Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
> I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do,
Yeah, when I feel that my product could use an improvement, I never bring it up to the product manager.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What, exactly, would he do against people joining Facebook and Twitter, etc?
There is No HACKING. They are simply using the same tools that Americans use.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But Rogers also made clear that he had not been granted what he called "the day-to-day authority" to disrupt Russian hacking operations at their point of origin.
To be fair, the range of actions to go after attacks "at their origin" in Russia would probably be a high risk no matter who was president, especially if it turns out the source is a Russian government agency. Admiral Rogers put it best near the end of the article:
Even if he were granted authority to act, Rogers questioned during the Senate hearing whether his agencies' capabilities would be the best or only response to those attacks.
"Be mindful of falling in the trap that just because someone comes at us in cyber that we have to default to immediately going back and doing the exact same thing," he warned. "I've always believed we need to step back and think a little bit more broadly about it and just don't default — it's because of that, you know, that I have not done that to date."
"Despite no real scandals".
WTF are you smoking? Did you get that approved by CNN before posting or did they just give you that statement for you to ponder?
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.
HILLARY WAS A BAD CANDIDATE, WORSE THAN TRUMP. THE END
Come on.. Let's be fair here... Both where pretty bad...
But I get your point... Hillary did have a lot going for her. Former Senator, Former Secretary of State and Former first lady with experience on her resume the envy of the field. She could talk a good game, had polish and was adept at political speak when cornered. Nobody could touch her it was her election to lose..... EXCEPT....
In walks Donald Trump, exactly zero elections to his name, no government experience on his resume. He's no politician, he has a brash temper, a big mouth and a knack for saying things he shouldn't in anger. He got in twitter fights over stupid stuff and basically played the roll of a lose cannon in a hurricane. This guy couldn't win an election for dog catcher...
So WHAT happened? Just look at history...
Hillary got out flanked by a rank amateur, like happened before. She floundered on that E-mail foolishness by arrogantly assuming she could just sweep it away with a series of white lies, but even worse, she believed her own press releases, she believed the national polling and she acted like she could coast to victory like she had in the primaries over Sanders. Hillary's problem was she didn't think she could lose, so she didn't really try all that hard. (Either that or she really WAS that sick during the campaign and *couldn't* physically keep up the pace.) This was EXACTLY what cost her the primary win 8 years previously, to a new comer again, the junior senator from Illinois, even though she'd been in the Senate longer.
Really, Trump didn't win it, Hillary lost an election she *should* have easily won...
So the question you have to ask yourself here is this. Why? Was it because Hillary didn't campaign well or because the 13 Russians spent a few hundred thousand on Facebook ads?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's all well and good but don't link to the fucking Moonies and their fake newspaper! They're as bad as CNN.
"dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage despite no real scandals"
Innocent emails about weddings and yoga cause damage?
If there was no scandal in the emails how would they have damaged Clinton? You can't have it both ways. Either the emails were damaging because scandal or the emails were innocent and not damaging. Pick one.
There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them.
Remember how outlets got two different versions of what happened re: Sanders during the primary? There was a concerted effort to rig the primaries and also the primaries couldn't be rigged since they were all run by individual state parties, and the emails somehow showed both.
Remember the pizza place basement slave dungeon (at the pizza place that didn't even have a basement)? Those were from the emails, even though it was a conspiracy theory. People took it and ran, and it damaged the campaign. But there was less than zero evidence.
So your desire to make everything a straw-man two choice argument is either intentionally misleading, or because of a problem with logical thinking. Pick one.
Or not, because there's probably another 1000 explanations.
Installing a secret email server in your bathroom to evade public info retention laws is a simple IT mistake? On which planet?
"There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them."
Clinton campaign colluding with media to shut Sanders down and promote the pied piper Republicans is not a scandal? Showing the level of corruption that is normal for Clinton by hiring DWS after her disgraceful resignation that happened because of the unethical conduct uncovered from the emails, is not a scandal?
Wow, I guess if you change the definition, sure no "scandal". But for everyone else that was very unethical and scandalous. As far as I am aware pizzagate didn't damage Clinton because it was fake conspiracy with zero evidence. The other crap however haunted her, her campaign, and the DNC because there was evidence and Clinton flaunted it in everyone's face like hiring DWS.
Did the '911 was an inside job' damage Bush? Has there been any evidence that any conspiracy like pizzagate has hurt any politician to such an extent as to lose an election?
Uhh the Russian government hacked Hillary's campaign and the DNC and then dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage (but her emails...) despite no real scandals.
Trump's campaign aide Roger Stone communicated with, colluded with both the Russian government hackers and the Wikileaks Russian government mouthpiece.
The "hack" was some high-ranking clown clicking a URL in a phishing email and leaking his iWhatever credentials.
Her emails did expose real scandals. You can go and fucking read them if you want (you never will). The DNC and Hillary's campaign, along with media chills like CNN, rigged the DNC primary election for Hillary, despite Bernie Sanders being the far better candidate (even though he's a loon, he would have been an electable loon). And yes, Hillary leaked classified info through her private email server, then, "oopsie", wiped the server (like with a cloth) after cherry picking a few things to turn over as evidence. The FBI director even directly said she's guilty as shit and is only not being charge because of who she is.
As for colluding with Russia, we've seen that HRC, the DNC, and much of the Obama administration were doing just that when they paid for a faked dossier created by a British spy working with Russians, which they then used to trick a FISA court into letting the administration spy on Trump and his campaign so they could leak info to the DNC and Hillary to ensure her coronation. And she STILL fucking lost! Trump is an ass and often a buffoon. I sure as shit didn't vote for him, but I'm glad he won because he's caused tons of pathetic losers like yourself to have public meltdowns and yes, Hillary would have been far worse. The DNC and the media LOST and they're still trying to stir up a war with Russia.
Not for nothing, but the border states where you imagine this happening (e.g Texas) are red. The fact that they haven't found anyone who cast an illegal vote probably means there weren't any.
Oh, I'm sorry, they found one person. But that doesn't fit your narrative at all (after all, they voted Republican twice).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
All of Trumps people have private email servers.. good or bad pick one.
once more into the breach