41–50 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it wasnt one foreign hostile power directing attempting to sway one specific candidate Any idea where can I read more about the analysis around this determination?
Start with the parent comment's quote of the grandparent comment's link, which mentions that both major parties had their files copied.
I know this is about congressional campaigns, but does anyone remember this from 2008? https://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/nov/07/obama-white-h... I wonder why that never reached the same amount of outcry when Obama won.
I've been thinking a lot about this type of thing and have come up with what I think is a reasonable understanding. Unfortunately it requires some context and I haven't been able to boil it down to a one-liner. Ignore potential enemies such as Russia and China for a moment. Instead, think about our "best friend," the UK. What are the odds that the UK has hacked our politicians and has dirt on every major politician f…
The idea that close allies of the US is hacking them is just ridiculous and it would've been escalated to the highest levels when (not if) the US intelligence agencies found out about it.
I know this is about congressional campaigns, but does anyone remember this from 2008? https://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/nov/07/obama-white-h... I wonder why that never reached the same amount of outcry when Obama won.
As car as I can tell, initially the efforts were just to increase division - manipulative ads were placed on BOTH sides of the spectrum, apparently just trying to get people to hate each other and (most importantly) distrust the system. Then when Trump went from 'unlikely' to 'competitive' (be that on his own or not) there was a reevaluation and the efforts went pro trump.
The key concept here is NOT "Trump wouldn't have won" (we can't know) and not even "Russia backed Trump because they saw him as destabilizing/weak/owned or even 'just' polarizing". The key concept is "Russia wanted to interfere with the process and reduce trust in the concept of democracy". Even if they did a terrible job of it with no measurable effect or shot themselves in the foot by electing a powerful and determined outsider that will strengthen both America and Democracy, that has no relevance to what they tried to do.
And yes, countries influence (and attempts to influence) other countries' elections all the time. It is kept in check by the need to be circumspect. If we fail to respond, or even invite it, that balance is lost.
I'm willing to accept Trump won fair and square however much I dislike that result, but I still want to prevent a repeat of other countries putting out false Black/Blue Lives Matter narratives with the intention of destabilizing us.
I know this is about congressional campaigns, but does anyone remember this from 2008? https://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/nov/07/obama-white-h... I wonder why that never reached the same amount of outcry when Obama won.
I really don't understand how you can say this with a straight face. In 2008 there was no evidence that any foreign government was trying to usurp the democratic process in the way the last election was. And Obama/McCain and their campaigns didn't have dozens/hundreds of interactions with Russian actors. And they definitely didn't owe hundreds of millions to Russian oligarchs.
If anyone thinks this is some new phenomenon you're vastly mistaken. Plenty of documents have been declassified or recovered from foreign entities, particularly Russia, that outline their processes for destroying America from within.
As for relations with Russian actors, there's a lot more indirect that's questionable with many politicians, they've just made a career out of it. You can easily find the money transferred to the Clinton camp as well.
Money has not political affiliation and neither does power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hackers broke into the computer systems of the Barack Obama and John McCain campaign teams during the US presidential race and stole a ''serious amount of files" in an operation that US government cyber experts believe originated from China." Probably because it wasnt one foreign hostile power directing attempting to sway one specific candidate. Or perhaps because there was no evidence or allegations against Obama o…
Also because Obama never encouraged or endorsed it.
Let's not forget that Hillary wasn't some innocent in this, she was under investigation and to discredit that as a catalyst or a point of contention that would be leveraged is naive. In many ways, her actions and the storm around them brought heightened exposure to the sensitivities of the topic and made for a great way to push and divide the country even more. She's not a victim and in fact I would argue she too was part of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking a lot about this type of thing and have come up with what I think is a reasonable understanding. Unfortunately it requires some context and I haven't been able to boil it down to a one-liner. Ignore potential enemies such as Russia and China for a moment. Instead, think about our "best friend," the UK. What are the odds that the UK has hacked our politicians and has dirt on every major politician f…
You do know that the UK is part of the Five Eyes alliance, right ? The idea that close allies of the US is hacking them is just ridiculous and it would've been escalated to the highest levels when (not if) the US intelligence agencies found out about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
>Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.
So not only is the UK spying on us, we've explicitly allowed it to in some cases as long as they share some of what they've found. Do you honestly believe that the UK only spies on us lowly citizens and doesn't spy on politicians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also because Obama never encouraged or endorsed it.
Obama was also never under investigation for storing and destroying information related to an investigation. Let's not forget that Hillary wasn't some innocent in this, she was under investigation and to discredit that as a catalyst or a point of contention that would be leveraged is naive. In many ways, her actions and the storm around them brought heightened exposure to the sensitivities of the topic and made for a…
You're right that Clinton was already under investigation for Benghazi, but that's a sign that the correct domestic legal process was being followed. The FBI gathered evidence and she testified before congressional hearings. That's how things are supposed to go.
Moreover, Hillary doesn't matter any more, in the same way that McCain doesn't (hence the OP referring to Obama only). She is not President, nor is she playing any sizable role in public life. Deflecting the substantive and meaningful criticism of the sitting President with "but Hillary" is at best distracting, and at worst a concerted effort to avoid Trump having to answer very legitimate questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anybody who specializes professionally in phishing that believes this. What I hear from those kinds of people, and many others, is the opposite: that especially when you're trying to secure an organization, the one attack you feel helpless to prevent is targeted phishing. Technologists in particular are apparently easy to victimize; they underestimate how malleable the medium is, and how well sophisticat…
That's so true. Our IT dep runs "fake" fishing attacks regularly and last time they did it I totally got caught. They happened to send a fake error report email (which had all of the "red flags" you should catch before clicking a link in an email) on the day I started an oncall rotation that had me receive similar emails. I was wary of missing one, so when I saw it coming, :click:. I was greeted with a nice message t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama was also never under investigation for storing and destroying information related to an investigation. Let's not forget that Hillary wasn't some innocent in this, she was under investigation and to discredit that as a catalyst or a point of contention that would be leveraged is naive. In many ways, her actions and the storm around them brought heightened exposure to the sensitivities of the topic and made for a…
The fact remains that the President of the United States solicited the help of a foreign intelligence agency to hack into the private communications of his opponent. You're right that Clinton was already under investigation for Benghazi, but that's a sign that the correct domestic legal process was being followed. The FBI gathered evidence and she testified before congressional hearings. That's how things are suppose…
As for Deflecting it's the driving force behind, he shouldn't have won, she should have, so no unlike the others it is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact remains that the President of the United States solicited the help of a foreign intelligence agency to hack into the private communications of his opponent. You're right that Clinton was already under investigation for Benghazi, but that's a sign that the correct domestic legal process was being followed. The FBI gathered evidence and she testified before congressional hearings. That's how things are suppose…
We have yet to see proof, only allegations. Clinton was under investigation for more than just Benghazi. As for Deflecting it's the driving force behind, he shouldn't have won, she should have, so no unlike the others it is relevant.