Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#121

Post by etchalon »

etchalon wrote: post #97
ZenoArrow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#122

Post by etchalon »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #117
etchalon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia. Whether they'll release their evidence publicly remains to be seen, however, even GOP senators acknowledge it was likely Russia. We can assume they were briefed.

>"Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia." Let's imagine you're the President and you discover the leaks came from US citizens with ties to the DNC (e.g. DNC employees with access to emails). Would you have anything to gain from pointing the finger at foreign political actors interfering in US politics?

Imagining motives and then working backwards is, in general, a terrible way to parse the world.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#123

Post by chipperyman573 »

rqebmm wrote: post #87
UweSchmidt wrote: post #64

True or not, the idea that Russia could have hacked the US elections is pretty wild, and the way this is nonchalantly discussed, and met with the mild diplomatic gesture of dismissing some diplomats is a little surprising to me. Is it because I have grown up during the end of the cold war? But what would Nixon or Reagan have done in this situation? Messing with a country's political system like that sounds extremely…

1) The Obama administration has said that retaliation will be in some part covert, so there's strong reasons to believe the publicized reaction is only the tip of the iceberg 2) If Russia hacked US elections in a material way (i.e. stuffing electronic ballots), we probably wouldn't know anyway. President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

What do you mean by the second point? I am confused about

>President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#124

Post by finid »

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.

Oh please. So far Russian military have proved to be marginally better than Georgia and on par with Ukraine.

"Marginally better than Georgia"?

Is that why the recent Russian skirmish with that country was over in a flash?

And Ukraine! Ukraine!!

Obama once called Russia a regional power. After a few weeks of Russia blasting the daylights out of the terrorists we're using in Syria, he changed his mind.

But don't bother to change your mind.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#125

Post by rqebmm »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #123
rqebmm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The Obama administration has said that retaliation will be in some part covert, so there's strong reasons to believe the publicized reaction is only the tip of the iceberg 2) If Russia hacked US elections in a material way (i.e. stuffing electronic ballots), we probably wouldn't know anyway. President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

What do you mean by the second point? I am confused about >President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

Let's say Obama has airtight proof that Putin single-handedly elected Trump. What would be more damaging to the US: publicly admitting that foreign states have control of our elections (which could very reasonably start a large-scale revolt), or allowing it to happen while secrectly taking actions to prevent that from happening again?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#126

Post by heurist »

toehead2000 wrote: post #29
hehheh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm mistaken GWB didn't have to deal with a foreign government interfering with our elections. Besides, this sort of thing will only be relevant a few times in the President's career and the odds are pretty good that if it were to happen it would happen in their "lame duck" phase. So what?

Well there's this and the UN Israel resolution, both of which are things Trump would have been unlikely to do. Then there's the raft of executive orders..

It's almost like Trump's win was entirely unexpected and the outgoing administration is playing catch-up on things they thought Clinton would take care of...

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#127

Post by UweSchmidt »

rqebmm wrote: post #125
chipperyman573 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by the second point? I am confused about >President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

Let's say Obama has airtight proof that Putin single-handedly elected Trump. What would be more damaging to the US: publicly admitting that foreign states have control of our elections (which could very reasonably start a large-scale revolt), or allowing it to happen while secrectly taking actions to prevent that from happening again?

But now that everyone talks about it, work should be done on the internal aspect on this: Investigation on voting mechanisms, coming up with a way to make this integral part of democracy safe. You could say "No, Russia didn't do anything, but while we're at it we have noticed some potential weaknesses in our infrastructure".

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#128

Post by Veratyr »

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…

All this propaganda from the media is worrying.

I'm not American or old enough to really remember what it was like when the US started the Iraq war but from what I've read, the way the media spreads propaganda now sounds a lot like the way it spread propaganda then.

I'm sure the US isn't heading into a war with Russia or anything but it's still concerning.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#129

Post by finid »

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?

Well, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman has given tomorrow as the day when Russia will make an official statement and announce countermeasures.

There is no doubt that this adequate and mirror response will make the US side feel very uncomfortable as well

Wait and see...

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#130

Post by lotsoflumens »

etchalon wrote: post #122
ZenoArrow wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia." Let's imagine you're the President and you discover the leaks came from US citizens with ties to the DNC (e.g. DNC employees with access to emails). Would you have anything to gain from pointing the finger at foreign political actors interfering in US politics?

Imagining motives and then working backwards is, in general, a terrible way to parse the world.

Terrible or not, it's the correct way.
Post reply on HN