US Response 'Hasn't Changed The Calculus' Of Russian Interference, NSA Chief Says (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The admiral in charge of both the nation's top electronic spying agency and the Pentagon's cybersecurity operations would seem a logical point man for countering Russia's digital intrusions in U.S. election campaigns. But National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command chief Adm. Michael Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday there is only so much he can do. That is because, according to Rogers, President Trump has not ordered him to go after the Russian attacks at their origin. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee's ranking Democrat, asked Rogers, "Have you been directed to do so, given this strategic threat that faces the United States and the significant consequences you recognize already?" "No, I have not," Rogers replied. But the spy chief pushed back on suggestions that he should seek a presidential signoff. "I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do," Rogers said when Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal pressed him on whether Trump should approve that authority.

"I'm an operational commander, not a policymaker," he added. "That's the challenge for me as a military commander." Rogers agreed with Blumenthal's estimation that Russian cyber operatives continue to attack the U.S. with impunity and that Washington's response has fallen short. "It hasn't changed the calculus, is my sense," the spy chief told Blumenthal. "It certainly hasn't generated the change in behavior that I think we all know we need."

Comments

We'd have to respond

[rsilvergun]

to change the calculus. So far the administration (who's in charge of the response) doesn't seem to have done anything. Wait, strike that, They actually haven't done anything. It's almost as if they somehow benefited from it...

Re:Going after Russia,

[XxtraLarGe]

but not Mexico would be hypocritical. Mexican citizens cast a significant number of votes in the election - illegally - which to me is a bigger deal than doing some advertising.

You're going to get modded down into oblivion, but here's a little evidence to support your argument.

Re:you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Trump's refusal to impose the sanctions against Russia that Congress passed and his refusal to even try to prevent Russian interference with our elections.

Re:you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick

[sexconker]

Did Biden make up a ridiculous claim that he had to dodge sniper fire? Did he say that women and children have always been the primary victims of war? Was he tied to dozens of suspicious "accidental" deaths and suicides? Did he get a bunch of people killed during an aborted stint in office? Does he run a "charitable foundation" that is really a front for bribes, kickbacks, and other illicit pay-to-play dealings? Did he leak classified information all over hell? Did he conduct official business on a private server, then when under investigation get to choose which emails to hand over, then nuke the hard drives?

HRC is a monster and a true Clinton. She's a Reptilian in a failing skin suit.

Re:But You're an SME!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They basically asked if he wanted a bigger budget and he said yes his department wants a bigger budget to do more. Who says no to that?

Well, the DoD. They asked that their budget not be increased so much, so they could buy fewer planes and tanks that they don't need. They also asked that the state dept. get some of that money to ensure they continue to not need them.

Re:Going after attacks at origin is risky...

[deathguppie]

This is an honest statement and an intelligent one. Look, direct retaliation in the form of "you are a poo head too" isn't always the best action to take. Russia is not the best place for this kind of retaliatory strike anyway, they are too much in control of who has access to government via gunning down opponents in the street. An appropriate response may involve many things, like sanctions and UN, and ally pressure to get them to back off. Direct retaliation would be stupid. You are trying to make it sound like he said that he did not agree with any retaliation, which is not true.