.

      Clearly, this is Obama's fault, because if one of his minions hadn't let the agent into the country, then they would have nobody to meet.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    24. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ten years ago I was pruning requests for access from Russia to a website I was running for my local HOA.

      Dozens of requests, all from Russia, every single freakin' day.

      They've been at this a long time, and they know that maybe there's someone in that HOA who works somewhere interesting.

    25. Re: Oh please! Really? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      We've elected a stupid, ignorant man simply because he is "different" and was on tv.

      You have to admit that watching the previous Powers That Be get all worked up over this is quite entertaining. As bad as he is (can not be certain until it is all over), it can not be worse than the directed slide into concentrated power that a normal candidate would have continued.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    26. Re: Oh please! Really? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1, Informative

      "the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.

    27. Re: Oh please! Really? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know they will enter into cooperative agreements to curb nuclear proliferation and reduce the likelihood of nuclear war!!!!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe we should make some kind of joint task force, where we have the Russians help us redesign our nuclear program, so they can't hack into it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    29. Re: Oh please! Really? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      ...that we know of.

      Yeah, that's an argument.

    30. Re: Oh please! Really? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.

      You don't collude with a hostile foreign power against an American adversary. You just don't. At the very least, you call the FBI when you hear this sort of thing.
      I don't know that Trump is actually involved in any of this, but some of his close advisers are accused of it.

    31. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It wasn't a russian official, it was some rando lawyer who by all appearances was heavily anti-Trump and cozy with the democratic establishment, not some ebil Putin henchman.
      2) It wasn't "collusion" and couldn't even theoretically have been, considering she had absolutely nothing to offer.
      3) Even if somehow someday in some parallel universe they do find actual evidence of "collusion", even THAT isn't illegal.

      You just don't.

      If the last 2+ years hadn't clued you in, Trump and his people aren't real big on following all the established unwritten political rules and norms. "You just don't" wage vicious, open warfare with the mainstream media. "You just don't" talk about the size of your dick in a primary debate. "You just don't" imply your opponent's father was involved in the JFK assassination. "You just don't" call for your opponent to be put in jail and bring all her husband's victims to a debate being watched by tens of millions of people.

      That's not criminal, it's playing the game to win.

    32. Re: Oh please! Really? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand: France (oldest ally), the UK (special relationship), and Canada (friend with benefits), all democracies and members of NATO.

      On the other hand: Russia(...)

      Where do Saudi Arabia and Israel fit here?

    33. Re: Oh please! Really? by dog77 · · Score: 1

      Why is a joint cybersecurity unit a bad idea? It is not that much different than military joint exercises which many consider valuable. At a personal level, relationships can be built, ideas can be shared, we can keep tabs on each other. It seems like a good step towards peace.

    34. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Opinion polls show that France, much like the rest of the world, thinks poorly of America."
      LOL. And why would the Americans give a damn about what other countries think?

      "they rate America as their greatest threat"
      Excellent! However, Europe's greatest US threat is the mere thought of the US withdrawing or down sizing their military commitments in Europe.

      "If France is such a great ally, why did America spy on them?
      LOL. Everyone spies on everyone. This is an undisputable fact so try working it into your world view. The US is the most spied upon country in the world. This is an undisputable fact so try working it into your world view.

    35. Re: Oh please! Really? by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The weird thing is the lawyer Trump Jr. met entered the country without a Visa. She needed special dispensation to enter the US because she was legally barred from entering the US due to sanctions. Her dispensation was approved by Loretta Lynch and signed off on by the Obama administration. The lawyer also has a documented history of working on Democratic party campaigns as a registered foreign agent. She was not registered as a foreign agent when she talked with Trump Jr.

    36. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So what?

      Jr, Kushner and Manafort, going into the meeting, all were expecting to meet a agent for the Russian government, to get dirt on Hillary from the agent, and jumped at chance for this meeting.

      Why would it matter if she is a registered foreign agent, or she was or was not an agent for the Russian government.

      This meeting is something that 2-3 weeks ago, The Donald would say is utterly ridiculous, that his son and son-in-law are both patriots that would never meet with a russian agent like this. Hell, based on Trumps comments like "Most people would have taken that meeting", Trump himself would have gone.

      Anything to win.

      Like Krauthammer wrote: "Bungled collusion is still collusion"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    37. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump Sr. and Jr. have not broken any law. Any private US citizen can talk to any Russian you like. And the Trumps were private citizens during the time period under review. The ongoing theory in this farce of investigation is that anyone who talked to a Russian "colluded" with them to rig the election. There were meetings but there is not a shred of evidence of a crime.

      On the other hand the Obama administration knew about Russia's cyber activities 6 months before the election and did nothing. In the waning days of his administration he kicked 35 Russian diplomats out of the country and seized two Russian owned properties. Why couldn't he have did something when he first found out? Plus any election mischief by the Russian's took place during the Obama administration.

      In 3 plus years there will be another election but I have seen no evidence that the current losers have adjusted their policy positions and learned how to reach out to all the voters outside of their base. The idiots all up in arms still have not realized how many supporters they have alienated. They certainly need to distance themselves from all the raving lunatics. They need to distance themselves from anything to do with the comrades living in Berklistan. When I see professional "protesters" I would vote for anyone they support. Just wait to the next Democratic President is sworn in. The same tactics being used to attack Trump will be turned on the new administration. All the major news outlets have publically taken sides. They have changed from reporting the news and now "shape" the news until it matches their editorial line. organizations. There is not a single objective and non-biased news source on the planet

    38. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Hello, new goalposts.

      It's gone from two weeks ago, being completely ridiculous that anyone in the Trump campaign having any kind of meeting with Russians of a non-trivial nature to yeah, we did, but it wasn't illegal.

      I'm sure if they continue investigating and find that the Trump campaign did work together with the Russian gov't and Putin was sending Donald bags of cash, you'll go "Well, so what. Anything to prevent Clinton from being elected."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    39. Re: Oh please! Really? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Nobody else besides Trump (and Putin I guess) is suggesting that their government should make a joint "cybersecurity" unit between their gov't and Russia to help prevent future cyber-attacks on their elections.

      It was, as usual, something that popped into Trumps head (or perhaps was suggested by Putin), and Trump was mentally unable to figure out, by himself, that it was a bad idea.

      We've elected a stupid, ignorant man simply because he is "different" and was on tv.

      Actually, from my perspective, Trump is right on this one. I have been told that Russia insists that all government software be open source (compilable from source to the executable), and that it can be inspected for cyber weaknesses. The USA lives on closed source, except for a few of us using Linux. Somehow I believe that Russia is more secure than are we, and that the cyber government hacking is probably for the same reasons.

      Certainly, attacking terrorist encryption algorithms and related hacking would be of common interest.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    40. Re: Oh please! Really? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      That's a bold claim. What makes you assume George Bush's will hasn't resulted in at least one of his staff taking out a journalist before? In the US you have to be more subtle than Russia but plausible deniability is easy. You have policies against such and then set standards that are impossible to meet without violating those policies. You simultaneously cultivate the most despicable practices while having absolute deniability and cultivate the most discrete execution of those policies because you'll act on any violation you can't pretend not to have noticed. Putin can just order what he wants.

      But then I'm not actually in Russia, I'm in the US, if nothing the corruption and bias in the media has become painstakingly obvious and overt since at least the Sanders Clinton primary showdown so it is unlikely the news we get with regard to Russia is accurate and what we "know" about Russia is likely largely propaganda.

      I second your comments. CNN does hardly any reporting, they waste hour after hour repeating the same crap for each announcer. And the topic for 23 hours / day is always the same drivel.
      The other outlets (ABC, NBC, FOX, NPR etc are a little better). I now watch BBC news about the USA for balanced reporting and for good use of the English vocabulary.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    41. Re: Oh please! Really? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Now that the "small lie" that there was no collusion has been shot down, the strategy shifts to promoting the "big lie", which is that there's nothing wrong with the collusion.

    42. Re: Oh please! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a Trump supporter but you have already decided, without any evidence, that Trump is guilty of all the accusations hurled his way. Having conversations with foreigners is not a crime. It is a common practice throughout the government at every level. People are basically making it illegal for a US President to talk and interact with foreign leaders. Suddenly the Democrats and the far left think the US should not be communicating with Russia over anything because that would be evidence of illegal "collusion".
      This attitude is not going to end when Trump is no longer President. The people trying to kick Trump out of office are willing to destroy the US government to get what they want. After all they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. They foolishly think that once Trump goes away the government and the media will automatically revert back to their proper roles and move. These same people also forget that in a fight of any type your enemy also gets a shot. A good start would be exposing the major media corporations. Demand to see the corporations tax returns and release complete details on everyone sitting in board room of these for profit news factories.

    43. Re: Oh please! Really? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Again, totally different goalposts.

      This "collusion" is not about a President interacting with/negotiating/talking with foreign governments/leaders.

      This "collusion" is about one or more private citizens working with a foreign gov't to possibly corrupt an election.

      Two weeks ago: "Me and my campaign never did this, and would never do this. It's completely ridiculous."
      Now: "Um, it's not illegal, my son is a fine person, everyone would do this, it's completely normal"

      And then Trumps ridiculous tweet today (June 16/2017, one week AFTER his son released info on how the top three people in his campaign went to collude with Russia) went back to mention the "Russian Hoax", like it no longer happened in his reality.

      And again, you deflect to wanting to see corporations tax returns, ignoring:
      a) every other candidate for President has released their tax returns, for a long time.
      b) Trump gave a completely ridiculous excuse not to do it, but did say that he would do it, after his tax audit was complete, then, once elected, changed it to "fuck you, I'm not doing it"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. No Cyber Cooperation by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the world is now safe for spam, malware and
    Equation Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Stuxnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Want some more Magic Lantern with vendor cooperation?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Thats why a global understanding of what is trying to enter, stay on and communicate from systems and networks is so vital.
    Malware is often very different to normal OS functions and the more nations and skilled people looking for such changes the better.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:No Cyber Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go home Putin, you're drunk.

    2. Re:No Cyber Cooperation by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      There are 10 kinds of people on Slashdot. Which kind are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

      Please use my bit.ly link for this URL. Makes it easier to count the number of Slashdot readers clicking on it. Thanks! ;)

      http://bit.ly/2u7aDZt

    3. Re: No Cyber Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a sad sack of shit. Seriously. Hello new APK. Only difference is APK is at least a good programmer. You offer nothing. Shitty books with grammar errors, a shitty ad infested website. And shitty rants and affiliate link spam. APK at least gave his software away and doesn't charge for it.

      Please leave slashdot Creimer you are not wanted.

    4. Re: No Cyber Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK is not a good programmer, at best he is average. He wrote something that could be created by anyone with basic scripting knowledge in a couple of hours.

  3. I see a problem with this? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this mean they can prosecute Open Source programmers and security experts for publishing Security vulnerabilities to Bugzilla, or LinuxSecurity.com?

    1. Re:I see a problem with this? by guises · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably not. This is a law with three goals: preventing Trump from doing something specific, calling attention to the fact that Trump wanted to do this, and perhaps creating a law for Trump to break (and thus be more easily removed from office). In other words, this is all about Trump and will likely be written so as to effect the rest of us not at all.

    2. Re:I see a problem with this? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 2

      I'm a Junior maintainer for Mageia. I know we have people who happen to be from Russia registered in the Bugzilla system. Americans too. I'm worried this might affect Linux Distributions with an International scope resulting in US Contributors being charged with a Crime because sudo CVE-2017-1000367 gets published in Debian, Mageia Picks it up as MGASA-2017-0207, the US DOJ then says: US Maintainers of Mageia are in violation of this law because by posting the bug to be patched in sudo means the Russians know about it, and can exploit CVE-2017-1000367 in unpatched syetems.

    3. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it most specifically does. Live with it.

    4. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you say is probably true for the motives of these legislators. But it's a slippery slope. Eventually, some open source programmer with exotic tendencies might rub some prosecutor the wrong way. Without violating any other crime, or perhaps committing some minor infraction, the prosecutor might use this law to inflate the charges and get an unfair plea bargain.

    5. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not in general. Likely only if those programmers or security experts are government employees, or act on behalf of the US government. But that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?

    6. Re:I see a problem with this? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Re "prosecute Open Source programmers and security experts for publishing" A Russian company publishes a good quality security report.
      Could a company in the US use that data directly to secure their networks more quickly?
      Have to wait for another nation to republish that information and then act on that much later?
      Or would a US company have to detect the same security issue on their own and then rediscover what was in public?
      No direct use of any Russian security information or quoting the direct results of a first hop of Russian information?
      How many hops from Russia until information is just information again?
      Comments on any Russian related product, network, service, research, finding or science is still directly "supporting" Russia in some way?
      Security research around the world would slow as lawyers get invited in to help. Spam and malware would be able to spread in the legal confusion.
      Experts have to stay in the US or Russia or avoid the USA and Russia so they can keep working around the world on security matters?

      How many friends of friends to avoid the US cyber sanctions?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re: I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot.

    8. Re: I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you doing this work as a US government employee? No? Then don't worry about it. Yes? Is your work classified? No? Then don't worry about it. Yes? You are an idiot.

    9. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be pretty hard to claim the law is non-discriminatory if it explicitly forbids an orange man from doing something that a red, white, yellow, brown, or black man would be allowed to do. :P

    10. Re:I see a problem with this? by bongey · · Score: 0

      No fucking idiot. Yes you are a fucking idiot for not even realizing it is impossible for the legislative branch to prevent the executive from sharing information for national defense. Secondly you are a fucking idiot and the editor for not even bothering to go see what it actually does. The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text is here . https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

    11. Re:I see a problem with this? by guises · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I got the gist of what you were saying in your comment above. I'm expecting this to be a law about what government agencies are allowed to do, and nothing to do with the population at large. If you're really worried about this then you can look up the text of the bill, it shouldn't be too hard to find.

      That's even assuming that this ever gets passed though, and I can't imagine that happening.

    12. Re:I see a problem with this? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably not for a different reason. This is clever political posturing designed to generate headlines (hey, mission accomplished!) in the wake of Trump's faux pas. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell this bill is going anywhere except to news aggregators. It won't affect us at all because it will never get passed into law. That's just political reality talking. Republicans control Congress right now, and Trump is the one who would have to sign this into law.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    13. Re:I see a problem with this? by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      I bet you think cigarettes and alcohol are taxed for the public good,

      It has that intended effect, yes.

      the FDA approval process on new drugs is for public health,

      Although far from perfect, it has that intended effect, yes. Strongly.

      our runaway inflationary debt based currency helps the economy,

      The inflation of the USA is not problematic, so something is wrong with your characterisation.

      and that people can't kill people without automatic rifles.

      Of course they can. Quit fighting that straw man, nobody is impressed. But of course mass killings are easier with more powerful weapons.

      Stated intentions are rarely inline with actual intentions or practice. Most of the government is still corrupt, it's not going to be used against anyone who isn't easy pickings.

      I agree that the government of the USA is worryingly corrupt, but now you are vastly exaggerating.

    14. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because US politicians are known to write laws so well, especially surrounding technology concepts?

    15. Re:I see a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what a law is initially for, it will get used differently over time.

    16. Re:I see a problem with this? by strikethree · · Score: 2

      In other words, this is all about Trump and will likely be written so as to effect the rest of us not at all.

      Hm. Pretty much all laws start out targeting one thing and one thing only but then get expanded to be used in ways not originally declared.

      Be careful of your dismissals when it comes to Laws.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:I see a problem with this? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Reasonable Man, for injecting a little sanity when someone gets alarmist and over-cynical.

  4. Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote Dimocrat for moar war!!!1!!

    1. Re:Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you define peace as, "Joining the Putin cockholster line."

    2. Re: Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS hard to fight while gargling...

    3. Re: Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You prefer sucking Hillary's cock?

    4. Re: Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least she has one

    5. Re:Cold War 2 by mOzone · · Score: 2

      Keep calm and blame Russia

      We have always been at war with eur-russia

    6. Re: Cold War 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these days I'd like to find out why some people are so afraid of Hillary. Or criminal / crooked / lying / evil / libtard Hillary as some like to say.

  5. Summary is incorrect, by bongey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

    1. Re:Summary is incorrect, by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      The bill is still a very bad idea, though. There are many areas of Internet security in which Russia and the US could and should peacefully cooperate.

  6. Re:What is up with these Xenophobic racist Democra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I look at every bill passed and every Republican elected and I think What The Fuck. These might be my parents Republicans, but most likely they're not.

  7. Deliberately incorrect headline by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It isn't "Congress" which is trying this, it's a small group of the minority party. In fact, a small group even of the minority party. Basically nothing but gesture politics.

    Why is this being covered as if it's real, again?

    The only plausible answer is that it's BS click-bait.

    1. Re:Deliberately incorrect headline by bongey · · Score: 1

      The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text is here . https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
      You would have seen my comment before but slashdot has modslapped me twice in 6 months.

    2. Re:Deliberately incorrect headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense.

      Cyber Intel Sharing with Russia for National Defense is like Death Planning with Charles Mason for Population Control. Sure, you could probably come up with some example were it's not a terrible idea, but that's obviously not what's going on. We've already got the means to deal with malware, virus, etc threats in the private sector through private discourse between citizens of many nations. For government actors, there is little to no interest to sharing any information that might highlight one's own country's weakness and seriously that is the only purview that would be being discussed in such sharing.

      You would have seen my comment before but slashdot has modslapped me twice in 6 months.

      Can I mod slap you with a trout?

    3. Re:Deliberately incorrect headline by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The bull is empty bullshit political theatre. Right there in the bill, the President of the US it to certify that the Russian government will not hack the US government but the US government is still fully entitled to hack the Russian government. Seriously how stupid to put that up, basically insanely crazy political theatre. Still the Ukraine bullshit, the US government hacked the Ukraine government and made it worse and now blame the Russian government. So the US can publicly admit to hacking the Ukraine government spending 5 billion dollars to start a coup (and then steal the Ukraine's gold reserves to pay for it) but Russia is not allowed to do anything what so ever. The establishment Democrats creating nothing to hide the corporate ties in vain attempts to prevent the working class taking back the political party from the financial class, corrupt as fuck.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  8. Re: What is up with these Xenophobic racist Democr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fine to hate russia. They're white. No worries.

  9. Smug by geekymachoman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > When the Russians get their hands on cyber intelligence, they exploit it

    As opposed to Americans, who handle information in a way that benefit the greater good ? (/Sarcasm) (Do i really need to provide links ?)

    Get off your moral high horse already. You don't want to cooperate with anyone, you want to do things that are in your own interests, and get whoever you can to support your own interests (read: spineless Europeans vassal states). Cooperating with Russia would undermine common American interests and hence it's not good for America, because the Russians, have their own interests.

    Has nothing to do with the already stupidly boring narrative "Russians are Evil" that is constantly being rammed into minds of commoners through the popular media channels. By the way, if you going to talk evil, talk about your own politicians and foreign policies that turn at least one country to dust and cause 50 years of political instability in the region every ~ 10 years. I see more evil committed by USG than in Stalin's wildest dreams. You just pack it better, hollywood style, a polished turd for ready for people to eat up and feel better about themselves at next election.

    Freakin' hypocrites, the lot of you.

    1. Re:Smug by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This is why it's going to be so great watching Trump pull America back from the world. No more wars for profit, no more oppression, no more experimenting with other countries for the hell of it (example: Egypt). The whole Russia is evil thing, too. It was the *Soviet Union* that was an evil empire, Russia is just a country desperately struggling to stay afloat, ringed by NATO bases and hemmed in by hostile enemies.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to Americans, who handle information in a way that benefit the greater good ?

      So, you support the Russians and the Americas, both bad actors, to trade intel to further both of their bad acts? Awesome!

      Get off your moral high horse already. You don't want to cooperate with anyone, you want to do things that are in your own interests, and get whoever you can to support your own interests (read: spineless Europeans vassal states).

      Let's see. Our interests are to not into a shithole like Russia. Hmm... Doesn't seem that we need "spineless" anything to get a lot of people to support that.

      Cooperating with Russia would undermine common American interests and hence it's not good for America, because the Russians, have their own interests.

      Being Putin's personal bitch? Being on the verge of being intelligent as current Trump supports? Am I in the ballpark?

      Has nothing to do with the already stupidly boring narrative "Russians are Evil" that is constantly being rammed into minds of commoners through the popular media channels.

      The Russian government is evil. I'd tend to argue the US Government is evil as well in its warmongering. No need to "ram" anything into "commoners"' minds. I do love how you spin it like it's not the simple, obvious truth and it's just marketing.

      By the way, if you going to talk evil, talk about your own politicians and foreign policies that turn at least one country to dust...

      We've turned more countries to dust than one. Like most powerful countries. But, go on...

      and cause 50 years of political instability in the region every ~ 10 years.

      The Middle East being unstable has little to do with US involvement. No, US involvement isn't helping. Really, no party is helping. That's sort of the whole problem.

      I see more evil committed by USG than in Stalin's wildest dreams

      Yep. Mr. Genocide Stalin committed as much evil in 10 years, through Gulags and mass killings, as the USG did during its first 150 or so years. After that, Stalin took the lead. Seriously, getting into "Stalin's wildest dreams" is pretty unimaginable horror compared to what Stalin managed in reality.

      Freakin' hypocrites, the lot of you.

      How's about "Fuck you!" Honestly, calling "the lot of [us]" hypocrites because we realize just how horrible a US-Russian collaboration on intel would be is stupid behind the pale. There's no net positive from that in any fashion unless the US and Russian Intel agencies imploded from directly attacking each other. Even then, along the way the scale of damage is hard to imagine. I can't even begin to call you stupid or a shill. Those words convey something that implies a level of thought that goes beyond a purely agenda driven mindset. No, you are bullshit incarnate.

    3. Re: Smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By Putin's sweaty thong, you tell a good tale.

      By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.

    4. Re:Smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Putin, you don't get the Ukraine.

    5. Re: Smug by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at a map? Russia has a huge, indefensible border and not nearly enough troops to defend it. The European armies alone, without their pimp-master USA outnumber them 3:1. Yaknow, maybe if we stopped fucking with them so hard they wouldn't be fucking with us. You think they just decided to be this way out of nowhere? For shits and giggles? America altered the result of Russia's 1996 election to keep that incompetent drunk Yeltsin in office.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: Smug by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      Some investigators suspect

      Sigh, so more innuendo and blaming, and absolutely no fucking evidence.

      What boggles my mind is that America has interfered in other countries, overthrown entire governments by funding and arming malcontents, and then helping them fight for "freedom". Syria is a perfect example. Look what state Libya is in after the "evil" Saddam was overthrown, it's a fucking shit hole now with warring factions, mass killings, raping and child soldiers. Way to go America, but at least now they are "free" to starve to death in their own shit, since the first targets were water treatment plants and other infrastructure. Not sure why a sewerage plant makes a good military target though, maybe because it's big and you can hit it easier?

      Even if the Russians had interfered by sending messages and leaking information regarding Hillary, if they had done it America style they would have funded and armed all the red necks who don't want no guvment, and America would now be in a civil war. I prefer Russia's way.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    7. Re: Smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Even now the armies of European countries taken together are by a large extent smaller, less coordinates and less capable than Russia's army - actually approximately 2:1 to the opposite of what you describe, and that's taking into account conventional forces only. And if you also take into account nuclear weapons, then Europe would be obliterated within 15 minutes whereas large parts of Russia would remain standing.

      The strength in numbers of the Russian military, particularly their vast conventional mechanized infantry lined up at their European borders, used to and still does exceed the capabilities of European countries and immediate response capabilities of the US. That's the #1 reason why NATO exists in the first place and why the US used to reserve the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike in case of an aggression during the Cold War - which lead to a few incidents that nearly destroyed all of mankind, such as the Cuban Missile crisis or the 1983 incident. Yes, Russian military is rotting away now, due to Putin's economic mismanagement of the country and his unhealthy focus on natural resource trading instead of building up a real, sustainable economy, but that doesn't mean that it's gone or that Russia has to fear any kind of aggression from the West. Such a fear would be ridiculously irrational, given how strong Russia's military still is and the fact that Russia has thousands of nukes. And it's also fairly obvious that nobody in Russia has such a fear...

      It's also highly implausible that America ever had the ability to alter any Russian election. (Let alone the fact that two evils don't make a right, since you seem to be an apologist about meddling with elections.)

    8. Re: Smug by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at a map? Russia has a huge, indefensible border and not nearly enough troops to defend it. The European armies alone, without their pimp-master USA outnumber them 3:1.

      Yet historically most armies entering Russia have been met with sound defeat. It's terrible place to try to conquer, and no one is interested in invading Russia.

      Yaknow, maybe if we stopped fucking with them so hard they wouldn't be fucking with us. You think they just decided to be this way out of nowhere? For shits and giggles? America altered the result of Russia's 1996 election to keep that incompetent drunk Yeltsin in office

      That's a pretty wild accusation to throw out. Extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary evidence.

      As has become standard, it was the Russian oligarchs who became so rich in the 1990s, who opposed the Communist party candidate. They controlled most of the Russian media at that point and ran an advertising campaign that emphasized that Zyuganov would return Russia to the days of Stalin's gulags (unlikely), while also running documentaries emphasizing Stalin's abuses.

    9. Re: Smug by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      TIME magazine in 1996 bragging about how we interfered in the Russian election.

      Just because something is an awful idea doesn't mean the Deep State won't try it. Look at what they did to Iraq, was that a good idea? And Egypt. And Libya. And Syria. And, and, and. They're experimenters, fiddlers. They like to mess with stuff. They're insulated from the consequences of their failures, so why not? It's not their kids dying out there.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re: Smug by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      TIME magazine in 1996 bragging about how we interfered in the Russian election. [i.redd.it]

      Advice? Is that the threshold for electoral interference? Well in that case no election is clean, of any candidate, in any country.

  10. Terminally stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Proposing a cyber security cooperation group may have not been a clever idea today, but having a law making it unlawful is terminally stupid as you pose obstacle to it WHEN it could become a clever idea. And we all know that such laws may take time to repell.

  11. Enough Denials, Truth Time! by ohnocitizen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Russia exerted illegal and undue influence on our election, and we now have a president in the pocket of an autocratic foreign leader. No way in hell should we be cooperating with them any further. We should be removing the threats to our country from office (and I hope the investigation does just that, getting EVERY Republican who colluded).

    But we should give zero credence to the useful idiots and pro-Russia shills who exclaim "But but the US does bad stuff too!" or just spew out variations on "libtard" or "Dimocrat" or "Snowflake". SHUT UP. Republicans in this country have sold their soul to get power at any cost and shown this country their true colors. You've lost any claim of legitimacy or ethical standing you had left. It's all gone, no more credibility for you. Liberals are taking power back, fixing our broken electoral system (even as you cry about non existent voter fraud while helping FUCKING RUSSIANS GAME OUR SYSTEM, suppressing votes, and gerrymandering like crazy to falsely hold the house. You've gone too far. No more listening to your nonsense.

    1. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by bongey · · Score: 0

      Oh go fuck yourself snowflake. Do you even know what a useful idiot really is ? Nope you don't because you literally are just repeating the steaming pile of shit that comes out of the liberal press and hollywood. The only gaming of the system is by the liberal press , oh as far as 'ethical standards', there isn't any that exist on the left.

    2. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia exerted illegal and undue influence on our election,

      Please present proof of this. Any proof. Any hard evidence at all. Not "sources say" or "classified information." Actual hard evidence that people can look at and see any indication that what you're saying happened.

      You can't.

      There isn't any.

      It doesn't exist.

      It never happened.

      It's fake news.

      You have been trolled, and you have lost.

      Get over it.

    3. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 0

      Yeah, fuck US intelligence agencies. You know who I believe over them? Vladimir Putin.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who said that Iraq was building WMDs and that we should invade? US intelligence agencies. You know who said that they weren't and maybe hold off on pointless warmongering? Vladimir Putin.

      Maybe we should be trusting Vladimir Putin over intelligence agencies that have already been demonstrated are willing to lie to bring the US into wars it doesn't need to be fighting.

    5. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Putin's puppet who is constantly lying - I believe his obvious lies about his treasonous collusion with Russia's attack on our country.

    6. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you don't know these people were working with and for Democrats even before meeting Trump Jr, and along with foreign intelligence people in Ukraine for anti-trump "oppo research" and Russia for their lobbying against Magensky whatever law.

      The net needs to be cast very wide.

    7. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals lost the election not because of Russian hacking or vote suppression or gerrymandering but because they nominated a candidate who was arrogant, presumptuous and completely out of touch. Compare that with Trump who, love him or hate him, spoke directly to the people in an unfiltered way that Americans had not heard from a politician in a generation. Trump was raw, unpolished, unscripted and spoke directly to people's worries and fears. Hillary Clinton didn't even want to acknowledge these people or their concerns, even going so far as calling them deplorables and dismissing them wholesale. If you really want to understand what happened in the last election and why we ended up with Trump then you need to read this book. Trump didn't win because he was the better candidate, he won because Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party defeated themselves by telling white working class men and their families to essentially "drop dead". If the Democrats want to win in 2020, they need to reconnect with Archie Bunker and his concerns and stop ceding everywhere but the left coast and the northeast. Bernie Sanders was on the right track to begin addressing these voters and their concerns, but the aging feminists in the Democratic party torpedoed his candidacy. Bernie was clearly the superior candidate and yet the Democrats somehow decided that it was Hillary or bust. Well, it went bust all right and now we're all enjoying the aftermath, some with glee and others with anything but. However, if Democrats cannot stop blaming Russians and instead come to terms with the real reasons why they lost then Trump may yet become the worst President ever to win a second term.

    8. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans went from anti-Russia to pro-Russia in 18 months with no justifiable reason other than Trump tells you to be pro-Russia. Hate to break it to you sunshine but that's pretty much the definition of being a useful idiot.

    9. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The hilarious thing is that Bill Clinton was famous for his line "I feel your pain," talking openly and honestly about working class workers feeling the effects of the recession that was happening at the time.

      Hillary Clinton, on the other hand? "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work!"

      You'd think she could have talked to her husband about connecting with voters, but - nope!

    10. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by epine · · Score: 2

      You'd think she could have talked to her husband about connecting with voters, but - nope!

      If I try to behave like the Fonz, it only makes me extra dorkier.

      Hillary never had the televangelism gene. She couldn't channel Bill if she tried. You'd get about as far suggesting the average televangelist channel Richard Dawkins.

      Most of her debate prep was spent mastering that ghastly almost amused-looking smile when Donald went off on one of his many ridiculous riffs. Unfortunately, her best shot at running America was being born long before the invention of television.

      With the same intensity of prep as The King's English she might have managed to sound charismatic over the radio.

      But really, I'd have advised she broadcast a series of fireside radio chats with Bertrand Russell.

    11. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the fact that Americans have started to insult each other with the beautiful word "snowflake". It's a poetic twist on an overall ugly political fighting between gullible pawns on a global chessboard.

    12. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the very definition of a useful idiot. Just cf Steven Bannon, Mike Pence, and Jared Kushner (not to mention Ivanka). All of those people wouldn't be in the national spotlight without the useful idiocy of Trump.

    13. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYT retracted story that 17 intelligence agencies provided evidence that Russia interfered.
      Know what the retraction said?
      3 people "confirmed" it happened, not even 3 agencies, just 3 people from some agencies.

      Yep, keep touting fake news that has been retracted by the NYT even. Why bother with the truth when you can spout already debunked fake news and keep pretending its real. Liberalism can't seem to survive the truth, so I can understand your unwillingness to admit it.

    14. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people thought she had plenty of charisma (not you obviously) and, if you'll recall, she "won" nearly all of the debates according to the media (and here). The reality of it was that it was her ideas and actions (numerous political scandals and did very little during her time in office... like reworking our relationship with Russia) that sank her and that she couldn't get out enough of the black vote to pull the election like Obama had.

    15. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I see little evidence that the Republicans are pro-Russian at all. Yes, Trump clearly is, but that hasn't translated into support from Congressional Republicans. Realpolitik means they can't usually come out and openly defy their own President (with the exception of McCain, who clearly stopped caring what his party thought a long time ago), but that doesn't translate into them being pro-Russian. At the moment they're trying to navigate the potential scandal in a way that doesn't sink their own electoral fortunes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Great rant, but none of that actually happened. Even CNN got caught agreeing there's no evidence to back any of it up. It's all based on "unnamed sources" that don't actually exist.

      BTW, if we're going to enact laws to refuse to work with other nations, why not go after a country like Saudi Arabia which actually should be considered an enemy of the US and is a credible threat to western nations?

    17. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. You've convinced me! It was Trump that has sold out to Russia. Not the lifetime politicians (and Democrats). Or, perhaps, just maybe this is business as usual and both side's politicians are vile idiots?

      I really can't finish reading your post without laughing to myself. A lot of Democrats have certainly convinced themselves that they are truly better than Republicans, just as a lot of Republicans have done the exact same thing in reverse.

      The reality is that both parties are completely corrupted. If you associate with either party, rather than agree with some of their public opinions, then you are an idiot. Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan might as well be the exact same person. They pass the exact same pork with different names slapped on top of them. The only minor difference is the large donors that benefit from the passage.

      Russia certainly did try to muck around with the 2016 elections, just as I'm sure they tried to muck around with the 2012, 2008, and 2004 election cycles. Obama was proven to be a fool when it came to dealing with Russia and he was outmaneuvered at every point by them, just as Hillary was during the last election. Having someone in office like Hillary -- a person that can be openly bribed via their foundation, with emails from nations noting such exchanges in public view -- would only serve to help Russia continue to make moves.

      What was the major driver of the Russian involvement? Oh, right, it was leaked emails from both Hillary's staff and the DNC. So, in other words, we're flipping out about Russian involvement for showing us the vile hatred behind the fake smiles. The DNC was just as involved with influencing the as the Russians by giving debate questions to their preferred candidate -- Hillary -- and secretly working against the other candidates (both Republican and Democrat).

      On the other hand, Trump is possibly in Russia's pocket and possibly not. There is literally no proof of it and the recent issues surrounding Trump Jr are a joke given that the exact same Russian is observed with numerous people of power on both sides of the aisle (see the above link for video evidence). Furthermore, the US has stepped up efforts to block Russian-supported involvement in Syria; a move that Obama constantly threatened but never had the spine to perform, which emboldened our enemies (and, before anyone mentions it, he already had placed troops and resources there, so it wasn't to avoid it; it was weakness). If he is a shill for Russia, then he's playing it oddly better than Obama ever did.

      So I will gladly take the unknown over the absolutely known corruption. Any existing politician can be presumed to be corrupt until proven otherwise, on both sides of the aisle.

      The most interesting aspect of your entire rant is that you associate Republicans with Trump. And I think that most Republicans would actually disagree with that association. There's a reason that the Republicans in Congress look so bad: they're avoiding Trump's agenda because they largely disagree with it because it doesn't help their donors. They can't reform the ACA, not because it's a great bill or an impossible thing to do, but because they don't know what they want to do because they want a Republican agenda that is not directly associated with Trump.

    18. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the public hearings don't interest you? You can watch them online for free, you know. FBI, CIA, and NSA have confirmed Russian meddling with the elections with high certainty and hardly any doubt, and so did every senator, whether Democrat or Republican, who participated in the non-public parts of the hearings under security clearance.

    19. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All without providing any evidence.
      In the age of the director of the FBI PAYING Russians to make up fake data to smear the president, I'll reserve my judgment until I see proof.

      By the way, Comey admitted under oath that the FBI has NO PROOF of Russian interference. The hacked DNC server was never viewed by anyone in the government, and the private company that said it was Russians now REFUSES to testify under oath that it was the Russians. Not only is there no proof, they have no one willing to go under oath who has seen evidence. Sure, there are plenty of people willing to lie under oath, but no one willing to show evidence.

      But keep on believing the lies. For more fun, look up conflicts of interest for the current acting FBI director McGruber. Once you see what he has been up to, its fairly obvious the FBI is not working in the public interest anymore and you really should just assume anything coming from the FBI to be a lie.

    20. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Watergate unnamed sources didn't exist either, or so the Nixon administration claimed. Deep Throat's actual identity wasn't revealed until 40 years later.

      And now you are claiming that Trump didn't say there were "millions of unregistered voters" and "millions of fraudulent votes cast"?

      Your bullshit knows no bounds. Just keep bullshitting, that stuff is sticking to you and tarring no one but you.

      People who commit crimes or ethical violations routinely lie, cover up, and hide evidence. Donald Trump Jr. didn't admit to talking to a Russian lawyer until just minutes before the NYT published those facts. Then Trump Sr. bullshitted that Jr. was "being transparent" and Sr. was "so proud".

      Yeah, they got caught. Nixon got caught too. You've been caught.

      Trump is a liar and a serial violator. He is un-Presidential and unfit for office. The unnamed sources will remain unnamed until it becomes safe(r) for them to be named.

    21. Re: Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should all just believe what you say? You seem like a trustworthy guy. Can you hold my wallet for me while I take a piss? Thanks comrade.

    22. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      It's kinda funny that's you're posting as AC.

      Did you see the video with the guy from CNN saying it was a narrative, that there was no real evidence? Straight out of the horse's mouth. Did you see the New York Time's retraction?

      Nothing came out of that meeting with the "Russian lawyer" which is probably why Jr didn't think to mention it. If I tell someone I bought a new car, I don't usually go on talking about the ones I didn't buy. He didn't collude with the Russian government, that's still a fact that has yet to be proven false. Next the media is going to tell us that one of the Trump kids withdrew money from a bank that had a Russian cashier.

    23. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I agree! Liberal press! Liberal press! Liberal press! I mean, they're probably right, but... liberal press!

    24. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Hillary Clinton, on the other hand? "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work!"

      Another lie.
      It's a common tactic -- give a line that someone actually said, but strip all context off of it so you can distort the actual meaning.
      "let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities. So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right? And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

      Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

      But yeah, keep pretending that this was something Hillary was gleefully shouting as if she thought coal miners were assholes who deserved what they got.

      Good lord, I don't even like Hillary, but was she wrong? Not really. As non-coal sources of energy grow cheaper, coal becomes more troublesome, and coal jobs are lost forever. That's the changing nature of technology.

    25. Re:Enough Denials, Truth Time! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      A lot of people thought she had plenty of charisma (not you obviously)

      Even Hillary said (during a debate, I think), that she knows she just doesn't have the type of charisma that Bill had.

  12. Bill sponsored by Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe a stealth attempt for the US anti-virus makers against Kaspersky Internet Security, which is a Russian firm.

    Would give Norton's bloatware less competition.

    1. Re:Bill sponsored by Norton? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Norton isn't even in the same league as Kaspersky. That's like trying to outlaw a MLB team to give your son in the little league a leg up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Weiner's Fail by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

    The attack vector for russia and china is porn, has been for the last 12 or so years.

    1. Re:Weiner's Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean by making Russians and Chinese watch more L.A. porn, their productivity lowers until it comes to a halt and they get blind from masturbating, so the US wins in the global race to world domination. Kudos to you! Brilliant plan!

  14. An interesting approach to legislation by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Whenever Trump bursts out with another one of his brilliant ideas, immediately pass legislation to outlaw whatever it was he proposed. Yes, I can see some wisdom there.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  15. What? Make every single US senator a criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, Make every single US senator more of a criminal?

    They are. It's weird. It's UNAmerican. And it show that's thanks to that stupid bell-shaped curve, half the population votes republican!

  16. W - Liar, but unlike Trump, not a traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The intelligence agencies wrote credible assessments, however they were intentionally distorted and misused by the president of the USA.

    Funny thing about your example - it's exactly what is happening now. An obviously lying president got caught lying, and is throwing the intelligence services under the bus.

    At least George W Bush never committed Treason. He may have been an idiot and a warmonger, but unlike Moscow Donald he never colluded with a hostile foreign adversary's attack on his country.

  17. fundraising by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we be honest with ourselves for a moment?

    This is a fundraising bill. It is designed to look good on a letter sent to Democrats in a couple of districts in hopes that they will send money to the reelection campaigns of the bill's sponsors.

    It is functionally identical to the "questions" asked by Democrats during confirmation or committee hearings, or the statements made by Democrats during bill debates. The questions aren't seeking information, the statements aren't swaying votes, and this "bill" isn't intended to ever become a law.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:fundraising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that a lot of what opposition parties do and say is pretty much pointless posturing. The only things they can "defeat" are ones that a lot of government representatives are also willing to vote against their own party on, so pretty much nil.

      I'm curious, though: what you'd prefer they did? Pack up, leave DC and head back to their districts until they have a majority?

      Making a noise, highlighting things that need attention, presenting different options; these are all things vital to a functioning democracy. Without them you have the party in power doing whatever it wants, putting their message out unopposed, and getting re-elected because, well, there's no alternative. A one-party state. Regardless of where you land on the con/lib right/left authoritarian/libertarian axes, that's surely a bad thing?

    2. Re:fundraising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm curious why you've decided to single out democrats for this behavior, especially after half a decade of republicans trying to pass bills that repeal obamacare, only to be handed the keys to the entire country and still not manage to do it.

    3. Re:fundraising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It's to highlight the insanity of what they're proposing to outlaw. And by failing to enact such sane regulations (or by still confirming appointments that are contrary to national security, health, economic outcomes, etc.) the base is mobilized to vote in the following election. Which is what failed to happen last election. Which is why we're here to begin with.

      Not that they wouldn't want the bill to pass---just that they know how the vote is going to turn out because of our horrible partisan politics. It's a preview to their base of what kind of legislation an empowered democratic party would pass: what they know their base considers "good."

      I don't see this as disingenuous in any way.

    4. Re:fundraising by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Though your example of Obamacare repeal is exactly on point, and there are other similar examples that one could point to, the Republicans, generally speaking, have a different pathology. What I am talking about is the dominant behavior of the two groups. Most of the Republicans do it occasionally, and some of them do it often - but pretty much all of the Democrats do it pretty much all of the time now.

      With that in mind, discussing the Republicans and their problems would be off topic for this story, though I certainly do discuss them when appropriate.

      I am eager for the end of both parties as they existed during my adult life. I believe that the Republican party is fixable, meaning that I think it contains elements that are in harmony with my political beliefs and that those elements are capable of asserting leadership over the party in general.

      I see no such potential in the Democrat party. Notice that Trump's economic plan is essentially JFK's economic plan (Reagan's too). What was a little bit left-wing 50 years ago is today too far right for a Republican President to get his party fully behind, and is denounced as domestic terrorism by Democrats.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  18. Dear Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to run for the next USA election, and I promise to undo this law and be a loyal follower of yours if you assist in getting me into power.

    I promise to be a more loyal follower than Trump if you're looking for a replacement for the top job.

    My PR team want help with hacking the opposition and twitter bots, my election team want election data, so can you please hack the election records of places like Florida.

    In return I will get sanctions lifted against Russia, data sharing agreements, I'll even get Russia into 5eyes by promoting Russian cooperation against terrorism.

    PS. Can I have a backchannel secured by Russia, I think the CIA might record my contacts with you and pass it to the Senate security committee.

    Your loyal Servant, ... signed.... every upcoming wann-be politician....

  19. Russia and America by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Get a room.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  20. Buttercup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're kidding yourself buttercup.

    Trump wasn't chosen because he's a useful idiot. Do you seriously think that Manasfort, Junior, Cohen, Strone, Kushner.... all of the people arround him knew, yet he didn't??? What did they tell him when they disappeared on trips to Moscow? Holidays in the Algarve??

    Are you seriously going for the 'plausible deniability' angle? Because he saw all this surveillance information that we see now. Those emails didn't come as a surprise to him, he had them as part of the CIA surveillance package he was shown.

    Yet he still tried to pretend Russia wasn't involved. He still tried to do a cooperation deal with Putin. (!) He knows what he did, and he's doubling down on the lie.

    So you're reduced to throwing insults and pretending Trump is a useful idiot that Putin manipulated??? No, he is complicit. Absolutely 100% up to his eyeballs in it.

    And you're a traitor, people like you exist in all of these Russian controlled countries. People who want power so bad, they'd sell out their country to get it.

    1. Re:Buttercup by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Trump wasn't chosen because he's a useful idiot. Do you seriously think that Manasfort, Junior, Cohen, Strone, Kushner.... all of the people arround him knew, yet he didn't??? What did they tell him when they disappeared on trips to Moscow? Holidays in the Algarve??

      Are you seriously going for the 'plausible deniability' angle? Because he saw all this surveillance information that we see now. Those emails didn't come as a surprise to him, he had them as part of the CIA surveillance package he was shown.

      He even said that his only contact with Russians was through the Miss Universe pageant, and that he once sold a mansion to a Russian oligarch, despite most of his money from the 1990s (after he nearly went broke) came from Russians who would buy his condos as a way to launder money.

  21. Why is Russia considered an enemy? by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Silly question for you USAians, but...why, exactly, do so many Americans consider Russia to be an enemy? I mean, sure, there was a decades-long "cold war", but that was the USSR, and those days are (or ought to be) past. Why not treat Russia as a friend, make common cause where possible?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we spend about $8 x 10^11 per year on the military. People aren't stupid, and don't think that we need to be spending 800 billion to bomb a bunch of goatfuckers in a Pakistani cave.
      Russia, however, is more scary, and will keep the dollars flowing. As a bonus, the libtard snowflakes are suddenly on board with the whole military-industrial complex thing.

    2. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by robinsonne · · Score: 1

      Why not treat Russia as a friend, make common cause where possible?

      Because they're not. The Russian government has very different ideas of what should happen in the world than the US.

      If "enemy" is too strong a word, use "adversary" instead. Look at Russia's history of human rights, look at the nations they consider "friends," take note of the extreme nationalism of Russia, look at their farce of an electoral process.

      We oppose them because they need to be opposed.

    3. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes, Russia different idea is that it thinks that America should overthrow 3 different governments under a single Peace-prize winning president.

      First there was Libya: We overthrew the government.
      Then we went after Syria: We tried really hard to overthrow the government but Russia stopped us. We didnt train enough rebels in the Libyan training camps we set up.
      Then because Russia prevented Syria, Ukraine: We overthrew the democratically elected government of the Ukraine and installed racist fascists. It costs us only $5 billion. Cheapest one yet.

      That pretty much sums of the difference between our two nations right there.

      You Americans do understand that what your media reports is literally the opposite of what the rest of the worlds media reports, right?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Some news you Americans missed:

      U.S. accused of trying to incite a civil war by the Ukrainian government in 2013
      (use googles/youtubes closed captioning)

      That was about a year before we kicked off the overthrow.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And video of some of the Ukrainian genocide after the overthrow:

      From liveleak

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      One reason could be that Russia is effectively a dictatorship ruled by Putin and a few oligarchs, but still has a mighty military and thousands of nukes, and at the same time fosters some extreme right-wing nationalism to detract from domestic problems, so whenever Putin decides to retire to his Dacha outside of Moscow, some batshit-crazy ultranationalist could rise to power and control all those slowly rotting nukes.

      Another reason could be the recent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and the countless annoying Russian troll-bots on the Internet. They are annoying.

      Yet another reason: The habits of slightly demented US senators. It's hard to change long-term habits.

      More reasons: Democrats are currently trying to discredit the retarded Trump government, but repeating Trump's stupid tweets doesn't have enough of a desired effect since America's voters have apparently gone fully mental. So now they switched to this 'he's aiding the enemy' rhetorics, which of course only works if the Russians are enemies. It's counter-productive, but makes sense from their perspective. (Remember: Just before the Trump thing, everybody was bashing China's hacking efforts, which are also immense.)

      Anyway, there are reasons over reasons. Some are better, some are worse.

    7. Re:Why is Russia considered an enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accusations don't mean much. Many people accuse Hillary of being a lizardperson. That does not mean it's true, or does it.

  22. NOT sharing valid security info. = dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Everyone benefits by sharing it. It's exactly how programs like mine work APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ using valid information from reputable & reliable security sources & yes, it works well (even per /.ers who like & use it) ala https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10839329&cid=54777645/

    * Sharing "cyber-security" information here would be to EVERYONE's advantage involved, e.g. - KNOWN sources of threats would be one such example (& blocking them, just as my program above does, keeps you PROOFED vs. touching them & thus being infected by them...)

    APK

    P.S.=> You can quickly + EASILY figure out when it's invalid/bogus (so if a source consistently provides bad or invalid information/misinformation, you simply stop using them)... apk

  23. Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Americans won't get their hands on Russian virus codes. It will make raiding and emptying your U.S. bank accounts that much easier, without any foreseeable defence from the USA. Hahahaha. Aka: shot in own foot.

  24. Why Are Democrats So Fucking Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are democrats so blinded by their partisan politics and completely imaginary fairy tale about Russian "influence/hacking/interference/what have you" with our election that they can't bring themselves to be normal, critically-thinking human beings?

    1. Re:Why Are Democrats So Fucking Stupid? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      because they were always fakers. They were never good people. Lip service to liberal values, and then installing fascist dictators in countries were were sworn to protect via treaty.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  25. Obama did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to do the kneejerk response but Obama did the whole cyber partnership with China after they hacked OPM and that "fixed" things.

  26. Others below you say it, so will I... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: MOST of these effete motherfuckers don't do SHIT except 'bitch' (which fixes zero). I actually DO something about it https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10860701&cid=54807085/ That? It's not MERE "bitching", it's action (something QUITE BEYOND those lacking idealism & beyond bullshitters...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Either you're a WASTE OF LIFE 'talker' OR, you do something to better the "human condition" (What was it Frost said? "The ROAD not taken" & losers don't understand that - all they can 'do', is bitch)... apk

    1. Re:Others below you say it, so will I... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No APK, what you do is called spamming and shitposting.

    2. Re:Others below you say it, so will I... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ads concern me more than any advert that Slashdot or any other site promotes and I'll elaborate why.

      Your ads are more dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records (I mean, just look at your replies on threads this week), you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact their web-hosting providers, people's companies where they work to make a scene because they dared to disagree with you on the Internet.

      You ironically are the antithesis of safety online, you harass, provoke, stalk and it often starts with one of your advertisements. You have people tell you to go away and leave them alone, but you continue to pursue them, make legal threats etc. until you are satisfied. You are one of the few advertisers out there that I can actually point at and show that you are using information gathered against other people!

      In summary, the most dangerous advertisements people need to be weary of is yours, APK. Your adblocking solution does nothing to stop them either.

    3. Re:Others below you say it, so will I... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one constantly stalking apk unidentifiably anonymously constantly. You do since he keeps bookmarks of when he gets the better of you by registered username. You just can't get over it can you? Grow up. You failed. We all see you do these things. Who are you trying to deceive other than yourself?

  27. data bad - uranium good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it was okay for Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration to give the Russians uranium?

  28. No worry by slapout · · Score: 1, Informative

    "And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. " Barack Obama

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:No worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, there's no way that Obama could have predicted that the Republican candidate for the President of the United States would actively collude with our old cold war adversary to get elected. He furthermore could not have possibly predicted that the Republican party would then support the Republican candidate for the President of the United States actively colluding with our old cold war adversary.

  29. APK Hosts File Engine = dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if a source consistently provides bad or invalid information/misinformation, you simply stop using them

    Finally some solid advice from APK. He is now openly encouraging everyone to stay away from his Hosts File Engine as at best it offers placebo level of protection.
    P.S. => APK, Just because you say something a lot doesn't make it true.

  30. It's Dead Jim... by cb88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "a group of House Democrats"

  31. Russia derangement syndrome. by jacekm · · Score: 2

    The Russia Democrats obsession is reaching levels of group paranoia obsession. Future psychiatrists will have a new field of study.

  32. bomb elephant fucker APK instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead we should be spending that money to bomb that elephant fucker APK.

  33. assumes we are smarter and have better intel by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    hackers are smarter - if assume that you're usually right...

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  34. Does anybody even think before speaking these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [quote]The idea was roundly criticized by security and foreign policy experts and within a few hours Trump walked it back, saying it was just an idea and couldn't actually happen.[/quote]

    Hmm. The thought of encrypted back channel communications existing between US and Russian intelligence agencies does seem a bit... oh wait, no it seems completely common sense to believe these have existed for decades and always will.

  35. Something about pots and kettles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia has nothing on the U.S. when it comes to cyber-crimes, attacking and sabotaging friendly countries' networks. If accusations come from America, they are just propaganda, and is something they've already done to others themselves.

  36. Ridiculous Tongues of Trump Terrified At Might of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jul. 13, Juche 106 (2017) Thursday

    Ridiculous Tongues of Trump Terrified At Might of DPRK

    U.S. President Trump recently talked rubbish that the U.S. has been "exposed to a threat from a reckless and cruel regime," crying out for "taking decisive counteraction."

    Asserting that the U.S. will never acknowledge the nukes of the DPRK and its threat, Trump said that what remains to be done for the U.S. is to prepare well all options including the use of power.

    It is tragedy that Trump has not yet dropped his "theory of all-powerful strength" although it can never work on the DPRK.

    It is a wild dream that can never come true for the U.S. to browbeat the DPRK through military pressure, sanctions and blockade.

    The Korean people have always been exposed to military threat and sanctions by the U.S.

    But they have never felt frustration or despair.

    On the contrary, they have advanced straight on the road of building a powerful socialist country only, creating epochal miracles with self-development as a great engine.

    The ever-escalating military threat, sanctions and blockade by the U.S. have accelerated the advance of the DPRK and made its people stronger only.

    No matter what others may say, the service personnel and people of the DPRK will never flinch from the road of independence, Songun and socialism and the DPRK will creditably protect peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region as a full-fledged nuclear power.

    Ri Hak Nam

  37. Re: What is up with these Xenophobic racist Democ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slav != white

  38. Re: What is up with these Xenophobic racist Democ by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Slav != white

    They look white enough to me.
    They're just not Anglo-Saxon.

  39. The need for FOSS intelligence tools by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    My idea from seven years ago:
    ""The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc."
    http://web.archive.org/web/201...
    "This suggestion is about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities). It outlines (including at a linked elaboration) why the intelligence community should consider funding the creation of such free and open source software (FOSS) "dual use" intelligence applications as a way to reduce global tensions through increased local prosperity, health, and with intrinsic mutual security. ...
    As with that notion of "mutual security", the US intelligence community needs to look beyond seeing an intelligence tool as just something proprietary that gives a "friendly" analyst some advantage over an "unfriendly" analyst. Instead, the intelligence community could begin to see the potential for a free and open source intelligence tool as a way to promote "friendship" across the planet by dispelling some of the gloom of "want and ignorance" (see the scene in "A Christmas Carol" with Scrooge and a Christmas Spirit) that we still have all too much of around the planet. So, beyond supporting legitimate US intelligence needs (useful with their own closed sources of data), supporting a free and open source intelligence tool (and related open datasets) could become a strategic part of US (or other nation's) "diplomacy" and constructive outreach.
    Now, there are many people out there (including computer scientists) who may raise legitimate concerns about privacy or other important issues in regards to any system that can support the intelligence community (as well as civilian needs). As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for some healthy mix of a basic income, a gift economy, democratic resource-based planning, improved local subsistence, etc., all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."

    Anyway, still working towards that in my very limited spare time....
    http://twirlip.net/

    Hope sharing and cooperation to build a better world is not outlawed now... But I guess I should not be surprised when insane people vote for making sanity a crime...

    https://en.wikipe

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  40. /.ers disagree (you try twist what I say) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject: By twisting the context of what I said you provide me the means for /.ers quoted above to blow you away (thanks)... apk

  41. /.ers disagree, you unidentifiable loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject & our /. peers quoted BLOWING YOU AWAY you UNIDENTIFIABLE truly cowardly pitiful little "ne'er-do-well" troll, lol... apk

  42. /.ers clearly disagree... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> You project what you do hilariously. I merely let our /. peers BLOW YOU AWAY easily, lol (see quotes above) you pitiful UNIDENTIFIABLE "ne'er-do-well" loser... apk

  43. Morons Will Be Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump Jr. admitted everything. He was required to disclose his Russian contacts and did not do so until he was caught.

    Let's just say that "nothing came of it" for the sake of argument (we have no one's word for this but Trump Jr.'s right now). Meeting minutes or corroborating stories from the other attendees would make this a bit more, ah, credible? Especially if they weren't on the Trump campaign committee?

    Trump Jr. was still required to disclose those contact and did not do so. Until he got caught.

    Oh I admit, this is no smoking gun, at least not yet. What it does look like, for the umpteenth time, is like the Trump campaign has something to hide. Something Russian. Notice how Trump Jr. was all keen on getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians? And failed to notice how this might look? Or perhaps Trump Jr. simply thought he would never be caught, or that rules are for the little people?

    The Trump family are arrogant, entitled and break rules because they think they are better than everyone else.

    1. Re:Morons Will Be Morons by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      He didn't meet with a Russian government official, he met with someone who happened to be Russian. He didn't have to disclose it.