Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#41

Post by heurist » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #31

cglouch wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting th…

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

Maybe they should say "socially engineered" the election.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#42

Post by icehawk219 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #31

cglouch wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting th…

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

Misuse of the word "hacking" has been a plague for a while now. Setting your alarm clock is now a "life hack". Not stuffing your face is a "health/wellness hack". Balancing your checkbook is a "personal finance hack".

In this case I don't blame the media entirely because the word has been used like this for years. Is it really any surprise that altering the outcomes of an election is now "election hacking"?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#43

Post by concinds » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #33

concinds wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

> The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has. They've been at this forever. It's just that the truth is leaking through alternative and social media so a lot more people aren't as fooled anymore.

True, but there is currently no strong competitor to fill the NYT's market. "Alternative and social media" are good for populists on both sides of the aisle, but they do not compete with the NYT. A set of strong, trustworthy centrist media outlets is desperately needed, as it's important to the political stability of a country. Without that, you end up with people joining the fringes, on both sides, and a big fat problem on your hands 10-15 years down the line at the polling booth.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#44

Post by dmix » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #39

concinds wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

Here you go[0]... That's not "50% believe." 35% thinking "Probably true" sounds to me like they believe it's possible. A nearly equal percent think it's "Probably not true" (32%) [0] http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg

So around 52% of Democrats bought into the mischaracterization at some level, lovely. Not to mention a big chunk of Republicans.

I'm annoyed the administration again has decided on wait at least 3 more weeks before releasing a new proof before announcing punishment. Not to mention what will amount to about two months of public evidence free speculation happening in the press (aka strictly citing anonymous Intel officers). And I highly doubt they will ever be able to prove Wikileaks source was Russia which was the only primary direct influence on the elections. Even then it

It's just as likely multiple people had access to the servers. Proving Russia hacked it does not disprove others did. Digital forensics on the boxes can reveal a lot but not everything if they were good.

There has been word the RNC was hacked by Russia but the data was older and of less value. Trump famously doesn't use email nor did they hack any of Trumps 3 campaign managers (as fair as we know from anonymous IC leaks). So it may not even have been a comparable leak even if they (or wikileaks activists) chose to release it. Especially considering how Trump was very hostile to RNC, he would have easily dismissed it as Washington elites doing what he said they do. It might have even helped his 'drain the swamp' marketing angle.

Within this greater context the story of run of the mill nation state hacking of government officials is a relatively minor concern, given NSA does the same, but still a real concern. But the idea that this was a partisan hack of 'elections' and that Russians held back damning data on Trump is on very weak ground.

And let's be honest the Podesta Wikileaks dump was totally underwhelming given the clever hype by Assange.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#45

Post by pavlov » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #31

cglouch wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting th…

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

The same YouGov poll shows that 46% of Trump voters believe the inane "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory is true:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am...

That is a scary example of what we can look forward to. Now that people don't believe in "mainstream" journalism, they'll latch on to wild speculations with no actual research or journalistic ethics. That is net loss for the truth, no matter how much one dislikes the New York Times and other old media.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#46

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #35

finid wrote: post #19

So 35 Russian diplomats have been given 72 hours to leave the country, and 2 of their properties will be closed - one in DC and the other in San Francisco. Well, if history is any guide, expect Russia to return the favor. Question is, how long will they wait before announcing that 35 American diplomats have 72 hours to leave Russia?

Why would americans bother with such big diplomatic presence in Russia to begin with?

They are the 2nd most powerful military in the world by some accounts and have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, I think that justifies 35 full time employees. Do you have something better for them to do?

http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-i...

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#47

Post by mathetic » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #6

vkazanov wrote: post #3

So, Clinton was corrupted, and somebody noticed it, and it is Russians who are to blame? Huh.

I think that's missing the point. Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself. The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.

I don't like Russia as much as the next guy, but the US doesn't really have moral high ground here.

The repeating argument in NSA revelations was that intelligence agencies are here to gather intelligence outside the country and on their own citizens. Well then it follows, outside the country it would be pretty weird if Russia spied on US citizens, but not political parties. This goes both ways of course.

Once you see that having an intelligence agency necessarily means you're going to snoop on internals of another government, it would be even more weird if you don't meddle with it when you have the chance. I mean why not? Nation states are out for themselves. In particular if the stakes are high such as when the nation happens to have a good portion of the world's nuclear arsenal, why not take a shot?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#48

Post by jsmith0295 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #6

vkazanov wrote: post #3

So, Clinton was corrupted, and somebody noticed it, and it is Russians who are to blame? Huh.

I think that's missing the point. Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself. The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.

I think it's also worth noting that this was not a particularly sophisticated attack. Podesta fell for a simple phishing attack. A lot of media attention around this has made it sound like something out of an action movie, but the attack itself was actually quite simple. People who have access to so much important information need more training about this sort of thing so they don't just give their password away. It might've been the Russians this time, but it could've been just about anyone, and unless the underlying problem is resolved, it'll continue to happen.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#49

Post by etchalon » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

chroem- wrote: post #24

etchalon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That documentation does not exist. You could argue it is "hinted at" in the emails made public, but cannot argue it is documented or proven.

Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.

First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't.

Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to.

Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#50

Post by ep103 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #31

cglouch wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting th…

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

Russia's hacking and the fake news narrative are both ways for national pundits / news corps that continuously campaigned for Hillary while giving airtime to Trump to escape blame from people who are shocked to discover that Hillary did lose and they're stuck with Trump now.