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

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#91

Post by w8rbt » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

rqebmm wrote: post #90

w8rbt wrote: post #82

Why does no one cite the original private email server that was poorly secured and ran by the Clintons as part of this?

Because it's been covered extensively and is unrelated to the leaked DNC, DCCC, and Podesta emails that arose at the end of the election season?

It may have been the origin of all of this. They setup a private email server that was insecure and poorly managed so that they would not be subject to FOIA, etc. It contained top-secret emails. No one disputes that.

Why could that not have been the catalyst to hacking the DNC? You've got all these important DNC folks sending her emails that reside on that server... right?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#92

Post by rqebmm » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #65

legohead wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you upset that he is accusing Russia of cyberattacks, or that he's doing something about it?

The OPM hacks did far more damage to the country, but Obama's reaction was - nothing. It was only when some elites of his own party got some egg on their face that he reacted.

> Obama's reaction was - nothing

Nothing publicly. There was a public reaction to this issue because when "some elites of his own party got egg on their face" it was front page news for months that potentially effected the integrity of our election process. The OPM hacks were a disaster in terms of information security, but disappeared in a few news cycles because it didn't effect everyday citizens and had nothing to do with the fundamentals of our democracy.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#93

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

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…

> Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"?

No, it's hacking with the purpose and manifest effect of causing the end result of the election to be more in the direction that the actor favors than it would otherwise be, so "election hacking" is concise and entirely accurate.

> I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression

People who just read titles will always get incomplete information that they will fill in with assumptions that will often be incorrect. Were that not the case, there'd be no point to having an actual article behind the title.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#94

Post by pavlov » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #73

pavlov wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

The exact quote is: "On the other hand, nearly half of Trump supporters give at least some credence to the Pizzagate rumors. In contrast, 57% of Clinton voters say that is definitely not true (some, however, answered that it could be true)," Putting aside the fact that this is shortly after "Pizzagate" was first widely reported and therefore a topic of broad discussion (of whatever quality) at the time... ... the con…

Look at the first graphic. It's 46% of Trump voters vs. 17% of Clinton voters (which is still insanely high, for a theory so easily discredited).

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#95

Post by matt4077 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #73

pavlov wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

The exact quote is: "On the other hand, nearly half of Trump supporters give at least some credence to the Pizzagate rumors. In contrast, 57% of Clinton voters say that is definitely not true (some, however, answered that it could be true)," Putting aside the fact that this is shortly after "Pizzagate" was first widely reported and therefore a topic of broad discussion (of whatever quality) at the time... ... the con…

Look at the chart again. The 43% of Clinton voters includes those answering "probably not true". That category is not included in the 46% of Trump supporters, only "definitely/probably true".

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#96

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #2

This is an interesting internal play for US politicians as well -- it strikes me it's probably harder to remove sanctions and reinstate booted intelligence personnel than it is to choose not to act. I'm curious how the Trump presidency will approach this. Also in the news today is more strident messaging from Kerry about Israeli settlers -- I wonder if we'll have other moves from the Obama administration before end o…

It's technically no more difficult since they are executive actions dependent on determinations that the executive is free to make.

It's perhaps politically costly, though, and even if that was equal, only one of the actors has to worry about maintaining political capital.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#97

Post by etchalon » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #66

etchalon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Po…

Do you believe the DNC tried to slow down the momentum of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries?

No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#98

Post by dogma1138 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #86

cmdrfred wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Oh please. So far Russian military have proved to be marginally better than Georgia and on par with Ukraine. Speaking as someone with a lot of friends and acquaintances working in Russian military industry, it's much more talented in building potemkin villages and giving an impression of power than doing anything real. Everything, from tech to mentality of the military is rotten and just painted over.

Do you really think that Russia has engaged even 1% of its force projection in Ukraine?

There aren't 2000 Russian tanks parked outside of Kiev if Russia would go to an all out war with Ukraine there won't be much left after 2 days.

There are reportedly less than 5000 Russian troops in the conflict they mostly provide limited logistical support.

Look at how many troops the US needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don't underestimate Russia's military they have limited force projection but in their immediate vicinity they aren't to be taken lightly.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#99

Post by rqebmm » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #75

serf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT is a media outlet that requires additional personal scrutiny, espescially with regards to any active U.S. government talking points. I'm not the biggest Chomsky fan, but I feel a lot of his opinion about NYT [0] are probably right on. [0]: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti...

Similar to that Chomsky criticism is Robert Fisk's constant railing on LA Times (and others') constant use of "US government sources say". Anything that comes after such a phrase needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Right. Decrying the NYT for peddling government lies is the definition of shooting the messenger. We have to think critically about all our sources of information, whether it's the NYT, Fox, RT, Breitbart, or our facebook friends.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#100

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 10:45 PM UTC

gipp wrote: post #26

toehead2000 wrote: post #13

So is this how US politics will be from now on? Every president spends their lame duck period doing everything possible to sabotage the next guy (if they're the other party)? I seem to recall GWB having a bit more decorum than Obama here but maybe I'm wrong. Is the political climate really more poisonous than ever or does it just seem that way?

Taking action in response to foreign aggression is "sabotaging the next guy" now?

> Taking action in response to foreign aggression is "sabotaging the next guy" now?

Abstractly speaking, and not suggesting any particular tie to the current situation (in this comment, at least): when the next guy is an agent of the foriegn aggressor, yes, it quite naturally would be.