Slashdot Mirror


Russian Hackers Targeted US Conservative Think-Tanks, Says Microsoft (reuters.com)

retroworks shares a report: Hackers linked to Russia's government tried to target the websites of two right-wing U.S. think-tanks, suggesting they were broadening their attacks in the build-up to November elections, Microsoft said. The software giant said it thwarted the attempts last week by taking control of sites that hackers had designed to mimic the pages of The International Republican Institute and The Hudson Institute. Users were redirected to fake addresses where they were asked to enter usernames and passwords. There was no immediate comment from Russian authorities, but the Kremlin was expected to address the report later on Tuesday. It has regularly dismissed accusations that it has used hackers to influence U.S. elections and political opinion. Casting such allegations as part of an anti-Russian campaign designed to justify new sanctions on Russia, it says it wants to improve not worsen ties with Washington. Further reading: Microsoft Reveals First Known Midterm Campaign Hacking Attempts, and Microsoft Launches Pilot Program To Provide Cybersecurity Protection To Political Campaigns and Election Authorities.

170 comments

  1. Yeah, of course they did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because they were trying to upload her emails...

  2. More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Russians "meddled" in the elections, cries the Jewish media, over and over and over.
    In other words, the Jews failed to get their chosen candidate (Clinton) into power by hacking the electronic voting machines, because the overwhelming majority of Americans supported Trump - as can be CLEARLY proven by looking at the size of the crowds that went to his campaign speeches, compared to Clinton's crowds, so the Jews try to make out that Trump can't possibly have won the election, it must have been "meddled" with.
    And the same Jews were telling us that Clinton was definitely going to win the election, right up until the end of election night... it's all over Youtube, see for yourself.

    1. Re:More laughable fake news by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if this post is a joke, or you are.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    2. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deflecting and blaming Israel/Jews for a lot of things is among the not so uncommon Russian troll tactics.

    3. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the while pretending like this is something that doesn't happen all the time. Pretty much every country in the world wants America's president to benefit their interests; Canada meddled, Mexico meddled, the UK meddled, Somalia meddled, the Koreas meddled, China meddled, etc etc. They all meddled and have for decades. It really is that the left needed a scapegoat so they're trying to push "Russian meddling" as if it weren't something that happened constantly and had almost zero effect.

      Meanwhile, America has "meddled" so heavily in the middle east that we completely destabilized the region to try to get a Russian sympathetic elected leader out of power. We paid to train and arm "moderate rebels" (read: terrorist mercenaries) who jumped ship taking everything they could carry as soon as they saw a better deal. There's actual audio of America engaging in actual collusion, deciding who was going to be in power for Ukraine. Oh, and that happened under Obama, so I guess we have confirmed collusion involving a sitting president.

      These fucks just want to scream "ORANGE MAN BAD" because Hillary lost to her own ringer. Donald Trump proved one thing for certain: Anybody can become president as long as they're not Hillary Clinton.

    4. Re:More laughable fake news by Rhipf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All the while pretending like this is something that doesn't happen all the time. Pretty much every country in the world wants America's president to benefit their interests; Canada meddled, Mexico meddled, the UK meddled, Somalia meddled, the Koreas meddled, China meddled, etc etc.

      So how exactly did Canada meddle in the US election. I don't even recall any Canadian authority stating that they supported one candidate over the other. Even if they did I wouldn't call that meddling. If Russia came out and said they preferred Trump over Clinton (or vice versa) I wouldn't call that meddling either. If you go to the extent of robo-posting to social media sites in hopes of seeding discord then I would call that meddling. As far as I know Canada has never been accused of that level of involvement in US elections.

      The rest of the countries in your list probably fall in this same situation but I don't have any direct knowledge either way to say for sure.

    5. Re: More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>>>> Diversion >>>>>>

      Discussion about Russia subverting Western institutions is CLOSED.

      Route to Hillary's emails ONLY.

      >>>>>> Diversion >>>>>>

    6. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attempting to influence an election, it happens every election cycle. Follow money trails, you have donations to PACs from around the globe. Often done through shell companies to make it look less suspicious. Any large enough entity or influential enough person is going to attempt to "meddle" in America's elections because America can't keep their fingers out of everyone's pies. When you have the opportunity to push a world superpower to be more on your side, you take it.

      I don't think meddling is bad, it simply is. Currently there's a group of people trying to pretend like this shit doesn't happen all the time. They're using narrative to try to conflate "meddling" and "collusion" and a lot of people are falling for it. My point wasn't that Canada/Mexico/et al were doing something bad, it's that using the current definition of "meddling" that's what the entire world has been doing for literal decades.

    7. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much if you are any organization with the slightest political position, odds are you will be targeted by other nation's intelligence agencies even if they are friendly. Calling out Russia for this is a bit foolish when pretty much the US, NATO, and every 1st world country has been doing this sort of thing.

    8. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where 'targeted' means 'collected data'. Surely you're not suggesting they tried to change the operation of these organizations in any way, because that's a pretty tall claim, and if that was what you meant you would have provided evidence for this tall claim, right?

    9. Re:More laughable fake news by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      It worked for Stalin...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    10. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seeing as Intelligence agencies don't exactly advertise their operations, getting concrete evidence is a bit difficult to do. I do have concrete evidence of NATO nations CIA ect.. Meddling in elections (even their own countries) enough times to assume this instance is no different. My original point though stands that its a bit foolish to call out Russia for this now. It should be assumed that Russia along with many other nations are doing this not just to this organization but many other ones within the US. Most people who work in intelligence know this and they don't need Microsoft to tell them.

    11. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a favorite of antisemite APK as well.

    12. Re:More laughable fake news by will_die · · Score: 1

      you mean something like https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...

    13. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the parent's post is that you're completely wrong. Parent defined what is commonly understood as meddling. What Russia did stands in stark contrast with the other nations you mention. You are conflating influence through donation and lobbying with active hack attempts and criminal fraud to which more than 20 Russian operatives have been indicted. I don't see any Canadian military personnel being indicted because Canada doesn't engage in those tactics, nor Mexico, or Spain, or even China to the best of public knowledge at this point.

      People keep trotting out that the left is a sore loser and that is why they are focusing so heavily on Russia when in reality Russia has gone further than any other country in their attempts to destroy or erode the democratic process. There was a time not so long ago that people actually valued the America way of life and in the democratic republic. Hell, there was even a Rocky movie about it. Now they seem happy to let it devolve into Russian style kleptocracy because they understand that they are vastly outnumbered and with immigration moving forward only getting more so with every passing year. That is the real reason people like Trump are so against all forms of immgrations and the real reason a lot of his supporters would continue to do so despite any crimes he may have or may yet commit like shooting someone in Times Square.

    14. Re:More laughable fake news by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, Stalin was trying to goad the Americans into invading, which never happened. He knew that only through the horrors of war would Europeans ever want to be Communist.

      He killed almost as many people as Hitler, but it wasn't done for direct reasons; and the indirect reasons failed. That is the level of evil the Russian state is capable of; killing millions of people is merely a tactic.

    15. Re:More laughable fake news by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Funny

      So how exactly did Canada meddle in the US election.

      Even in my small city I encountered a Canadian during the election, he was all like, "They're all a bunch of wankers, eh? Are those really your best and brightest?"

      Canadians are always trying to sew discord and anarchy through mildly negative observations. Sometimes they even resort to passive-aggressive insults.

    16. Re: More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post. For tech group cannot use the word hack or hackers right. This was a phishing web site. My 10yr old daughter could put one up in a day.

      Hackers government or not. Joke. Microsoft just wants to be relive the again.

    17. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair.. if keeping a tally of election meddling, according to the NY times: A Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, has scoured the historical record for both overt and covert election influence operations. He found 81 by the United States and 36 by the Soviet Union or Russia between 1946 and 2000, though the Russian count is undoubtedly incomplete. link

    18. Re:More laughable fake news by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      You are conflating influence through donation and lobbying with active hack attempts and criminal fraud to which more than 20 Russian operatives have been indicted.

      It's obviously ridiculous, because donation and lobbying ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re: More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s the dumbest thing Iâ(TM)ve read today. A US invasion would have involved nukes. It would have been the end of both countries.

    20. Re:More laughable fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What Russia did ... active hack attempts and criminal fraud to which more than 20 Russian operatives have been indicted."

      With zero evidence they did it beyond finger pointing.

  3. Oh this is gonna be great by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Grab the popcorn, folks, we're about to see a roundup of the best conspiracy theories and fake news apologetics of the year!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Grab the popcorn, folks, we're about to see a roundup of the best conspiracy theories and fake news apologetics of the year!

      Q IS ABOUT TO ROUND UP ALL THE SJWS AND PUT THEM ON THE MOON WITH THE EVOLUTIONISTS AND CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

      I think thats how it goes right? Its getting a bit hard to follow the increasingly loony threads of it.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Republicans were working with the Russians. If they were, why this hacking attempt? If Trump was working with them, then why did Russian have so much trouble setting up the Trump Tower meeting? Those conspiracy theories don't make sense.

    3. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On certain subjects you can find loonies on all sides of the establishment.
      One sad example is : EVIL ASSAD GASSED CHILDREN!

    4. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't really remember the drivel, I just enjoy it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, that one is boring. Do the one with the politicians raping kids in pizza hut.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one is so wrong. They were raping pizzas in the kid parlor.

    7. Re: Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did though. He also bombed children, shot children, starved children, imprisoned children and tortured children, destroyed their homes, drove them away from everything they were used to and killed their parents. Apart from that he's a stand up guy.

    8. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because this hacking attempt was aimed at Anti-Trump, Anti-Russia Republicans. I.e., not the ones the were working with in the last election. And even those are most likely wary of direct Russian contacts this time around, with Mueller still poking around in their garbage.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    9. Re: Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one instance where Assad actually did ANY of that to the DNC?

    10. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      popcorn

      I'm waiting for some guilty verdicts. The real entertainment is when they go from being apologetic to apoplectic.

    11. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The accusations against the Trump campaign have made talking to anyone remotely connected to Russia a crime and worthy of an investigation. Politicians and their partisan shills are overjoyed. Those critical of Trump are willing to tear the US down just to get rid of him. They epitomize the "ends justify the means" approach. They think once Trump is gone everything will automatically revert back to the way it was before Trump. They forget there are two sides in any war and the next Democrat President will be hounded by the Republicans using the same tactics. And the media is now out of the proverbial closet and openly demonstrating their bias and producing propaganda that looks like something Pravda or the National Enquirer would publish. Are we supposed to believe that once Trump is gone the media will get back to publishing factual news instead of hyperbole infested opinions masquerading as serious journalism? Will the easily manipulated public stop believing that any information published by an "anonymous" source is always 100% true? Same thing goes for the information released by those "not authorized to speak.."?

      And even the US President (the office not a particular office holder) is now assumed to be committing some kind of treasonous act just by speaking to other heads of states that are enemies of the US. In Trump's case he was openly criticized for his hardline approach to NK and was told that diplomacy was the way to go. Never mind that the diplomacy conducted over the past 60+ years accomplished nothing besides giving NK more time to buildup their nuclear arsenal. When Trump decided to be diplomatic and had a meeting with two heads of state was criticized for being diplomatic. Has anyone noticed what Trump's actions in regards to NK have achieved? There have been no more nuclear warhead or missile "tests". China, who has never enforced any NK sanctions in the past, reversed course and actually started enforcing the sanctions. And the reason China started enforcing the sanctions was they couldn't predict Trump's actions. Up until now the US President has been predictable. Russia invaded the Ukraine because they knew they would only be sanctioned and not challenged on the battlefield by US armed proxies. China has built military outposts in the middle of the busiest commercial shipping lane in the world and in waters claimed by 4 different nations. They knew the US would only issue verbal warnings but would not interfere in the matter. When you become predictable your enemies use that predictability to accomplish their goals. The psychopaths running around in the ME were also taking advantage of the US predictability when planning their murder sprees. They know all they need to do to protect themselves is hide behind the largest concentration of non-combatants they can find. The knew the US response would include drone strikes and special forces missions but these threats are a lot easier to avoid than missile strikes in heavily populated areas without regard to collateral damage.

    12. Re:Oh this is gonna be great by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Like the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Republicans were working with the Russians. If they were, why this hacking attempt?

      Is there any reason to believe that these attacks were intended to somehow influence voters? Based on the summary, it looks like nothing more than a typical attempt to get passwords from people.

  4. Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been trying to find an article explaining exactly how these attacks are being linked to Russia. I'd appreciate if someone could post a link. I'm not saying anyone is lying or anything, but a lot of these hacking articles say there are linked to Russia, but how do they know?

    1. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well Podesta's email password was "password", so anyone could have gotten those emails (Russia might have been involved here, but there will be no proof)
      Sydney Blumenthall was hacked by Guiccifer 2.0, a Romanian not a Russian (People claim he is Russian, but have no evidence of that)
      DNC emails were hacked by their own admin from Pakistan, and once found out DW Schultz covered up for it and is to this day. Pakistan intelligence has all of the DNC emails since the admin was a family member of a high ranking Pakistani intelligence officer.

      The DNC gave their servers to Crowdstrike, paid by Clinton to say Russia hacked them. DNC servers never given to FBI even to this day. Crowdstrike lied for the DNC helping cover the Pakistan hack, but when it looked like they would have to go to court under oath they recanted and have since said Russia did not hack the DNC servers.

      So there is literally NO ONE with evidence Russia hacked anything. Muller indicted 17 Russians based on lies and Putin called him out on it by saying he would extradite any Russians guilty once he was shown proof. Muller declined to show ANYONE his evidence because it doesn't exist.

      That leaves us with Russia buying $50,000 of Facebook ads AFTER the election. However, Facebook has also not released evidence of this to date. They originally claimed it was $11 million, but when asked for evidence it suddenly became $50k and no evidence released.

      So Russia bought Facebook ads after the election is what it looks like happened.

      Hope that helps you out.

    2. Re:Russians by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      But I've seen the ads, so I know you're a paid liar. Let's just get that out up front so you can absorb this next part unfiltered:

      I see no evidence of the figure $50,000. That appears to have been pulled out of your ass just as clearly as you claim all the other real evidence was. Literally only you Russian trolls are harping over and over on this nonsensical figure. What do you think that tells me about your entire statement here, and in fact your entire chain of statements going back to well before the election?

      I'll give you a hint; It doesn't make you look very smart.

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

      So Russia bought Facebook ads after the election is what it looks like happened.

      And you saw what I said they did and I'm a liar.
      Perhaps you are too stupid to comment on /. anymore. Or you are an alt account for PopeRatzo, the literal dumbest person on /.

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

      Well, they don't need to appear smart. All they need is people who are dumber than their argument and they've got plenty of targets for that. Why do you think people like Alex Jones and Gwyneth Paltrow are relatively successful while spreading their nonsensical bullshit?

    5. Re:Russians by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I see no evidence of the figure $50,000. That appears to have been pulled out of your ass just as clearly as you claim all the other real evidence was.

      I do recall an article which suggested that they spent about that much specifically on Facebook advertising, before the election. The money was spent trolling, i.e. showing liberal ads to conservatives in order to make them feel like the liberals were running everything, so they had to get out and vote. The idea that liberals are running everything because you see a lot of liberal ads on facebook is, of course, the idiotic notion of the decade. There's nothing liberal about facebook, as a platform. Lots of liberals use it to discuss liberal things, but so what? Lots of conservatives use it to discuss conservative things. But Facebook is largely unregulated, and that flies in the face of liberalism itself, by definition — since Facebook is a corporate entity.

      The liberal view is that Facebook should be regulated in order to help preserve freedom, including the free market. For example, they offer tools for housing listings which seem purpose-designed to help you skirt laws which seek to prevent discrimination. You can advertise your housing listing only to one gender, for example, or target by language. If you don't have applicants you don't want, you don't have to risk a lawsuit by turning them down. And that's to say nothing of the privacy issues...

      TL;DR: I recall articles about approximately that much money spent deluding conservatives on Fb before the election, which is like shooting fish in a teacup.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh boy, we hit Vatnik Retard Bingo! with all the Russian talking points in this one.

    7. Re: Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DW Schultz was having an affair with the IT guy. She wasn't just providing cover, she was protecting her lover.

      She has been, and is, compromised. As such, so is US intelligence.

    8. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      This sums it up very well actually.

      2 years in and there's no actual proof, which implies that Donald Trump is either a genius mastermind and worked so well with exclusively trustworthy people or... it didn't happen. None of the indictments have any associated evidence, or if they do the indictment is not related to the "Russia Collusion" narrative.

      At this point, if you're going to believe the "Russian Collusion" narrative you have to assume that Donald Trump is one of the smartest people in America and has been able to outwit Muller's entire crew for more than two years. You also have to believe that Vladimir Putin is a 4th dimensional chess player, since the email hacks all happened long before Hillary convinced Don to run.

      Finally, remember that Donny-boy got Mitt Romney numbers. Don didn't win from some landslide of support. He didn't win because the voting machines were hacked or rigged and counted more votes for him. Donald Trump won because Hillary was unable to get people excited enough to go out and vote for her. Donald Trump got the forever Republicans, the people that religiously vote every year for whatever has an R by it. If we based the president on the popular total vote of the US the president would be NOBODY, because more than half the country's registered voters chose not to vote at all.

    9. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't hold water. Donald Trump's overall election numbers were extremely similar to Mitt Romney's. Essentially Don got those that religiously vote Republican. The ads clearly didn't encourage the right to come out in greater numbers, that's provable by looking at the results. Regardless, as a whole voter turnout was abysmal. Less than half of registered voters voted at all, with greater than 50% of the vote never being cast at all. All hail president nonexistant, the most popular candidate.

      The best you could hope for was that the ads caused less people to vote Democrat, and even then the vote results only imply that they stayed home. It's possible that the ads may have caused a small percentage of people to vote Green or Libertarian instead, but that doesn't really pan out either since both Stein and Johnson had pretty low turnout.

      TL;DR If anybody was influenced it was those who would have voted Democrat.

    10. Re:Russians by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The money on ads wasn't the entire problem, though. The grass-roots campaigns funded by and coordinated out of Russia were the real threat. It's weird you don't seem to care about foreign governments controlling your own. I guess if they're not libs it's fine, right?

    11. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the sky blue in your world?

    12. Re:Russians by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      They also had pro Bernie Sanders ads, pro/anti Hillary ads, pro/anti BLM ads, pro/con immigrant ads, every hot button topic..the works, from both angles.
      The idea was to sow discord and division, more than to promote any single candidate or party (namely, Trump), at least at the primaries stage, and then secondarily, I think, maybe bolster the fringe elements of each party, both Trump and Bernie, just to stir things up more.. because they were perceived as outside the political mainstream.
      This only works insofar as Facebook ads are really that effective, which is doubtful. The only people they'd most likely, potentially affect would be the undecided independents, as most Rs and Ds tend to vote along party lines regardless.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      BTW, just because something is a corporate entity doesn't mean the people who run it can't have a collective political bias too.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    13. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grass-roots campaigns funded by and coordinated out of Russia were the real threat.

      As opposed to the astro-turfing 'grass roots campaigns' paid for by corporations and special interest groups which were all above board and disclosed who was paying the bills?

      As soon as corporations became people, and money became speech, American politics went up for sale. America is fast becoming an oligarchy.

      Apparently, this is exactly what the Republicans wanted, because after all, what benefits corporations benefits America, right?

      American elections are already for sale, and just as many PACs and other crap were funding lies and bullshit to achieve their agenda.

      Think of this as the market deciding who should be able to influence the election. And since the market is infallible, it must be good.

      Enjoy your shithole, America.

    14. Re: Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sydney Blumenthall was hacked by Guiccifer 2.0, a Romanian not a Russian lie (People claim he is Russian, but have no evidence of that)
      DNC emails were hacked by their own admin from Pakistan lie , and once found out DW Schultz covered up for it and is to this day lie . Pakistan intelligence has all of the DNC emails lie since the admin was a family member of a high ranking Pakistani intelligence officer lie .

      The DNC gave their servers to Crowdstrike, paid by Clinton to say Russia hacked them lie . DNC servers never given to FBI even to this day. Crowdstrike lied for the DNC helping cover the Pakistan hack lie , but when it looked like they would have to go to court under oath they recanted and have since said Russia did not hack the DNC servers lie .

      Your name is Donald Trump and I claim my 10 roubles.

    15. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opportunist was right, the conspiracy theories are getting more and more laughable and obviously outside of the realm of reality!

    16. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only works insofar as Facebook ads are really that effective, which is doubtful

      I dunno, seems to me like they've been very successful in stirring up division and energizing the useful idiots.

    17. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and the wind is cooling, the flowers are fragent and growing and my paycheck is bigger.

    18. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your direction is good, but your reasoning is all over the place.

      There has been loads of evidence. Anyone with half a brain now knows for certain that Trump colluded with Russia. What is still open to interpretation is how effective it was; the last part of your post is absolutely correct. The only way Trump one was by the lowest voter turnout in US history. A plurality of about 15% of registered voters voted for him, while ~17% voted for Clinton. That's just embarrassing for us.

      However, one can't deny the reams of hard evidence; all the money transactions between Trump and Russia, the meetings that we have audio of, the asks for dirt on Clinton, etc. That is all hard evidence, and you won't fool any thinking person by pretending it doesn't exist. And that is much harder evidence than was ever found on Nixon during Watergate, which is pretty much a guarantee we'll see Trump resign and get pardoned by Pence, or he'll end up in federal prison. I hope for the latter, but I'm betting on the former. In America, wealthy powerful people never get punished for any crimes they commit.

    19. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no link. The U.S. standard procedure is to present a "report", and make it sound official and authorititive, and the dumb sheep will believe it. You don't need any actual evidence, and you can put whatever you want in the report.

      Another way is to proclaim it infront of a camera, with a group of people standing behind, to make it look like the statement has the full support of the population, and again you never need to show any actual proof, people will believe it.

      It's absurd of course to think that any country engaging in intelligence operations willfully write down all the names of the people and what they're doing, when, where, and how, in such a way that a foreign country can just collect the information and put it in the magical "report". It doesn't happen, the "report" is always a lie, manufactured to gather as much support and foment anger against whoever is on the agenda currently.

    20. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What reason do we have to believe that proof hasn't been found? Even just looking at it from the outside, without access to all the evidence, it is looking fairly likely that the president was one of the criminal conspirators involved in the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where the president has admitted in public that he knew it was happening (he claimed to have given his son orders), but then later said he didn't know about it. And that's with the information that you and I have, not what Mueller has. If you know he's guilty, what makes you think Mueller hasn't figured it out?

      We're already (as of August 2018) in a situation where, just from the what's been publically revealed so far, a typical high school debate member could probably persuade a court of the president's guilt. And that's without using what Mueller knows. No Cohen testimony. No McGahn testimony.

      Everything we have seen up to now, is consistent with a roll-up-from-the-bottom approach. Remember: assuming the president gets impeached and then faces criminal charges (which might not happen, but it's how we all want our prosecutors to strategize), he can only be criminally charged once for his part in the 2016 conspiracy. So they're going to hit him as hard as possible, with as much evidence as they can. There will be the early proof, but also later proofs (e.g. Cohen's testimony, when he flips right after Manafort's sentencing when Meuller asks "so, do you want 4 years or 20?").

      The president's son hasn't even been charged yet and he is totally red-handed! I think Trump will still be president when Jr is sentenced. So he's doomed to a situation where he has to pardon his own son just to keep him out of prison. And Mueller will allow that (there's nothing he can do about it) and you damn well know Jr is still also going to get the same offer as Cohen. Jr will be asked to testify against his dad, and will decline, putting his faith into the pardon. Watch it happen.

      Look at how many years it took to get John Gotti. Ever heard of Al Capone? Were those people genius masterminds too? Just because it takes a few years to set up the case, doesn't mean they don't have you. It doesn't mean you're clever, either. This isn't 4th-dimensional chess and you're seriously over-estimating the intelligence of the perpetrators. Go watch some "dumb criminals" videos if you want to get into a clearer frame of mind, to get some idea of what kind of people Mueller is having to deal with.

      They thought they'd never get caught. That's what it always comes down to, with these kind of people.

      The left should enjoy their tariffs while they can. Pence is going to put a stop to America's most-recent wave of destruction, on his day 1 in office.

    21. Re: Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What planet do you live on where you're questioning the sky color for ours?

    22. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC you were replying to here:

      Right now it's overcast but yes, typically the sky is blue. I'm in tornado alley so it's occasionally green. Sun up/down tends to be far more orange. Twilight is more of a purple or dark blue, and at night it's almost black.

      It's almost like even very simple concepts can result in more complex result upon applying some observation and scientific thinking. So far, two years in, Mueller does not have a smoking gun and it seems like people are being indicted on unrelated offenses or unprovable accusations as if they were trying to stretch out a failed investigation long enough for it to affect the midterm elections. Sounds kind of like domestic meddling.

      My prediction is that if the midterms result in a Democratic majority, the Mueller probe will end very quickly with the result being extremely minor, if anything, substance found. If the Republicans maintain majority then the probe continues with finding nothing until Trump leaves office.

      It's not about finding the truth, it's about harassing Trump and distracting him until he makes a mistake because he couldn't put his full attention on being President. Ask anybody who went through the Clinton impeachment what they think about that sort of tactic. They'll tell you it was a massive drain on the administration and a huge distraction from running the country. Now remember that Trump has about 4 of these mass distractions and his attention span is already pretty poor.

    23. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you imply that I don't have half a brain because I don't think Don colluded with Russia. The issue isn't how effective it was, currently the topic is "Is this collusion?". That's all hard evidence that he interacted with Russia on topics that are potentially collusion, none of which is effective enough to pull the trigger and get him.

      You may be right, those things may be collusion. Currently they are not, but it will ultimately have to be decided on eventually. The most likely result of all of it is that Donald Trump gets away with it and the current set of laws are revised to make his actions, going forward, no longer legal. However, due to ex post facto protections, you will not be able to punish Trump under the new law unless he recommits those same actions.

      TL;DR you're fundamentally incorrect about what is being decided because you very much want these things to be collusion but they're currently not legally defined that way.

    24. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 years in and there's no actual proof

      Yes, federal investigators are well-known for broadcasting their findings through a megaphone in Times Square.

    25. Re:Russians by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

      But I've seen the ads, so I know you're a paid liar. Let's just get that out up front so you can absorb this next part unfiltered:

      I see no evidence of the figure $50,000. That appears to have been pulled out of your ass just as clearly as you claim all the other real evidence was. Literally only you Russian trolls are harping over and over on this nonsensical figure. What do you think that tells me about your entire statement here, and in fact your entire chain of statements going back to well before the election?

      I'll give you a hint; It doesn't make you look very smart.

      Wow, I would not discuss "smart" if I were you. An extremely easy Google search reveals the $50,000 figure.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    26. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , it is looking fairly likely that the president was one of the criminal conspirators involved in the 2016 Trump Tower meeting,

      I didn't read the rest of your crap, but wanted to respond to this. Paying Russia to collude to rig an election is illegal, right?

      Well, that woman met with Fusion GPS before AND after she went to Trump tower. She also had a special hastened Visa approved by the Kerry state department. Fusion GPS was being paid by Hillary Clinton at that time.

      So If that meeting was illegal, the only person being paid was that Russian woman paid by Clinton, and expressed into the USA by John Kerry. So, yes of course there was Russian interference, and the money is fairly easy to follow, but it came from Clinton. Trump didn't pay her, Clinton did.

      So is it still illegal for someone to pay Russia to influence an election? We also have Clinton paying an MI6 agent from the UK to make up information about Trump, is that illegal as well?

      Muller investigation is a coverup for what Clinton did. Muller helped Clinton get the Uranium sale to Russia approved, he knows he is guilty as FUCK and going to jail when that gets looked at. So you are putting your hopes on criminals acting criminally to cover up their crimes. 26 FBI/DOJ people have been fired for acting illegally in the Trump investigation. Yep, 26 people have broken the law looking for Trump breaking the law and they still don't have anything.

    27. Re:Russians by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      You might have seen some headlines about 12 Russians being indicted for the hacks attributed to the group persona "Guiccifer 2.0."

      I mean, either you know that Guiccifer 2.0 is a name used by a Russian military intelligence (GRU) and are just lying, or else you don't even follow the subject and your claim to have a bunch of words worth of analysis is a lie. You're completely full of shit either way.

      It is true that they used some Romanian servers, and probably even visited Romania.

      12 indictments of Russians for hacking attributed to Guiccifer 2.0. If you want to see the evidence, talk them into traveling to the US and the evidence will be presented; during the trial.

    28. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guiccifer is a single guy in US custody in the US.
      Anything else you wrote is utter bullshit, and you probably know it.

      Story with a picture of him.

      Not sure why you think outright making shit up is convincing anyone. You are obviously an idiot if you fell for the crap you repeated.

    29. Re: Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citations or itâ(TM)s bullshit

    30. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the most important bit. It's only 1 year into the investigation, not 2. I can only assume "2 years" is an "alternative fact" (ie "lie that sounds good for me"). On average special prosecutor investigations take over 2.5 years.

    31. Re:Russians by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This doesn't hold water. Donald Trump's overall election numbers were extremely similar to Mitt Romney's. Essentially Don got those that religiously vote Republican. The ads clearly didn't encourage the right to come out in greater numbers, that's provable by looking at the results. Regardless, as a whole voter turnout was abysmal.

      And it would have been even more abysmal among conservatives if not for the Russian trolls. I haven't proven that, but you haven't disproven it either. Even Facebook tells us that's what happened, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Russians by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's from 2 years ago dude. There were more stories, also published on reuters.com, from May of this year with the information I was talking about.

      That's your line? I'm wrong because you missed 2 years worth of news?

    33. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They took a page out of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War": If your enemy is irritable, irritate them.

      The Russians divided the country and caused it to eat itself. They're still doing that.

    34. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >An extremely easy Google search reveals the $50,000 figure.

      Not really. Not in any meaningful way.

      But you can search for "Russia $29.97 hello kitty dildo Madeline Albright" and you'll get 11,500 hits.

    35. Re:Russians by mabu · · Score: 1

      You want to nit-pick over the legal definition of "collusion."

      As if it really makes a difference in the big picture?

      Yes, there are two different planets here.

      We all know that if 1/100th this much evidence for "collusion" was attributed to Hillary Clinton, her severed head would be on a pole in front of the white house.

  5. Podesta-style "send me your password" HACKING? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was this also Podesta-style "please send me your password" l33t haxors?

    And did they fall for it like the DNC did?

    1. Re: Podesta-style "send me your password" HACKING? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were handed accounts by the admins and welcomed into the sworn cult as fellow believers.

  6. Well, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've got a group dead-set on never EVER blaming you for immoral hacking... there's really no reason NOT to hack into their systems and gather everything you can from them.

    It's kind of what Russia does in everything these days - playing communities against eachother, betraying them, and then shifting the blame to each group to maximize chaos.

    Active combat doesn't topple nations anymore, so much as these tactics allow nations to be toppled with a bit of combat in the end.

  7. I prove you wrong by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Russians know better than to target people who only listen to their own self-interest.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:I prove you wrong by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In Putin's Russia, self-interest targets YOU!

  8. and microsfot hackers .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and microsfot hackers target YOU

  9. Re: DPRK-U.S. Ties Can Never Become victim of Poli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This proves it. The Russians reprogrammed Americans to VOTE for TRUMP. How sickening.

  10. What happened to /. ? by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    Seriously. It was never like this before. This was never a place where we had to debate objective facts, and not a place where reality was subject to political opinion. It is bots? Is it trolls? Is it that the demographics of the technology, engineering,and scientifically inclined have changed so much?

    1. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      TDS happened. Trump won the election nearly 3:2 and it just broke the minds of the left. It's why you'll frequently see trolls talking about how President Trump is going to jail, despite the complete lack of evidence of any crime committed by him and his team. It's why you so frequently see these stories about how the Russians are "hacking our election" and then the details turn out that there's no real evidence tying the hack to the Russians (other than either IPs, which mean nothing, or "Cyrillic-looking characters" which is just hilarious) and that the things being hacked aren't in any way related to the election.

      Unfortunately it's only going to get worse, especially after the left loses the midterm elections are nominating some of the least electable candidates I think I've ever seen. I wish I could tell you it'd just blow over, but it won't. The left has truly lost their mind and has become actively dangerous.

    2. Re:What happened to /. ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seriously. It was never like this before. This was never a place where we had to debate objective facts,

      You must be new here.

      and not a place where reality was subject to political opinion.

      You must be new here.

      It is bots? Is it trolls?

      You really must be new here.

      Slashdot has always had bots, and trolls, and trollbots, longer than I've had an account. And this is not even my first account, I lost the details of the first one, which had a five digit UID.

      Some people have always argued against the facts, and promoted their own alternative facts. Some people have always ignored the facts, and the way they torpedo their own arguments over different and less relevant facts. And so shall it ever be, because Slashdot lets just anyone post. People don't leave Slashdot until they get bored, and trolls are always trolling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same is asked about Evangelicals and other groups. I doubt it's bots. Maybe foreign trolls and/or Trump supporters. Who knows?! I remember Slashdot tilting libertarian but this is downright scary. Anytime someone brings up Trump/Russia/Steele Dossier, there seems to be an over-abundant of doubters defending Russia and/or deflecting. Trump is never at fault. All hail the orange messiah.

    4. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You don't remember?

      In 2011, CmdrTaco stepped down, and the owners announced the intent to monitize the site more. To...mixed reception.

      Then the site was sold to dice in 2012, leading to Beta, leading to F*ck Beta, and also a failed attempt for dice.com to leverage the Slasdot userbase to feed their dying online recruitment machine. It also leading to a widely perceived degredation in the quality of stories and editing, because, hey, we're here to leverage this property, not build it.

      In 2016, having failed to do much with the site, and not wanting to invest significantly further, the site was resold to BizX. And, once again, given the lack of commercial success of the advertising model for slashdot, there's been very little investment.

      Bottom line - Slashdot is a commercial failure, and a succession of owners have failed to turn any kind of profit on it. So current ownership tries to chase clicks and engagement on the cheap, without much pretense of trying to build a strong community, as they try to wring a few drops of profit out of the site as it slowly sinks below the waves.

      I deleted my account long ago. There's no "here" here anymore.

    5. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      TDS happened. Trump won the election nearly 3:2 and it just broke the minds of the left.

      I am truly astonished at how crazy the left has gotten. You can rack it up as trolling when the occasional AC posts crazy shit on Slashdot, but this is now mainstream. Celebrities, news sites, and papers have lost their damn mind. If anyone had dared to say things about Obama that the left says every day about Trump, the PC Police would have rounded them up and executed them in the town square ISIS style for their racism. I used to think it was sour grapes and fear, then political trolling. Now I think it's just plain insanity.

    6. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did used to be better. I've been a proud A/C here since the 90's, I think it used to be more tech and less politics and pop culture than it is now.

      In fact, this site was insanely helpful in my early IT career because the posters were so technical.

    7. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The same thing happened from 2000 to 2008.* If the DNC fails to rig an election, they and their supporters go into a total emotional breakdown until a new crop of voters comes in large enough (and raised on those rants) to vote the other way.

      Then 4 to 8 years of some DNC approved president and some of those new voters realize they didn't get what they were promised and either abandon politics or try voting for some other party. Sometimes that other party is Republican.

      *It was diminished slightly as the "anti-Shrub" fanatics split into two groups after September 2001. One doubled down on their attacks and accused Bush and Cheney of orchestrating the attacks of the 11th, the other concluded "someone has declared war on us, all of us, not just Republicans" and reacted accordingly.

    8. Re:What happened to /. ? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Seriously. It was never like this before.

      It's been like this the entire time you have been registered.

      This was never a place where we had to debate objective facts, and not a place where reality was subject to political opinion.

      Have you even read slashdot in the last two years?

      It is bots? Is it trolls?

      In this case it's Russian hackers.

      Is it that the demographics of the technology, engineering,and scientifically inclined have changed so much?

      No, the demographic of Slashdot has changed from people who embrace the findings of experts to those who question and flat out deny them.

      I'm rarely one to defend Microsoft what basis do you have to question Microsoft's findings? Microsoft's driver has always been money, so what's their angle in lying here?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:What happened to /. ? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      TDS happened. Trump won the election nearly 3:2 and it just broke the minds of the left.

      Are you claiming that Microsoft is a left leaning organization? It's their findings that are in question here.

      It's why you'll frequently see trolls talking about how President Trump is going to jail, despite the complete lack of evidence of any crime committed by him and his team.

      Oh, I guess you haven't been reading about the Paul Manafort trial. Then again, maybe you didn't read that the president is refusing to even be interviewed and is prepared to fight a lawful subpoena.

      TDS is a problem but it's a problem for those in the cult of personality who deny some very basic truths.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I guess you haven't been reading about the Paul Manafort trial. Then again, maybe you didn't read that the president is refusing to even be interviewed and is prepared to fight a lawful subpoena.

      The trial that's going so poorly for the prosecutors that they're already trying to blame the judge? The trial that the defense didn't need to present any evidence because the prosecution's case was so weak there was no need? That one? I've been following it.

      I'm also aware that the President has, on multiple times, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller, but so far, Mueller has declined to take him up on that offer.

      One of us is suffering from TDS and it isn't me.

    11. Re:What happened to /. ? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm rarely one to defend Microsoft what basis do you have to question Microsoft's findings? Microsoft's driver has always been money, so what's their angle in lying here?

      They can get gubmint contracts by agreeing to blame things on the big bad scary Russians. It's not even likely that they are outright lying so much as not engaging in proper diligence and verification. Basically, MS would find a Russian IP or a Cyrillic character in a log, say "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," and call it a day.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:What happened to /. ? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      We have arrived at a point where the consensual norm of what is reality is shifting. That view has been subject to upheavals and revolutions since the dawn of humanity and now it's happening again. The process creates great friction in individual and collective minds and this time around it visibly manifests as obsession with Trump and anti-Trump.

      I see it as a good thing though. It's part of the evolution of our collective views. We've apparently hit a wall with our previous collective view of reality and are now forming a new one. How it will serve us remain to be seen but there is no escaping it.

    13. Re:What happened to /. ? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      No if anything Microsoft will be seen by the left as possibly a right leaning organization because it creates "false equivalency" that Russians are targeting Republicans as well. "False" because they are merely targeting Republicans but have actually elected Trump, in the eyes of the left.

    14. Re: What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite all that, new slashdot is the closest to old slashdot that I've been able to find.

    15. Re:What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone had dared to say things about Obama that the left says every day about Trump, the PC Police would have rounded them up and executed them in the town square ISIS style for their racism.

      Aha, so that's what happened to Ted Nugent. I knew he was either dead or in jail, but I didn't know which.

    16. Re:What happened to /. ? by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      As charming as your condescension is, I have been a _daily_ reader since 2001. I just never wanted to post, hence the UID. Frankly, if you think /. was always like this, I think it's *you* who is new here.

    17. Re:What happened to /. ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if you think /. was always like this, I think it's *you* who is new here.

      It had more good posts, but it always had tons of garbage posts. Believing otherwise is pure nostalgia.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:What happened to /. ? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      How is the general public expected to judge facts related to international intelligence operations?

      There is only who you trust. It is a logic-free zone.

    19. Re:What happened to /. ? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'd rather look at goats than Russian bots.

    20. Re:What happened to /. ? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With the lack of a Smith–Mundt Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Mundt_Act the US is now getting more political cyber news.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re: What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manafort found guilty of 8 out of 18 charges. No, he wasn't found not guilty of the others, the jury couldn't agree.

      Then there's Cohen, guilty of tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

      Michael D. Cohen, President Trumpâ(TM)s former lawyer, said the president told him to pay off an adult film star and a former Playboy model, and that the payments were âoefor the principal purpose of influencing the election.â

    22. Re: What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that the garbage posts used to be a jumble of different irreverant stupidness, not the ultra politicised far right extremist goosestepping we had invade.

    23. Re: What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old Slashdot: science and computing articles often published before anyone else picked them up. New Slashdot: US centric politics, business strategy, "human interest" stories, any politicised story gets 5-10 times the comments of other articles, all from far right extremists.

    24. Re: What happened to /. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The jurors didn't understand what "reasonable doubt" was. That "case" is going to be overturned in an instant on appeal when it becomes clear the jurors didn't understand what they were voting on. The whole thing is still a farce.

    25. Re: What happened to /. ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the garbage posts used to be a jumble of different irreverant stupidness, not the ultra politicised far right extremist goosestepping we had invade.

      There's always been lots of that too, just not so very much. It has the feel of a coordinated attack now. Maybe the Russians were somehow convinced that this place was still important.

      On the other hand, some of the serial trolls we had back then are gone now. I'm not sure the volume of trolling discourse is any higher now than then. There's just more Nazis now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Sometimes a spade is just a spade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both conservative think tanks happen to be opponents of the Trump administration and critics of Putin.

    1. Re:Sometimes a spade is just a spade. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Oh I can't imagine why Russia might want to disrupt the operations of institutions that are critical of both Trump and Putin...nothing to see here, move along!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Sometimes a spade is just a spade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the real meaning of

      it says it wants to improve not worsen ties with Washington.

      which is

      it says it wants to worsen not improve ties with Washington.

      And of course that ties worsen us. Or us worsen ties? Bad ties. So choking.

  12. Ah by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure this overall narrative actually says what you want it to say.

    "Russians swayed dumb mouth breathing voters with crazy fake news"

    Okay ... we've had a pretty evenly split national electorate for quite awhile now ... so if Russia managed (through the most incredible small investment in political history, btw) to sway enough idiot stupid dumb (did I stick closely enough to the narrative there?) people to sway the presidential election ... then which side did those moronic people come from?

    (Spoiler / hint: not the side that won ... outside influence would need to peel votes from the other side ...)

    "How dare you steal our dumb voters" might not be the best slogan for ya.

    1. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 0

      Your argument assumes 100% turnout in past elections. In 2016 there was a relative increase in voter turnout in specific low education groups. Specifically there was an increase in high school and bellow educated turnout in rural communities.

      What the Russians were able to do is increase voter turnout among very very uneducated rural voters by spending little cash. The reason why they were able to do it with little cash is that they were able to run politically toxic ads without any blowback to the R party due to the arms length lack of association with the direct R party.

    2. Re:Ah by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your argument assumes 100% turnout in past elections. In 2016 there was a relative increase in voter turnout in specific low education groups. Specifically there was an increase in high school and bellow educated turnout in rural communities.

      So, parallel to the core Democrat low education inner city vote?

      What the Russians were able to do is increase voter turnout among very very uneducated rural voters by spending little cash.

      Interesting. So Jethro browsed these ads on his moonshine still, I guess? (I'm assuming not over broadband on his Mac)

      And you're going to win them over now by ... calling them stupid?

      The reason why they were able to do it with little cash is that they were able to run politically toxic ads without any blowback to the R party due to the arms length lack of association with the direct R party.

      Then I suggest you hire those Russians. They are the most amazing political operatives evah.

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

      BULLSEYE!!! The Democrats are freaking out they could lose the uninformed, retarded, and ignorant from their reliable voter base. OMG! The L337 Rooskie h4x0rz scared our useful idiots to vote their side instead of us scaring them to vote ours. I've said from the beginning that the whole idea of this so-called meddling changing any outcome was insulting to all of those of us who voted in 2016. What else could you expect from the party of nanny state we-know-whats-best-for-you?

      Personally, I think the deeper they go into full schizo mode over Trump, the more moderate people they will lose over the long run.

    4. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 1, Troll

      "So, parallel to the core Democrat low education inner city vote?"

      Yes low education Democratic voter participation was down proportionally partialy thanks to R voter suppression efforts.

      "And you're going to win them over now by ... calling them stupid?" 1) I don't care about winning over "them" 2) I didn't call them stupid, you just did. 3) Statistics don't lie, a dramatic increase in turnout in very low education rural communities was a core component of the Rs victory.

      "Then I suggest you hire those Russians"

      No one is accusing the Russians of being stupid, just them abusing the easily confused and manipulated.

    5. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wisconsin and Michigan were won by Trump by less than 30,000 votes combined. I don't think influencing 30,000 people costs that much in the age of Facebook.

    6. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I suggest you hire those Russians. They are the most amazing political operatives evah.

      How about the EU? Wouldn't have a problem if they were to... meddle?

    7. Re:Ah by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It's not that expensive if you know exactly what you need, but there is no indication that they had better data than the campaigns, or even that they specifically targeted any important state. You're trying to claim precision shitposting, which while not impossible, is quite unlikely.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Ah by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      then which side did those moronic people come from?

      It's not so much that their coming from a side, but more that it's using fear mongering to get them to vote when they wouldn't have otherwise. It's also not so much that they're moronic as it is how skeptical they are. If these people are being bombarded with ads on every page they visit on the internet with demonstrable FUD, it might even get non-moronic people to mis-prioritize what's really important. Garbage in, garbage out.

    9. Re:Ah by johanw · · Score: 0

      Next time the republicans can do it themselves with much more money. If even that little cash was effective against the billions of $ the democreats hadto their disposal...

    10. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 1

      "is quite unlikely." Here is where we disagree. I think that is exactly what they did and the analysis of their actions supports my hypothesis. They targeted low information R's with pro BLM media specifically designed to incite them. They targeted them with various adds literally associating Clinton with the devil. They actively supported the pizzagate conspiracy theory. These are all verifiable individual actions. They targeted low information R's to turn out their vote. The locations that those R's just happen to be in are the battle ground states.

    11. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, no. Take Wisconsin. Obama even in the 2008 election won Wisconsin by about 414,818 votes according to wikipedia so for Trump to win by 30k that means he swung like 444,818 democrat votes to himself... roughly speaking.

    12. Re:Ah by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      According to the examples given by WaPo, the only ads targeted as specifically as a state were in states that weren't even close, like Texas, Missouri, and New York. They weren't even effective posts, and the degree of targeting that public information seems to show is not granular enough to have been the hyperefficient campaign you morons keep babbling about.

      Also, if you are arguing that the "armwrestling with Satan" post is something to be concerned about, you are too damn gullible to continue this conversation. It persuaded zero people.

      Finally, you claimed that they got the R's to increase voter turnout, but there isn't a big increase for them.

      Look, Trump should be shot into the sun, but the Russia angle is stupid scaremongering that is a combination of things that have always happened with rival powers, mountains made out of molehills, covering for the failure of the oligarchs to properly manufacture our consent, and inherent properties of the internet.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 1

      1) First paragraph continues to be a straw-man, as the post you responded to indicates that states were not the primary target, low information R's were

      2) You underestimate how much low thought people are associated with republicanism http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

      3) relative and you are wrong. http://www.electproject.org/ho...

      As an easy example/proxy from 2012-2016 voter turnout increased by roughly 2% or total electorate, and 4% in actual voters, in Alabama, Alaska Arkansas, and Arizona.

      4) Scaremongering? The CIA, FBI,NSA reporting meddling within the US. With the governments of the UK, Spain, Italy Georgia, Poland, France ALL reporting and documenting a concerted effort to influence their elections. Yeah sure lol. "scaremongering lol"

    14. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 1
      Your implication that Democrats had more money than the Rs is nonsense.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

      https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...

      "Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties’ Spending" D's spent about $1.5 billion R's spent about $1 billion Koch's spent and additional about $.9 billion. Republicans as always spent more particularly when you consider down ballot races. But in general yes. R's are far better at the "politics" part. Too bad they suck as governing.

    15. Re:Ah by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      1. No, you are the one making a strawman, because the thread of discussion was on whether or not they influenced the results in Wisconsin and Michigan.

      2. I didn't say conservatives aren't that stupid. I said that nobody was [b]persuaded[/b] by those posts. The relevant persuasions would be non-voter to Trump and Clinton to non-voter. The people that responded and shared this were the most core Trump voters and only the most core Trump voters, so this didn't change anybody's mind.

      3. Not sure what your point is. The data puts 2016 VEP turnout between the 2008 and 2012, and voter turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan was roughly the same. If you have a point, maybe try citing whatever data it is you think is relevant.

      4. If the public is getting information from intel agencies, it's almost certainly propaganda. Now, in this case, Russians are probably actually trying to hack everything in these countries' politics. Russians are also trying to hack everything connected to the internet, and the Chinese and other major powers are doing the same. Probably a couple of minor powers too, as well as random crime organizations and independent hackers. The point is not whether or not Russian hackers exist and seek certain targets, but that the level of sophistication and frequency is not outside of what has been normal for the entire history of the internet. If the normal levels bother you, than you should be much more concerned about the US and plenty of other countries before Russia even gets a mention.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you call "an office of more than 30 skilled individuals working full-time for more than two years" "the most incredible small investment in political history", you - well, I assume you don't know much political history.

      Of course the Russians didn't create, or sway, 50 million American voters. Trump was so good at playing the media, he did a lot of the work himself. Give the man credit, because he'll take it anyway. And Clinton was a weak opponent.

      But they didn't need to sway 50 million. They didn't even need to sway 5 million. Maybe 1 million, targeted specifically at Clinton's "firewall" states in the midwest, was enough to swing it. The actual margin of victory was much lower than that. Frankly, the only reason for anyone to doubt that the Russians swung the election is if they're heavily invested in denying that they might have been influenced by propaganda, because everyone likes to imagine they're the one person in the world who's immune.

    17. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left continues to believe that any educated person would vote for Trump. My dad, a PhD in Chemistry, my cousin, a particle physicist (post doc), and me, a BSEE/BSCS, all voted for Trump; amongst almost every other single family member. We're scattered from California to Florida and yet all my aunts, uncles, and cousins voted Trump. Sure we don't agree with every one of his platforms. But being the scientifically minded people that we are weighed the options and went screaming from the Hillary camp. Trump was the better of the two candidates in our eyes.

      The problem is that the political left simply can't believe their horrid candidate didn't win the appeal of voters everywhere and so they desperately search for something that must have made Americans vote out their candidate. Newsflash: I don't know anyone who liked Hillary. Even my Democrat friends were like "I'll throw my vote away with Jill Stein rather than vote for Hillary."

      There you have one small datapoint from a typical American.

    18. Re:Ah by plague911 · · Score: 1

      1.) wtf man. Not once in the whole thread is Wisconsin or Michigan even mentioned ctrl f yields two previous "Wisconsin"s both from you.

      2) You are using a very strict term for persuaded. Yes I don't presume that a picture of Hillary switched from wearing an "I'm with her" shirt to donning a bright orange hate. But you are ignoring the million shades of grey in-between. It is very likely that precise shit posting can remind someone to turn out to vote, donate the extra $100 rant an additional time. Done with some intelligence and expertise , which the Russians have in spades, can have a real impact.

      3)The source was cited. Here is another one.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections

      Direct quoote "“You saw turnout spike in more rural counties,” Alexander said. “If you take a look at a lot of the larger cities you did see depressed turnout there."

      Having been involved at various positions within infosec I am very well aware of the multitude of threats out there. The Russians are and have been a VERY active,sophisticated and ham-handed player. With all the intelligence agencies cited above stating as much.

    19. Re:Ah by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      1.Parent of my fist post

      Wisconsin and Michigan were won by Trump by less than 30,000 votes combined. I don't think influencing 30,000 people costs that much in the age of Facebook.

      2. No, I specifically pointed out the only two kinds of voters that would matter. Votes that Trump gained and votes that Clinton lost. The ads were so shitty that the only people that reacted to it weren't on the fence, they couldn't even see the fence.

      3. Sorry, my brain skipped over you posting states that didn't matter at all in a presidential election. Now you're citing that voter turnout was greater than the 2012 election, while ignoring that it was less than the 2008 election. You've got to have a few more data points to be meaningful, and an election without an incumbent is going to tend to be more similar. The differences

      4.I didn't say that they weren't active. I'm saying that they are the same kind of threat that they've always been. The US intelligence agencies are themselves a bigger threat to the American people and the world at large. We're very active, we're far more sophisticated, and we're definitely more ham-handed.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    20. Re: Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a typical American"

      Yeah you're all typical Americans or typical Canadians aren't you, Dmitri? I suppose you fucked up your first sentence on purpose just to prove how typical an American you are?

    21. Re: Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paranoia of the left is hillarious. Isn't it komrad?

      Thanks for proving my point far better than I could.

    22. Re:Ah by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Education has never been 100% vaccination against stupid. Just look at Nobel prize winners...then extrapolate down to your dad.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re: Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "comrade", tovarishch.

  13. Thanks Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along with Russians targeting these organizations you can add MI6, Mossad, AISI, CNCIS, CIA, and a whole bunch of officially non existent organizations. Its what Nations Intelligence agencies do. But thanks Microsoft for telling us nothing has changed since the 40s.

  14. Check your Fail2Ban logs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doof bags -- Better yet, check your honeypot fail2ban logs and see where all the hacks are really coming from. hmmmm...

    answer: rhymes with hamsterdan and choweze ..

  15. It wuz de roosjun haxx0rz done haxx de /.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or could it be... the editors are idiots?

    Anyone talking about "hackers" certainly is in my book. Yes, that includes most of the "computer security" imperial textile industry, plenty of politicians, lawmakers, assorted journos, and other crud. Which is well-known, since the world is a large place and people who actually know their stuff are few and far between. Even so. It used to be /. wasn't full of itiots. But these guys? The current crop of editors? They're certainly not better than the last crop.

  16. Putin is not partisan by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unlike that of the USSR, who only supported foreign Leftists, Putin's Russia is non-partisan, looking for support and influence wherever they can find it. In Germany, for example, thay happen to be particularly successful among the Left (no doubt with the aid of the old Stasi files). In France they supported the supposed rightists.

    Western societies aren't immune to corruption — if the price is right — and for years Putin could afford bribes on the scale of millions.

    Likewise, their targeting computers of all political parties is not at all surprising. That the GOP runs a tighter ship is not surprising either...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Putin is not partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always viewed Russian goals as lowering national unity and causing the country to spend more time worrying about domestic issues rather than foreign ones.

    2. Re:Putin is not partisan by fazig · · Score: 1

      Agreed, Putin is on his own side. I think it was his own statements that his ties to certain political parties are or a pragmatic nature.
      If you look at the current situation in Germany though, Putin is successful with everyone that is 'far' on the spectrum. Don't forget that the article you linked also mentions the AfD. Their policies differ in many key aspects of economic and social issues, but what unites them is their disdain of the US, the EU, and Israel.
      The Centrists (CDU and FDP leaning to the right) as well as the Green party (leaning to the left) aren't that fond of Putin right now. The SPD (centre left) seems to be fractured on the issue.

    3. Re:Putin is not partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what you linked, it was that the GOP runs a tighter ship, it is that Russia didn't push as aggressively or persistently against the GOP as they did the Democrats, that is literally the second paragraph in the link.

      And I can understand that entirely, they hated Clinton (As do I but beside the point), and with Trump running for Russia, they didn't need to push too hard into the GOP as they were effectively Allies so long as Trump was their nominee.

      They didn't hack in a technical sense with the DNC so much as they phished for credentials and with the GOP, they only ever tried to a single email address according to your article.

      So wasn't a case of the GOP running a tighter ship so much as it was that Russia honestly didn't bother trying beyond a single half-assed attempt to get into them because they didn't need to with them effectively already being allies at that point with a common foe.

    4. Re:Putin is not partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this. because Russia's fondest dream is to be a superpower on the scale of the USA and they realized they're never going to equal the USA or even China in terms of raw military and economic power, so their method is to try to destabilize others.

    5. Re:Putin is not partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only fair. The US spent most of the Cold War trying to destabilise and sabotage the USSR - with a lot of success, it turns out. Putin is just returning the favour.

  17. embrace, extend, extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since when is it ok for microsoft to just take over websites? is is because this time its with the Russians?

    can this be considered microsoft embracing or extending based on the idea that American law enforcement has done the exact same thing? either "to protect the children" or because of the "Russians"

    what happens when microsoft enters phase 3 and starts shutting down anyone who doesn't agree with their way once the idea of microsoft taking over sites has been normalized?

    The real question is why is microsoft doing this and not the relevant authorities?

  18. Lots of indicators. Know your favorite band by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't seen yet how Microsoft linked this particular incident, but in general there are many ways. Each group has their own favored tools, techniques, and overall style. When you do it for a living, you get to know them. All combined, it's like a pop radio DJ identifying a new Justin Bieber song, the DJ knows Bieber's sound.

    Some groups specialize in certain malware. They have one or two members who are good at actually writing the malware etc. They keep making improvements or variations on the same malware. Other members distribute the malware, repeatedly using the same methods, targeting the same type of targets. They host the malware or other web resources in the same places that worked well last time. Sometimes they talk about things on hacker forums. If you've been a member of such a forum for a few years, most people there assume you're okay - not a cop.

    You may recall a few years ago someone called "Stonetewr" was asking on Reddit about how to delete evidence from a server for "a very VIP". Paul Combetta, who worked on Clinton's server, used the email address stonetear@gmail.com and used the name Stonetear on Etsy. Knowing that Stonetear wanted to wipe a server for "a very VIP" a day or two before someone at Combetta's company wiped Hillary's server, and knowing that Combetta goes by Stonetear, it's not hard to figure out that Combetta was working on wiping Hillary's server. No IP tracing required, and it doesn't matter how many proxies and VPNs he used.

    On Slashdot, if a new account popped up called JelloLover and they uses ten times as many commas as grammar would indicate, while randomly capitalizing a few words for no reason and saying the things that Jellomizer says, some of us would recognize that's probably Jellomizer's new account. It's similar with the crackers - you get to know them.

    Before the US government publicly accuses the Russian government of a specific attack, we can expect the NSA and others would make use of their rather significant data collection capabilities to make some even firmer connections. That's not necessary in order in order for someone who follows the Russian hackers every day to be able to recognize them, though.

    Someone might say "it could be a false flag! Someone could impersonate the FSB, just like someone could impersonate Jellomizer or MDSolar!" Yeah, someone COULD post something silly about solar electric, breathlessly pitching whatever MDSolar's company is selling this month. Which would make it look like - MDSolar is spamming his products again? We'd think it was MDSolar because the impersonator was acting like MDSolar, which would fool us into thinking that MDSolar acts like MDSolar. The job of the FSB is to do cyberattacks on Russia's rivals. If someone were being tricky and trying to make a hack look like the work of the FSB, they'd be making it look like FSB is doing their job. I guess maybe the NSA wants Alexander Bortnikov to get a raise?

    1. Re:Lots of indicators. Know your favorite band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If someone were being tricky and trying to make a hack look like the work of the FSB, they'd be making it look like FSB is doing their job. I guess maybe the NSA wants Alexander Bortnikov to get a raise?"

      thats a very disingenuous comment, the NSA wants the same thing that the FSB wants, which is enough information to control the people who pull the levers. Just because they are an american agency does not mean that they are going to try and protect "american democracy", they are just trying to protect themselves and quite possibly from a democracy that doesn't really want them.

      Your arguments about false flag operations is based off of the assumption that you know exactly what these agencies and corporations want with 100% accuracy in your information. Unfortunately that is where your argument falls apart as your assumption can be declared categorically false. The best chess players plan their moves out several moves in advance as well as hold their strategy cards close to their hands so it is impossible to accurately say what the NSA or Microsoft is aiming for but there are clearly several reasons for either of them to attempt a false flag op. Money being the first thought that comes to mind, bigger budgets for the NSA and more govt contracts for microsoft because of all that Russian hacking. Maybe it was for the information on the server, maybe microsoft is normalizing their acting as a law enforcement agency or their ability to take down websites so that when they start going after competitors no one bats an eye. The real question is: where is the evidence? and does it hold up to a third party analysis?

      This is what life is like in the post-truth world.

    2. Re:Lots of indicators. Know your favorite band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each group has their own favored tools, techniques, and overall style. When you do it for a living, you get to know them. All combined, it's like a pop radio DJ identifying a new Justin Bieber song, the DJ knows Bieber's sound.

      That makes sense, but from what I've read about phishing/spearphishing (which is what most of these political attacks appear to be) you basically use off-the-shelf tools to scrape a legit site and build a fake site and send out a bunch of email. There's nothing particularly skillful, beyond making the fake site look real which can be mostly automated. Probably the hardest part is getting a list of email targets.

      Beyond that, the source IPs of these attacks can be spoofed or hidden behind VPNs or botnets.

      So I assume there are forum posts of known government-backed Russian hackers talking about phishing or something similar?

    3. Re:Lots of indicators. Know your favorite band by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring a few important factors. Code like Stuxnet is probably going to have lots of hints to the identity, but there is going to be considerably less data on low-level phishing, and greater chance of using off-the-shelf tools. That takes the ability to accurately ID from levels similar to someone posting in a very distinct style to an AC who posts "FROSTY PISS."

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Lots of indicators. Know your favorite band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low level phishing is just the entry point into a network. You aren't necessarily going to identify an attacker from that. But when you see that activity you can certainly put it in a honey pot and get the second level part of the attack. From that you can probably compare it to the tools, techniques, and procedures of known attackers.

      However, in this case, the attackers used multiple Microsoft services and products when setting up 4 of the 6 domains. My guess is that Microsoft was able to identify the attackers based on the collective information used when setting up the domains and websites.

  19. Re:You are not a victim by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    You are not the victim, you are the aggressor.

    You are not my victim. You are full of bull $#1#.

    I agree with everything you said up until that. Because you're tarring the entire population of the United States for what our ruling class has done, and what many of us have fought for our entire lives.

    That kind of sloppy thinking - blaming the victims, lumping them with their victimizers, and then attacking the group - is what leads to wars, and to the very situations that empower those rulers to create and operate those agencies and perform those operations of which you rightly complain.

    It's clear that you're not in the U.S. So let me clue you in to something. If you're getting your idea of what's going on here from the mainstream media - even your own - you have NO IDEA what's really going on here. The mainstream media is a monolith propaganda organization for one of the two ruling factions, and this became obvious to everybody who didn't already know it during the last presidential election cycle. See Wikileaks. (And guess why they're now trying to claim that Wikileaks was part of a Russian conspracy.)

    The bulk of the U.S. ruled population, in its many varied groups, has been becoming fed up with both halves of the established ruling class and the bureaucracy and "intelligence" agencies (what is now being called the "deep state"). If you think they're oppressing you, what do you think they're doing to us? (They just need their cattle happy and confused enough to not stampede and be milked until slaughter, to keep them in resources.)

    That was a big driver behind Trump's out-of-apparently-nowhere election - against the quintessential instance of a corrupt establishment's chieftain. It was the biggest - for many of us the only - pry-bar we could apply.

    What do you expect us to do? Levitate the Pentagon? Attack the spooks with guns and butter?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  20. Deplorable Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Deplorable manages to create logic that allows said Deplorable, to dismiss Russian hacking and collusion. For the billionth time.

    And you people loudly call yourselves patriots. The Republicans have sold their souls to the Devil for 40 pieces of silver. Let's see, there was a historical figure who did this too... the name Judas comes to mind... Whatever happened to Judas?

  21. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Conservative Think-Tanks'
    Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

  22. Re:You are not a victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just the way we speak of it, just like many Americans and all of your propaganda outlets say "China this" or "Russia that". We all understand the blame is with the government. There is a difference however, in that you Americans have, on the whole, a stronger dislike, fear and hatred of foreigners and foreign countries, than other people in the world have.

  23. Ruin him by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Putin needs to be banned from all financial markets. His accounts emptied. His assets seized and sold off. Cyrus needs to be crushed, and their banks ended.

  24. exactly. by MJhasHIV · · Score: 1

    Yup, sounds aboot right.

  25. All smoke screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GIANT smoke screen to divert attention away from the exploitation of the Citizens United decision. The real evil is equating money to free speech. I look at my bills and all they say is "In God We Trust"

  26. This is stupid by brainchill · · Score: 1

    So here's the thing, I will believe that this was a real problem or caused any change in the vote if you can find me a single conservative that ever, in a million years, even considered voting for Hillary Clinton. Were their propaganda campaigns? Sure ... Did they sway voters that were rabid about Hilary to vote for Trump or vice versa, not a chance. They didn't even sway me, in the middle from voting for a third party candidate, which was my intention all along. The crowds voting for these people are so ideologically opposed to one another's general philosophy, that there was no chance that this changed the outcome of our election.

    1. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turnout.

      "Right Troll and Left Troll are the meat of the agency’s trolling campaign. Right Trolls behave like “bread-and-butter MAGA Americans, only all they do is talk about politics all day long,” Linvill said. Left Trolls often adopt the personae of Black Lives Matter activists, typically expressing support for Bernie Sanders and derision for Hillary Clinton, along with “clearly trying to divide the Democratic Party and lower voter turnout.”"

      Link

  27. Take the money out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you won't get so many scammers, so much corruption, so much wastage. Ugh.

  28. Re:You are not a victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US "public discourse" indeed uses country names as trigger for hatred. e.g. : Iran. Venezuela.
    You might construct sentences with that. "Iran! Iran. Venezuela, Iraq. Iraq Russia China. China North Korea China. China Russia."

    They are far from being the only country in the world where that happens, though. In North Korea they have the same view of Japan as they had 100 years ago.

  29. Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conservative think tank? That's funny

    As far as the Russians go, when have they ever been friends of the US

  30. Re:Scary Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait, wait - you're saying that Russian griefers posting lies on twitter and facebook is the exact same thing as the Russian government controlling the US government?

    Wow. You're really bought the whole package, haven't you!

    Personally I voted for the nice Jewish Doctor Lady, who, having demonstrated intelligence equivalent to a brain damaged cocker spaniel, was obviously the most intelligent candidate running.

  31. It also sends the info somewhere by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > the attackers used multiple Microsoft services and products when setting up 4 of the 6 domains. My guess is that Microsoft was able to identify the attackers based on the collective information used when setting up the domains and websites.

    That, and if the site is on Microsoft infrastructure, MS can see that the submit.asp script sends the logins to bortnikov@fsb.gov.ru or some GRU endpoint. That's a pretty good hint too. :)

    Not only how they were set up, using which accounts, from where, but also how the sites operated. Also who they targeted, etc. Those think tanks aren't the top conservative think tanks. If anyone else attacked those two before, it's probably the same people. Other attackers would more likely go after the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute ...

  32. Domestic interference has been worse... by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 0

    You don't need to worry about Russian's interfering with the mid-term elections, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram are all doing that domestically themselves by continuing to censor Republican candidates.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  33. It's nice to know ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Microsoft is watching over our every keystroke so intently.

    The day will come when you screw up a web site password and a little voice will come over your PC speaker, "That's your luggage combination."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  34. Influence vs Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the range of things the Russians are said to have done, and theories as to why, has anyone read a good analysis of this possibility: The Russian effort was probing the American electorate, to make our political reaction to events and trends more predictable. As an effort to influence, it seemed amateurish and ineffective. As a research effort, rather credible.

  35. concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can someone actually give me concrete proof that anything russia does actually does in fact affect america? i don't care about email hacks, i mean actual proof that something they do makes america say "oh i want to vote xyz"

  36. Re: DPRK-U.S. Ties Can Never Become victim of Poli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It couldn't be the giant tax bill I got for not having obummercare (which I can't afford) and all of the other horrible things that bastard did in office. Nope. It couldn't possibly be that the democrats hurt millions of middle class Americans. Nope. It must be the Russians.

  37. Looks like nobody did the obvious microsoft? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Microsoft support calling because they have detected a problem with your computer is legendary for criminals. So if Microsoft called me up at a conservative think (or any place else) tank, I'd be like - sure you are... I'm sure you work for Microsoft. Click.

    Besides, I thought the Russians were somehow against the Democrats, even though they're in bed together.