Author Topic: Cyber Showdown  (Read 20046 times)

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Cyber Showdown
« on: December 16, 2016, 12:32:04 PM »
While I know there is still a divide among some here at to IF Russia was involved in the hacking, (or even if it was hacking rather than a leak) but what are your thoughts on Obama's comments yesterday?

He unequivocally blamed not only Russian actors but Putin himself.  He then went on to say we would retaliate.  Not might, not would be justified in.  But that it was going to happen.  Given the time remaining until Trump is sworn in, that is a pretty small window.  (As trusting Trump to carry out such reprisals seems a reach.)

Any thoughts on what type of response we can expect?  Or do those in the camp generally opposed to our sitting president (or even those who share his party) think this was another "red line" moment?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2016, 12:55:43 PM »
I'm certain the Russians hacked the servers involved. I don't think anyone disputes that. They have a history of doing so.

What isn't known, is if the Russians were the only ones to do so, or that they were the ones involved in disclosing the contents of said servers.

Further, even if they were involved in the disclosures(unproven), you then have to demonstrate what their intentions were. I think the Democrats are missing the forest for the trees right now as they're only seeing red after Trump's electoral win and want blood.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2016, 01:00:07 PM »
There is, of course, some chance Russia did exactly as Obama suggests, in which case if he feels a response is necessary then so be it. What I question, though, is the rhetoric in advance of said action. Why not do it first and then explain afterwards why it was done? It strikes me as being more of a domestic PR move than a strategic decision in accomplishing anything with Russia. I do agree with Putin, though, that if America isn't going to actually furnish proof it shouldn't publicly bluster in tones of certainty as has been happening.

My gut reaction to Obama's comments are negative, since I don't particularly buy that Russia materially impacted the results of the election. I also notice that whenever such accusations are made there is never any specificity made about what sort of interference. As we've noted here on Ornery, there's a difference between hacking the actual election, versus hacking email servers and releasing documents, versus receiving said documents from an insider and then publishing them. These are not the same, and each in turn would require a different kind of response. Hacking the actual election would be an act of direct sabotage coupled with a coup attempt, which is more or less an act of war. Hacking email servers could be construed as espionage, although to be fair many governments do this kind of thing. Some kind of sanction or warning could suffice here. But if all Russia did was publish information they received from another source then I wonder if Americans could really say with a straight face that his is unacceptable, since to whit it wasn't classified information and freedom of speech in America would seem to suggest that publishing material given to you is protected. This would change if it was information you sought by sending others to steal it for you, but if that wasn't the case then regular journalistic standards should apply and protect people who publish things that come into their hands.   

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2016, 01:01:54 PM »
OK, but Obama made a statement... Even if he was totally wrong / mislead or is making *censored* up to justify an action (take your pick) some reaction seems likely now.

I'm in the, "They did it, we know they did it."  crowd if we are getting into that mess again.  But that wasn't my point.  Things are in motion now regardless of the veracity of the claim Russia/Putin is guilty.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2016, 01:08:12 PM »
I also find it strange that we would announce this rather than act if it was such a forgone conclusion that we would indeed act.  That screams "For internal consumption only" to me.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2016, 01:28:51 PM »
Couldn't find a full transcript, but the actual NPR quote is as follows:

"I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."

I wouldn't quite call that a vow to retaliate. The range of things in the word "action" is quite broad, as is the time frame. If there's a another part of the interview that I missed, just point it out and I'll start over.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2016, 01:36:17 PM »
Thanks for that TheDrake.  I heard the piece on my alarm clock radio.  So... self explanatory how I may miss some nuance.

Think this was entirely for domestic consumption.  The whole, Putin knows my thoughts on this because I told him on the phone, thing was smoke?  I heard what he wanted me to hear?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2016, 01:57:41 PM »
Edit:
Quote
Do you think this was entirely for domestic consumption?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2016, 02:01:31 PM »
Edit:
Quote
Do you think this was entirely for domestic consumption?

Giving Obama full benefit of doubt, I'd like to think that this was his way of telling everyone to shut up about the Russia hack. "I'm on it, stop yelling."

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2016, 03:00:25 PM »
I think there were probably a couple of reasons he made the statement the way he did, IMO. He's putting people on notice that the United States shouldn't shrug and walk away, and that there might be consequences. It's also a pretty safe way to talk tough and not have to prove that you were effective. Domestically, it could put some small amount of pressure on Trump to do something about it? I don't know if that guy is influenced by any traditional political consideration. It certainly isn't about votes, no one will remember it by midterms.

The "action" they should take is probably to teach government officials how to use GPG for email, 2 factor authentication and not doing things like this

BTW, the NPR story itself seems to have introduced the word "retaliate" to the conversation.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2016, 03:31:42 PM »
Just played the interview again.  While he didn't say he was going to act before leaving office, he was pretty clear about assigning blame to Russia/Putin and saying we were going to do something proportional and meaningful.  And "we will take action". 

So he's slicing it mighty fine if he wasn't stating unequivocally they were guilty and that we would do something to them.  As opposed to, "if they did so we would be justified in acting", or "by taking action, I really mean do something defensive, not in retaliation."

I can't 100% eliminate the possibility that he meant those things but that is a HUGE level of manipulation / doublespeak, if he did.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2016, 03:44:21 PM »
Oh, I believe he meant to assign blame 100%, and threaten some kind of action. Since we're already hacking them, it seems unlikely that it would be "proportional" - I guess we'll know if somebody starts releasing Medvedev's emails.


rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2016, 03:56:33 PM »
I would like to see an investigation into WikiLeaks and how they were involved with the hackers. Was their collaboration that would make them accessories or were they just ‘useful idiots’ 

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2016, 06:01:56 PM »
How trustworthy is Assange himself?

Has he been caught in lies?

Apparently he said that the Russians didn't do it.

He kind of insinuated that he had an insider and it may have been the guy who got wacked in the "botched robbery" in D.C.

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

That's been their modus operandi in the past as well. Insiders like Snowden and Manning just give wikileaks the information rather than wikileaks doing the hacking themselves.

Kasandra

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2016, 10:23:25 AM »
Quote
He kind of insinuated that he had an insider and it may have been the guy who got wacked in the "botched robbery" in D.C.
That would bring the number of people that Hillary and Bill have had killed over the years to about 100.  Who's next?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2016, 02:33:23 AM »
OK, but Obama made a statement... Even if he was totally wrong / mislead or is making *censored* up to justify an action (take your pick) some reaction seems likely now.

I'm in the, "They did it, we know they did it."  crowd if we are getting into that mess again.  But that wasn't my point.  Things are in motion now regardless of the veracity of the claim Russia/Putin is guilty.

What's "it"?  Can any accuser say what without speculation or obfuscates?

It's far more likely that Putin set out to make Hillary lose than to make Donald win.  The choice to spin it as pro trump Putin is a bit of political whoredom

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2016, 11:54:21 PM »
OK, but Obama made a statement... Even if he was totally wrong / mislead or is making *censored* up to justify an action (take your pick) some reaction seems likely now.

I'm in the, "They did it, we know they did it."  crowd if we are getting into that mess again.  But that wasn't my point.  Things are in motion now regardless of the veracity of the claim Russia/Putin is guilty.

What's "it"?  Can any accuser say what without speculation or obfuscates?

It's far more likely that Putin set out to make Hillary lose than to make Donald win.  The choice to spin it as pro trump Putin is a bit of political whoredom
What is the difference between the two?
I know a bunch of things that COULD mean.  Just curious what camp you fall into Pete?

I think that if Russia wanted to push the outcome as opposed to just mess with the system, then it was part wanting Hillary to lose and part wanting Trump to be in charge.  This was a win win win for them. 

Cast doubt on our ability to resist outside influence.
Cast doubt on (or cause paranoia about) our cyber security.
Cast doubt on the election process itself.
Insult Hillary and lower her "mandate" if she won by a small margin.
Possibly cause her to lose and pretty much insure that Trump has no "mandate" either.
Aid Trump because his pro-business stances may align with Russian interests.
Increase partisan resentment so we focus inward instead of what Russia is up to.
Aid Trump because he may not be equipped for the office.

I don't know how many or which of those it might be.  I don't see how any of it isn't beneficial for Russia with low risk.   By all accounts they didn't fabricate information.  Truth, justice and the American way.  Hard to protect one when the other two are being used to give it a black eye.  Our self image as a country is that of the good guys.  The honest guys.  The free and fair election guys.  It limits our response when we must embrace hypocrisy to justify it.  This was the safest bet Russia could make, if they wanted to weaken us.

What makes it whoredom?  What do you object to?  Do you NOT believe, that from Russia's perspective?   (Barring Trump being bullied into taking a hard-line stance against them to save face here, despite all indications HIS intentions are the opposite.)

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2016, 05:42:23 AM »
It's whoredom because the institutions that are supposed to inform and protect us, are obfuscating the truth and putting us at risk, selling us out, for internal politics. 

We are our own worst enemy here. The manipulation and falsehoods by Clinton, by Trump, by Huffington, by Obama, are so much more subversive of our democracy than anything Putin did. 

Obama is playing chicken with a nuclear superpower in the classic, let's seek enemies abroad to consolidate domestic power trick.

Whoredom.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2016, 10:04:51 AM »
Got it, makes sense.  I don't think it's spin, but ignoring how we got here and that they just revealed the hot mess created here should rank far higher in, "things we need to sort out."

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2016, 11:11:49 AM »
If nothing else, how quickly this became "Russia hacked the election" or "Russia manipulated the election," is a great example of the effectiveness of propaganda.  Russia may have hacked the DNC (we're taking this on faith because, to my knowledge, no evidence has been provided, this has further been attributed to the Russian government (without evidence), Putin (without evidence) and ascribed as to elect Trump (motive speculation without evidence) or to prevent Hillary from taking office (motive speculation without evidence)).  All may be likely, but it's stated more or less as fact, without any evidence.  Instead its become true because the left just keeps restating the propaganda claim without proving it.

Also missing is any description of how this hack can be described as "manipulating" the election.  And why is that?  Because, what actually happened  is that we got too much unfiltered truth as a result of the hack.  Hillary surrounded herself with scummy people to which most Americans can't relate.  People expect that from a Republican (because they think they're all scummy anyways) but the Democrats like to pretend they are the good guys.

And we get pages after pages of speculation that skips the whole discussion of whether anything untoward actually happened in the election - you know cause "manipulating" people by giving them true information is a bit of a questionable theory after all - to just assuming it and moving on to the evil consequences.  Want to know why we're so easy to manipulate?  Take a look at the critical thinking that we're engaged in on this issue.

fizz

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2016, 04:52:17 AM »
As a pretty qualified IT guy, there is also the fact that, having read some analysis of most machines used in many of your states, I can't fathom how your nation can consider any of the recent elections valid where those are used.

It's a system that begs for untraceable cheating, both from inside and outside, especially in combination with a winner-take-all prone to gerrymandering district system.

Making instead these systems quite tampering-proof would be technically quite easy, so one have to wonder if it's incompetence or malice that lead to these horrid designs.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2016, 06:45:25 AM »
Quote
If nothing else, how quickly this became "Russia hacked the election" or "Russia manipulated the election," is a great example of the effectiveness of propaganda.
What's your definition of "quickly"?

These claims have been out there for over half a year, and were even brought up in the presidential debates.  That the CIA and FBI are now corroborating them doesn't mean anybody can pretend they're new.

I continue to be disappointed, yet unsurprised, that so many people are still allowing their partisanship blind themselves to an attack by a foreign enemy.


Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2016, 08:24:08 AM »
Donald, as you say, the facts concerning the Russian hacks were already well known and trodden in the media long before the election day. No new facts have emerged since election day. If the electorate was "manipulated", it was with eyes wide open.

So if the election was tainted, we knew it was tainted before. But yet nobody demanded that the election be cancelled or postponed. Not one Clinton surrogate claimed the process was "rigged" and needed to be modified. Quite the opposite: they reacted with astonishment and outrage at even the *suggestion* of a rigged result. That was back when they assumed Clinton was going to win of course.

Well there's the rub isn't it? Supposing the Russians meddled, what was the supposed remedy? In what scenario does Donald Trump win the election free and clear? The answer is he doesn't, ever. This is an argument that Trump could never win - he either loses the election or he wins, but his win is tainted.

I call this a "rigged" result. Heads Hillary wins fair and square, tails the election was stolen from her.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2016, 10:32:04 AM »
I think DonaldD and jasonr both nailed it.  We've heard this for awhile so it's not like the Russians pulled a fast one on us.  It IS serious, but then again, all they did was reveal information that nobody came forward and claimed to be fabricated. 

We do need to address security.  We do need to address a foreign power taking steps to influence an election.  But most of all, we need politicians who don't *censored*ing implode the moment you see what they are up to and hear what they really think when they don't believe you will ever find out.

Or maybe we need a more pragmatic electorate?  I don't know.

Heck, that last may even explain Trump.  A train wreck you see coming that doesn't pretend to be a parade day float may be refreshing to some...   :-\

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2016, 10:37:26 AM »
Heck, that last may even explain Trump.  A train wreck you see coming that doesn't pretend to be a parade day float may be refreshing to some...   :-\

Viewing Hillary as just another kind of train wreck poised to happen, I know that's why I stood aside and voted third party rather than support Hillary.

The Democrats and Republicans alike really need to seriously do some major self-reflection as to their own actions and how they've directed things. Trump was the best chance of getting them to do that, and it seems that the message wasn't received by the Democrats.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2016, 10:40:10 AM »
The blindness of the party is truly stunning in the aftermath.  Like this Russia thing is their last lifeline on a fantasy they refuse to let go.

At least were past the electoral college nonsense.  The amount of people wishing for some sort of upset was both perplexing and terrifying. 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2016, 10:43:52 AM »
Again, with the partisan blinders, jasonr.  This isn't about Clinton or Trump, but rather about the process being attacked by Russia, and the fact that almost nobody seems to care.

The mechanisms of the election are what they are, and were not subject to change over the course of the election. And Russia wasn't "rigging" the election; Russia was attacking the integrity of the election, which is not the same thing at all.  And yes, Clinton's camp was making that claim very forcefully.

The remedy is straightforward, if not easy: analyze how foreign entities were able to manipulate the electoral process, and implement steps to reduce the ability to do so in the future.

As to the "eyes wide open" comment - I have seen different forms of this type of comment being bandied about, and can't figure out if it is naiveté or pure disingenuousness: in the same way as FBI simply mentioning Anthony Weiner's emails a week before the election caused a multiple-percentage drop in Clinton's numbers (while basically saying that there was as yet no evidence of any such links), in the same way that after multiple investigations of the emails involved, the "Climate Gate" emails are still a thing to some people, in the same way as "Benghazi" still gets people riled up even after multiple Republican-led investigations came up with pretty much nothing damning - it's clear that any large amount of data that can be a) linked to a particular party and b) be in some way characterized as "true" can be used to manipulate the electorate. It's bad enough when citizens of the USA do this to themselves; but when a foreign, enemy power does it to the country, that is an attack on the country itself.

Both major political parties in the USA have internal communications that would look ugly to "the electorate" - be they distasteful, immoral or maybe even crossing the lines of legality; but when a foreign power gets to decide which party's dirty laundry to air, there is no question of that such interference should be feared by all stakeholders in the USA, from political parties all the way down to individual voters.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2016, 10:57:05 AM »
At least were past the electoral college nonsense.  The amount of people wishing for some sort of upset was both perplexing and terrifying.

Speaking of the electors. Anyone else get a good laugh out of the faithless electors? 6 electors changed their votes. Only 2 of them were Republicans however, and they didn't change theirs to Hillary.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2016, 11:04:38 AM »
Both major political parties in the USA have internal communications that would look ugly to "the electorate" - be they distasteful, immoral or maybe even crossing the lines of legality; but when a foreign power gets to decide which party's dirty laundry to air, there is no question of that such interference should be feared by all stakeholders in the USA, from political parties all the way down to individual voters.

Or you know, you could try not to have any "dirty laundry" to be aired in the first place. If you run a clean and honest campaign in the first place, you have nothing to worry about.

Edit to add: Further, if you're asserting that "dirty laundry" is unavoidable in "a modern functioning democracy" then Democracy has failed utterly, and we need to seriously reconsider what the @$^& we're doing.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 11:07:42 AM by TheDeamon »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2016, 11:19:02 AM »
We have reconsidered.  Aren't you paying attention?  We're liquidating and selling to the highest bidder.   ::)

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2016, 11:27:01 AM »
Donald, we live in the age of Wikileaks. Damaging emails are going to get out, and that outsiders might choose to release such documents at strategic times to influence an election is hardly shocking. If Clinton had won, the DNC would have tightened its security, everyone would have moved on and we would never have given it another thought because it would be old news.

But now that Trump won, suddenly the Russians rigged the election. Give me a break. As others noted, this problem can be avoided in the future by 1) Getting better security for your servers or 2) Not sending embarrassing damaging emails in the first place or 3) Aghast! Not conspiring to rig the primary race against a popular grassroots candidate.

And Donald, it IS about Trump and Clinton, because as I noted, the only reason this has become an issue is because of who won the election. It's like if an athlete is accused of yaking PEDs but his competitors agree to drop the issue and proceed with the competition anyway because they assume it won't matter and they expect to win. But then when they lose, they turn around and claim the contest was unfair. Holy disingenuous sour grapes. If this was truly about the *process*.then something would have been done before the vote, not after just be ause Trump won!

The time to object to the fairness of the election was before the vote - not after you lost and are grasping at straws to deligitimize the winner.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 11:40:49 AM by jasonr »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2016, 12:05:34 PM »
Again, with the partisan blinders, jasonr.  This isn't about Clinton or Trump, but rather about the process being attacked by Russia, and the fact that almost nobody seems to care.

The mechanisms of the election are what they are, and were not subject to change over the course of the election. And Russia wasn't "rigging" the election; Russia was attacking the integrity of the election, which is not the same thing at all.  And yes, Clinton's camp was making that claim very forcefully.

Based on your phrasing I think the reason you're having trouble understanding why people aren't taking this as seriously as you are is because they are not operating under the same set of facts. Your facts seem to ride on phrases like "attacked by Russia", which charitably could be called hyperbole, and but in my personal view may also involve accepting pure fiction. As others have pointed out, the grasping at straws involves making any kind of claim at all to remove the legitimacy of Trump's election. An entire series of trutht assertions, none of which individually are proven, can still end up sounding like a mountain of 'proof' that Russia did all these bad things and propped up their Manchurian Candidate.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2016, 12:17:58 PM »
Quote
An entire series of trutht assertions, none of which individually are proven, can still end up sounding like a mountain of 'proof' that Russia did all these bad things and propped up their Manchurian Candidate.
And this is where you miss the point.  (And I've seen many others do it.)

Russia "picking" Trump to win, doesn't mean he's some sort of Manchurian Candidate or sleeper agent or collaborator or even someone bribed with "a good deal" he can profit off of.

The only reason Russia would need to "pick" Trump would be if they thought he'd get in the way of their ambitions less than Hillary.  Maybe he'll back down more to their posturing.  Maybe he will let foreign matters slide as he doesn't believe they impact us directly and we have bigger fish to fry?  There are tons of reasons for a foreign government to prefer one candidate over another.  Heck, maybe Putin just had a beef with Clinton and wanted to snub her and didn't care if she lost or just was embarrassed by a more narrow victory and ended up as surprised as people here.

That Russia hacked and released info in the hopes of messing with our election,  (Not fixing it, just messing with us so we argue about it.) is plausible.  I don't doubt the FBI/CIA on that at all.  That does not somehow transform into Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.  THAT, is ridiculous.  Luckily, nobody pissed off about Trump winning is making it.  Only those trying to silence their grumblings. 

Even if we had access to every shred of info, and they did "prove" Russian involvement to everyone but the nutjobs... What would it change?  We are NOT talking about some sleeper agent or a vast conspiracy.  This was theft of, and airing of dirty laundry.  It was dirty enough that MAYBE it turned the election.  I'm not sure on that one, but perhaps. 

I don't know who is being more ridiculous.  Those who believe Russia "decided" our election for us...  Or those who refuse to believe they had any involvement.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2016, 01:16:44 PM »
The remedy is straightforward, if not easy: analyze how foreign entities were able to manipulate the electoral process, and implement steps to reduce the ability to do so in the future.

Is it now?  So lets take a look.  Foreign entities were able to "manipulate" the process by releasing true but stolen information publically.  How would we "remedy" this?  Should we suppress the free speech of all foreigners?  Add FDA warning labels on newstories?  Suppress stories we deem "false"?  Some how stop leakers, something the government has tried to do for many years, notwithstanding that in many cases leaks are of information that we are legally entitled to or review illegal programs?

Again, there is no manipulation of the electoral process.  You flat out haven't shown one.  At best there is a manipulation of the voters, which manipulation consists solely of giving them stolen but true information.  Presumably, you think we should be able to suppress it?

Hackers should be pursued and prosecuted, but there is no remedy that lets you put the genie back in the bottle and keep a free country with respect to the information that is released.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2016, 04:18:45 PM »
Hey, at least the Democrats have shown who, how and what was done to "rig" (although they do not use that word) the election.  With that information, there is the possibility that we can take concrete steps to make sure the next election is not influenced in the same way.

Meanwhile, the Republican President-elect continues to declare that the election was "rigged" (using precisely that word), without any information to support it other than his wild imagination.  And without the who, how and what, the best we can hope for is that he does nothing to stop this "rigging."  Otherwise, he will just trample the rights of American citizens to vote in vain attempt to stop a delusion.  >:(

So go ahead and complain how the Democrats are being hypocrites for pointing out the problems before the election and continuing to do so afterward.  Just don't be surprised if you happen not to get a chance to choose the President in 2020.  :P

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2016, 05:17:56 PM »
Hey, at least the Democrats have shown who, how and what was done to "rig" (although they do not use that word) the election.

Then explain it.  Specifically, what was done to "rig" the election?

How was it done?

Where is the information showing that it was "the Russians" who obtained and released said information, or showing a connection to Wikileaks who very publically released the information?

Quote
  With that information, there is the possibility that we can take concrete steps to make sure the next election is not influenced in the same way.

What steps short of barring free speech, could you take to "ensure" that the election is not "influenced" by the release of true but stolen information?  Do you intend to institute a Jedi Mind Trick policy, whereby you go on tv directing voters they are not allowed to consider the true information?

Quote
Meanwhile, the Republican President-elect continues to declare that the election was "rigged" (using precisely that word), without any information to support it other than his wild imagination.  And without the who, how and what, the best we can hope for is that he does nothing to stop this "rigging."  Otherwise, he will just trample the rights of American citizens to vote in vain attempt to stop a delusion.  >:(

No idea if it was rigged by or for one side or the other, definitely enough abnormalities to point out that we should take election process integrity more seriously.  Probably should get rid of purely electronic voting machines, consider if we can come up with an effective voter ID requirement that doesn't unduly burden poor voters, and consider how one would catch common voting manipulation in developing our methods of investigation.

Quote
So go ahead and complain how the Democrats are being hypocrites for pointing out the problems before the election and continuing to do so afterward.  Just don't be surprised if you happen not to get a chance to choose the President in 2020.  :P

Democrats are hypocrites for insisting that there is no voter fraud and the elections must be fair (and, oh my god, Trump is like the worst person ever for not agreeing to sign on to the results ahead of time) and then switching course to the election was "rigged", "stolen" or "manipulated" because they didn't win. 

Pure fantasy to claim they were concerned prior to the election, based on this magical conflation of the DNC being hacked (which is a crime they did whine about) to the election being hacked (which didn't happen).

End of day, people voted for Trump in the places they had to vote for him.  That is not a hack or a manipulation of the election. 


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2016, 05:19:44 PM »
And this is where you miss the point.  (And I've seen many others do it.)

Russia "picking" Trump to win, doesn't mean he's some sort of Manchurian Candidate or sleeper agent or collaborator or even someone bribed with "a good deal" he can profit off of.

I think you're taking away the wrong thing from my having thrown in the Manchurian Candidate comment. I'm not suggest that such a conclusion logically follows from the other accusations made; on the contrary, I agree with you that it's a ridiculous conclusion to draw. My mention of it wasn't to place it as a consequence in a chain of logic, but rather because I have actually seen umpteen articles and trending material alluding to exactly that conclusion, absent any other evidence. I have an extremely liberal FB friends list, and I see everything verging from mainstream liberal posts to radical material. The idea that Trump had an active deal with Putin (as has been mentioned here, about them 'being in bed' together) is not an idle fantasy but a narrative that has been put forward by many people. By throwing in that term I was referencing the extremity to which people reach when trying to spin conspiracy theories about this, rather than putting it forward as a point of my own.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2016, 05:40:42 PM »
Now, I know the internet being the internet you can find any type of extremist BS or flat out crazy opinions you look for.  (and a lot you never look for thanks to social media)

I guess there's always lower to sink, but I have yet to see that type of opinion voiced in a serious way.  My ONLY exposure with it, has been from the right, putting it out there as a strawman.  (Or so I believed having never met, been tweeted at by or recieved a facebook notice from a liberal/left leaner who expressed that as a legitimate opinion or theory.)

If you were trying to fend off the crazies, then carry on.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2016, 06:02:09 AM »
Seriati, your argument boils down to one that is common in so many political debates today. "I see the evidence". "If the evidence were true, how could we address it/effect change?"  "Gosh, that would hard/impossible." "The evidence is not true" "There is no point in even investigating"
 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2016, 07:48:28 AM »
As to this: "Should we suppress the free speech of all foreigners? "

What do you think "free speech" means, exactly?

Since the combined US security services agree that the information was released by a foreign government, what possible meaning are you implying that does not provide the Russian government (in this case) a 'freedom' that you are denying the U.S. government?

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2016, 08:05:20 AM »
Donald, hacking private servers is already illegal. Yet it happened and the information is out there. So short of banning the reporting and dissemination of this information, how would you propose to put the genie back in the bottle?

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2016, 08:16:07 AM »
Did you really just repeat the argument I white boarded two posts ago, Jason?

The response to such an attack is the end of the line of the analysis of the attack.  That you don't have a ready response is no reason to not investigate what exactly happened, how and by whom; and then knowing that, to not investigate how to respond.

Sovereign governments usually steer clear of direct and at least provable involvement in other countries' electoral processes, for the very reason that they fear retaliation. Of course it gets more difficult when dealing with dictatorships like Russia, but "difficult" is not the same as "impossible" and the US has many levers that it can pull if it wants to.  Imagining that the USA is impotent and incapable of changing the behaviour of foreign countries is just silly.

Also, I think you mischaracterize what the attack is - it wasn't "hacking" although that is technically illegal - it was the attempt to delegitimize the US electoral process. 
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 08:18:50 AM by DonaldD »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2016, 08:53:44 AM »
Also, I think you mischaracterize what the attack is - it wasn't "hacking" although that is technically illegal - it was the attempt to delegitimize the US electoral process.

Publishing true material that one has not personally stolen isn't "an attack" or "delegitimizing", it's freedom of the press! That is the question being put to you. Would you ban the publication or dissemination of non-classified true material purely on account that it could change people's minds? If so, I would suggest you are the one arguing for a dictatorship.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2016, 09:12:47 AM »
Did you really just repeat the argument I white boarded two posts ago, Jason?

The response to such an attack is the end of the line of the analysis of the attack.  That you don't have a ready response is no reason to not investigate what exactly happened, how and by whom; and then knowing that, to not investigate how to respond.

Sovereign governments usually steer clear of direct and at least provable involvement in other countries' electoral processes, for the very reason that they fear retaliation. Of course it gets more difficult when dealing with dictatorships like Russia, but "difficult" is not the same as "impossible" and the US has many levers that it can pull if it wants to.  Imagining that the USA is impotent and incapable of changing the behaviour of foreign countries is just silly.

Also, I think you mischaracterize what the attack is - it wasn't "hacking" although that is technically illegal - it was the attempt to delegitimize the US electoral process.

You're saying that covering a lie is a necessary part of our electoral legitimacy?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2016, 09:52:20 AM »
Since the combined US security services agree that the information was released by a foreign government, what possible meaning are you implying that does not provide the Russian government (in this case) a 'freedom' that you are denying the U.S. government?

The BBC is funded in large part by the government of the United Kingdom. Does that mean we need to press charges against any Americans who obtain U.S. Election news through that venue? Or do we just prosecute their reporters instead?

Just making sure we're being clear on where the line is on "foreign influence." Of course, nobody addressed the earlier question about foreign nationals working as campaign staffers/volunteers, or inserting themselves in a "get out the vote" effort.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2016, 09:59:24 AM »
Seriati, your argument boils down to one that is common in so many political debates today. "I see the evidence". "If the evidence were true, how could we address it/effect change?"  "Gosh, that would hard/impossible." "The evidence is not true" "There is no point in even investigating"

Not sure where you get this, except from maybe what you want my argument to be.

"I see the evidence" - Actually no I don't.  What I see are the results, and that's all you see as well.  The "evidence" here is being backfilled and extrapolated from people's impressions of what must have happened in their view to get that result or alternatively is being handed to us as a conclusion by people we do not have a lot of reason to trust on the matter.  That's why I keep calling for people to walk through it step by step.

We also haven't seen any logical and specific connections between the facts we do know (DNC's private information was publically released) and the conclusions you'd like us to draw (the election was manipulated).  Again, walk it through.
 
"If the evidence were true, how could we address it/effect change?"  There is no way consistent with our constitutional freedoms to suppress information even information that has been improperly or illegally released.  Better security in the first place is one answer.  Filing suits or criminal charges, or in the case of a government sanctions, against those who illegally sourced the information is another.  None of that though lets you stop the information itself.

"Gosh, that would hard/impossible."  No not hard or impossible, flat out inconsistent with our liberties and Constitutional rule of law.  A facist regime could do it, though they can't stop back channels they can shut down public ones.  The USSR was very effective at it, and China has been a "leader" in the suppression of electronic information.  If that's where you want to go then say it.

"The evidence is not true."  Show us some actual evidence and I won't say its not true (I haven't disputed that Podesta was hacked, or that the DNC's information was stolen - just haven't seen any proof that connects the releasers with Russian hackers, as opposed to DNC staff leaks or local hackers).  Assert self serving conclusions as evidence and I'll continue to dispute that you've provided any evidence.

"There is no point in even investigating."  Where have I ever said that? 

My point on investigation is that the remedy you're looking for (somehow undoing or delegitimizing an election result) isn't supportable by the harms you've cited (hacking and releasing information).  The implication that being given true information provides an unacceptable "manipulation" of an election is a dangerous conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the facts you've presented.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2016, 09:59:42 AM »
Quote
You're saying that covering a lie is a necessary part of our electoral legitimacy?
This really isn't complicated.  Whether Russia distributed true or false information is irrelevant - Russia taking actions that could have an effect on another country's change in political leadership is.

I have been on record in the past for calling out the USA for its past transgressions in this area (Iran 1953, as just one example); I'm not going to give Russia a pass just because their motives are pure and unimpeachable.

There is a reason every 1st world country at least gives lip service to not encroaching on other countries' elections.  Russia got caught, and not holding their feet to the fire is an invitation to a global political arms race that will not end well.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2016, 10:10:28 AM »
Quote
Actually no I don't.

What you wrote was the following
Quote
Foreign entities were able to "manipulate" the process by releasing true but stolen information publically.
Are you honestly claiming that releasing the "true but stolen information" was not meant to have an effect on the election?  Even though Assange stated very clearly that it was his intent?  Even though the CIA and the FBI agree that that was Russia's intent as well (though disagreeing on whether/who in the Kremlin ordered the release)?

At the very least, there's no way to ignore the Assange evidence of intent: he broadcast it to the world.  I suppose you can ignore the US intelligence agencies' statements, and that their positions are based on evidence, but disputing Assange's statement as not being evidence is silly.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2016, 10:45:07 AM »
In the new world order all information must be filtered through bipartisan ideology before facts can be established and arguments made. 
Party, Corporation, Guns, God and Family

If a criminal act helps the party its ok when it does not drop a bomb on it. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Cyber Showdown
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2016, 11:15:40 AM »
Are you honestly claiming that releasing the "true but stolen information" was not meant to have an effect on the election?  Even though Assange stated very clearly that it was his intent?  Even though the CIA and the FBI agree that that was Russia's intent as well (though disagreeing on whether/who in the Kremlin ordered the release)?

The information being true is thing that's throwing the wrench into everything here. It also is why it's pretty much resulting in spinning wheels within the context of this particular political quagmire. The earlier points still stand, if the Hillary had won, the Democrats would have smugly accepted the election outcome, and largely ignored the Russia angle, until/unless it became advantageous for some other agenda item for them. Which with Hillary, probably would have been sooner rather than later as she was taking a hard line on Russia in the first place. (Giving them more motive to "sink her politically")

It also is one of the forgotten aspects of all this. The Watergate break-in, which this is being compared to by some, was information gathering, not so much to embarrass the Democrats. Although if they'd found anything, they might have pursued that, but to find out what the democratic campaign strategy was, so they(the Nixon campaign) could counter it. The Russian hacks of previous political campaigns has likely been (historically) about trying to get a "read" on prospective Presidential Candidates, and to find if they could gain any potential leverage with what they found.

I'd be highly surprised if the United States doesn't also tend to hack into the campaign computer systems of high-level candidates in other nations as well. It's low lying fruit, and it can provide all kinds of intelligence insights for analysts to work with on building and refining profiles. I'd also be highly surprised to learn that the US and Russia are the only ones making attempts to do so. I fully expect that the U.K., Germany, China, France, and so forth are likewise attempting the same. Although China is probably the only one who is likely to be nearly as vigorous as the US and Russia are in that respect.

What was unique in this case was that the information was released. But once again, just because the Russian Government probably did obtain the same information as was released. Doesn't mean they were only ones to obtain that information, or that the Russian Government was the one who released it. As once again, WikiLeaks claims they came about their data by other (internal to the DNC) means.

That one of the leakers was evidently Russian doesn't mean it was the Russian government that released it, although it does increase the odds. It also is very possible that it was some Russian Mafia boss/member who had obtained the data through their own means(possibly by way of Russian Intelligence services), who then ordered the release.

Quote
At the very least, there's no way to ignore the Assange evidence of intent: he broadcast it to the world.  I suppose you can ignore the US intelligence agencies' statements, and that their positions are based on evidence, but disputing Assange's statement as not being evidence is silly.

But if you view Assange as a reporter, or at worst, "an information clearinghouse." He still wasn't the one who initiated the breach. He just happened to be one of the means used to make the information public. Likewise, as far as manipulations go, releasing information that is verified as being true isn't much of a manipulation.

Now if he, or the Russians, had been linked to outright information forgeries, that's another matter.

But then, when you're talking about the actual "fake news" which were total fabrications/satire such as the whole abc.com.co thing. PBS tracked down the guy behind that. Seemed that guy turned out to be an American, and a Liberal at that, he claims he was simply trolling the right-wingers.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 11:17:49 AM by TheDeamon »