She fucked up hard, and is probably going to see a lot of jail time, but treason is very fucking specific, and the burden is pretty high. It was controversial to convict the Rosenbergs of treason, and they leaked nuclear secrets to the Russians. She leaked data that every sysadmin already knew, and there isn't even a foreign adversary that even gets any theoretical benefit from this.
The only equivalence is putting them both in jail. Both certainly deserve to be in jail for the remainder of their lives, so squabbling over the worse offender is pointless.
I'm not convinced that he's smart. What I suspect is that, as elections across the globe continue to support, the "smart" people are just ridiculously out of touch, particularly in regards to the changing dynamics that the internet brings. The "smart" people have thus played themselves because they assume that everyone thinks just like them.
I want Trump to be executed for war crimes, but I also know that anything remotely valuable on the internet is being constantly attacked by every major military force in the world, a few crime syndicates, and probably some bored manchild living in their parent's basement. The things to be concerned about are success and sophistication, and the main response to either should be on being less goddamned stupid about our processes. Just the logistical failures of the primaries alone is a bigger concern as far as our democracy is concerned.
What? One of Trump's biggest advantages was that he was to the left of Clinton on TPP. Hell, Clinton wouldn't be considered left at all outside of the post-Reagan US.
Google using a bit.ly link is what makes it "super-obvious." It doesn't take all that much sophistication to copy the style of a page. But, the assessment that there is "moderate confidence" that the Podesta leaks were part of a widespread, relatively low-level phishing attempt by the Russian state is something I can actually buy. The ridiculous hyperbole from far less technical sources was a major fuel for my skepticism. A more realistic assessment is more convincing, but not nearly as scary as they make it out to be (other than the technical incompetence of those around very important people).
Thank you for actually posting an adult explanation that a slashdotter can stomach.
Who says that they wanted Trump in office? Maybe they wanted a weakened Clinton (who pissed off a lot of the intel community), and underestimated how bad of a campaign she was running.
Here's what we should do about others doing it to us: Hire competent IT instead of awarding contracts to incompetent cronies, and brief important people on basic email security practices, including treating anything sent via email as if it were a public record.
The 17 agencies isn't Five Eyes, it's Homeland Security. There weren't 17 independent investigations. James Clapper said something, and that counts as 17 agencies because he's technically over all of them. Did you not READ even the outline of the Patriot Act?
So, what did the DEA add to the conversation? Coast Guard Intel? Department of Energy? Did nobody pay attention to the Patriot Act? We have the conclusion of "17 agencies" because James Clapper made a statement. You know, that guy that blatantly lied to congress about the NSA.
I'm not saying that they are equally bad in every single way. I'm saying that without solid evidence, neither should be trusted much more than a Magic 8-ball.
But I've seen no evidence of a complex attack. We've only seen super-obvious phishing, and nothing that couldn't be covered by using Russian malware over TOR.
I'm sick of naive idiots thinking that US media is above the kind of things that we routinely and accurately suspect from Russia. You have to be a total moron to intrinsically trust them without adequate evidence after they lied us into Iraq. Brian Williams practically jizzed his pants when talking about bombing Syria.
Given the low evidentiary standards used for blame attribution in these kinds of things, all that was needed to flag Russia is using a Russian based TOR exit node. IIRC, a large number of IPs associated with "Russian hackers" were just TOR exit nodes. The other evidence is activity times and Cyrillic characters and usernames. All stuff accessible to a moderately competent 4channer.
Slashdot Mirror
She fucked up hard, and is probably going to see a lot of jail time, but treason is very fucking specific, and the burden is pretty high. It was controversial to convict the Rosenbergs of treason, and they leaked nuclear secrets to the Russians. She leaked data that every sysadmin already knew, and there isn't even a foreign adversary that even gets any theoretical benefit from this.
The only equivalence is putting them both in jail. Both certainly deserve to be in jail for the remainder of their lives, so squabbling over the worse offender is pointless.
That's the stated rationale, but I suspect that inkjet counterfeiters are not a serious problem.
She might get some practice in prison.
Part of it is that the NSA collects so much data that they have to lower their standards to get enough manpower to handle all of it.
Perhaps she wasn't in a technical role, which would explain layers upon layers of horribad opSec.
I'm not convinced that he's smart. What I suspect is that, as elections across the globe continue to support, the "smart" people are just ridiculously out of touch, particularly in regards to the changing dynamics that the internet brings. The "smart" people have thus played themselves because they assume that everyone thinks just like them.
I want Trump to be executed for war crimes, but I also know that anything remotely valuable on the internet is being constantly attacked by every major military force in the world, a few crime syndicates, and probably some bored manchild living in their parent's basement. The things to be concerned about are success and sophistication, and the main response to either should be on being less goddamned stupid about our processes. Just the logistical failures of the primaries alone is a bigger concern as far as our democracy is concerned.
So, you want him to ACTUALLY attack a nuclear power in a direct military strike?
Fucking hang him for war crimes, and then we don't have to go through any of this mess. It's an open and shut case.
What? One of Trump's biggest advantages was that he was to the left of Clinton on TPP. Hell, Clinton wouldn't be considered left at all outside of the post-Reagan US.
When it reaches 18 cents/share, then it's only worth $130 million, which would be a lot more doable.
Yeah, but it'd much quicker to just send him to Nuremberg for his role in war crimes. Any senator that pushes for that will have my support.
Google using a bit.ly link is what makes it "super-obvious." It doesn't take all that much sophistication to copy the style of a page. But, the assessment that there is "moderate confidence" that the Podesta leaks were part of a widespread, relatively low-level phishing attempt by the Russian state is something I can actually buy. The ridiculous hyperbole from far less technical sources was a major fuel for my skepticism. A more realistic assessment is more convincing, but not nearly as scary as they make it out to be (other than the technical incompetence of those around very important people).
Thank you for actually posting an adult explanation that a slashdotter can stomach.
Look, I"m all for having him executed for war crimes. I'm just focusing on the things for which there is already enough evidence.
Your projection is hilarious.
Who says that they wanted Trump in office? Maybe they wanted a weakened Clinton (who pissed off a lot of the intel community), and underestimated how bad of a campaign she was running.
Here's what we should do about others doing it to us: Hire competent IT instead of awarding contracts to incompetent cronies, and brief important people on basic email security practices, including treating anything sent via email as if it were a public record.
I do trust real news, just not WaPo because WaPo is garbage. The Intercept, for example, hires actual journalists.
The 17 agencies isn't Five Eyes, it's Homeland Security. There weren't 17 independent investigations. James Clapper said something, and that counts as 17 agencies because he's technically over all of them. Did you not READ even the outline of the Patriot Act?
So, what did the DEA add to the conversation? Coast Guard Intel? Department of Energy? Did nobody pay attention to the Patriot Act? We have the conclusion of "17 agencies" because James Clapper made a statement. You know, that guy that blatantly lied to congress about the NSA.
I'm not saying that they are equally bad in every single way. I'm saying that without solid evidence, neither should be trusted much more than a Magic 8-ball.
But I've seen no evidence of a complex attack. We've only seen super-obvious phishing, and nothing that couldn't be covered by using Russian malware over TOR.
I'm sick of naive idiots thinking that US media is above the kind of things that we routinely and accurately suspect from Russia. You have to be a total moron to intrinsically trust them without adequate evidence after they lied us into Iraq. Brian Williams practically jizzed his pants when talking about bombing Syria.
Given the low evidentiary standards used for blame attribution in these kinds of things, all that was needed to flag Russia is using a Russian based TOR exit node. IIRC, a large number of IPs associated with "Russian hackers" were just TOR exit nodes. The other evidence is activity times and Cyrillic characters and usernames. All stuff accessible to a moderately competent 4channer.