America Uses Stealthy Submarines To Hack Other Countries' Systems (washingtonpost.com) 177
When the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump asked Russia -- wittingly or otherwise -- to launch hack attacks to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails, it caused a stir of commotion. Russia is allegedly behind DNC's leaked emails. But The Washington Post is reminding us that U.S.'s efforts in the cyber-security world aren't much different. (could be paywalled; same article syndicated elsewhere From the report: The U.S. approach to this digital battleground is pretty advanced. For example: Did you know that the military uses its submarines as underwater hacking platforms? In fact, subs represent an important component of America's cyber strategy. They act defensively to protect themselves and the country from digital attack, but -- more interestingly -- they also have a role to play in carrying out cyberattacks, according to two U.S. Navy officials at a recent Washington conference. "There is a -- an offensive capability that we are, that we prize very highly," said Rear Adm. Michael Jabaley, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for submarines. "And this is where I really can't talk about much, but suffice to say we have submarines out there on the front lines that are very involved, at the highest technical level, doing exactly the kind of things that you would want them to do."
The so-called "silent service" has a long history of using information technology to gain an edge on America's rivals. In the 1970s, the U.S. government instructed its submarines to tap undersea communications cables off the Russian coast, recording the messages being relayed back and forth between Soviet forces. (The National Security Agency has continued that tradition, monitoring underwater fiber cables as part of its globe-spanning intelligence-gathering apparatus. In some cases, the government has struck closed-door deals with the cable operators ensuring that U.S. spies can gain secure access to the information traveling over those pipes.) These days, some U.S. subs come equipped with sophisticated antennas that can be used to intercept and manipulate other people's communications traffic, particularly on weak or unencrypted networks. "We've gone where our targets have gone" -- that is to say, online, said Stewart Baker, the National Security Agency's former general counsel, in an interview. "Only the most security-conscious now are completely cut off from the Internet." Cyberattacks are also much easier to carry out than to defend against, he said.
The so-called "silent service" has a long history of using information technology to gain an edge on America's rivals. In the 1970s, the U.S. government instructed its submarines to tap undersea communications cables off the Russian coast, recording the messages being relayed back and forth between Soviet forces. (The National Security Agency has continued that tradition, monitoring underwater fiber cables as part of its globe-spanning intelligence-gathering apparatus. In some cases, the government has struck closed-door deals with the cable operators ensuring that U.S. spies can gain secure access to the information traveling over those pipes.) These days, some U.S. subs come equipped with sophisticated antennas that can be used to intercept and manipulate other people's communications traffic, particularly on weak or unencrypted networks. "We've gone where our targets have gone" -- that is to say, online, said Stewart Baker, the National Security Agency's former general counsel, in an interview. "Only the most security-conscious now are completely cut off from the Internet." Cyberattacks are also much easier to carry out than to defend against, he said.
Pretty soon they'll use TiSP protocol... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also the media characterization of Trump's statement as 'asking the Russians' anything.
The sarcasm was dripping off of the last line, the one rarely included in the quote.
What virtually all the media reports:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
What was actually said, as one statement, from one site [businessinsider.com]:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to
Underwater cables (Score:2)
Re:Underwater cables (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not get carried away with cutting cables, the idea is quite amusing when you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] so not just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Obviously hacking into the repeaters makes a lot more sense and is of course exactly what they do and that is with the cooperation of the companies involved, so the hacks go in as the cable is being laid. So at the repeater they of course copy data, delete data and more importantly inject data, think questionable attacks from questionable sources. Likely the hardware is permanently locked in place and they only maintain it when it fails.
The catch with that is any claim they make about hacks is now questionable as they inherently can and will corrupt the evidence. We you set out to so publicly corrupt global infrastructure than you will no longer be believed for any claims you make that result from attacks on that infrastructure ie you are always the initial and most likely suspect for any attack. Much like the US Navy and it's policy of not declaring which vessels have nuclear weapons and which do not. Result is when ever a US naval vessels approaches a foreign country it is not just a naval vessel approaching but a first strike city destroying nuclear threat approaching and that is the US government approach when sending vessels upon that basis, they are in fact at that moment threatening the targeted nation with a first strike nuclear attack.
It is really a messy, arrogant approach, factually the number one suspect in any cyder attack must always be the NSA/CIA, they have the greatest capability, they have declared their intent to dominate every other countries internet infrastructure and US laws claim that US government departments are not bound by other countries laws and are free to break them at any time for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The catch with that is any claim they make about hacks is now questionable as they inherently can and will corrupt the evidence. We you set out to so publicly corrupt global infrastructure than you will no longer be believed for any claims you make that result from attacks on that infrastructure ie you are always the initial and most likely suspect for any attack. Much like the US Navy and it's policy of not declaring which vessels have nuclear weapons and which do not. Result is when ever a US naval vessels approaches a foreign country it is not just a naval vessel approaching but a first strike city destroying nuclear threat approaching and that is the US government approach when sending vessels upon that basis, they are in fact at that moment threatening the targeted nation with a first strike nuclear attack.
I notice two things. First, most countries have the ability to "publicly corrupt global infrastructure", but it's only the US's capabilities that you care to complain about.
Second, what is the point of faking a massive cyber espionage campaign from China and Russia? If the US or allies were doing a false flag operation, they've gotten remarkably little return on the effort. To illustrate the kind of return you can get from false flag operations, Nazi Germany staged a fake military attack on a German radi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Informative)
You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.
I've got a fiber tester here that does exactly that with normal fiber patch leads, and it can tell me which direction the light source is coming from, if there is modulated data on it, or if there is one of it's own light source ID modules on the end of the fiber.
Super handy for fiber test work and only $1000. Imagine what you can get when you've effectively got an unlimited black ops budget.
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Informative)
You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.
This is exactly what they do. They have something like a diving bell that they can loop a submarine cable through and seal it. They can then transfer some technicians from the mother sub to the bell through an airlock where they can peel the armor off the cable, isolate individual fibers and wrap them around such optical couplers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.
This is exactly what they do. They have something like a diving bell that they can loop a submarine cable through and seal it. They can then transfer some technicians from the mother sub to the bell through an airlock where they can peel the armor off the cable, isolate individual fibers and wrap them around such optical couplers.
How do you know? are you there? have you seen it?
Where does the data go? current industry practice is to run submarine cables at 192x100G. That's 19.2Tbit/s.
Without a fiber backhaul from their underwater tap to a safe harbor for analysis, there is just no way to process that level of data.
And for what purpose, all a country would have to do, is mandate that all it's teleports use symmetric encryption and all those expensive taps, and phantom backhaul network (which would cost more than the worlds existing s
Re:Underwater cables (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was most likely retired because ROVs and telepresence had become advanced enough that they could do the tapping remotely, without the need to put people right next to the cable.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for the UK was the need for submarine broadcasts. Would the Soviet Union find their locations?
What slowed the UK's operations was the discovery of a UK s
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Funny)
I always sneak in an grammatical error to annoy the anonymous cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking commercial fibers. Over the last 20 years the most attractive cables to hack via submarines would be dedicated military channels which are probably not as sophisticated.
Re:Underwater cables (Score:4, Informative)
The futurist in me wonders if they can latch onto a submarine cable, cut it, insert a passively recording hub, and leave with only having changed the impedance and signal time (a little) and caused a brief outage.
The futurist in you is 45 years behind the times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly what they do. It probably does cause a brief outage for fiber, but not for copper.
They have special subs for it. The summary seems pretty clueless. It has been widely reported for decades.
Re:Underwater cables (Score:5, Interesting)
As khallow said, they add the taps during scheduled downtime. They also add the taps during an outage. And you can imagine how easy it is to arrange for a trawler to "accidentally" drag it's anchor across the ocean floor. There is some risk of being detected by diagnostic equipment at either end of the cable, since they can determine the distance to the break, but if the trawler break and submarine tap are 10 miles apart, the sub should go unnoticed, and the difference in distance is within a margin of error.
Re: (Score:2)
As khallow said, they add the taps during scheduled downtime. They also add the taps during an outage. And you can imagine how easy it is to arrange for a trawler to "accidentally" drag it's anchor across the ocean floor. There is some risk of being detected by diagnostic equipment at either end of the cable, since they can determine the distance to the break, but if the trawler break and submarine tap are 10 miles apart, the sub should go unnoticed, and the difference in distance is within a margin of error.
Is this why someone keeps cutting the fiber in the SF Bay Area? I had wondered if someone was putting in taps while the cable was cut further up the line.
Re: (Score:3)
We have been doing this since the 1970s. Look up Operation Ivy Bells and you can read the book Blind Man's Bluff. The subs would install espionage devices that wouldn't require the cable to be cut. Or you would cut the cable at some shallow point pretending it was a trawler that made the cut accidentally, then you tap the deep water portion of the cable while the cable is down, then when the guys repair the cable, the characteristics would have been expected to change.
Re: (Score:2)
If repeaters in any way convert those photons to electrons so that they can be amplified, cleaned up, and converted back to better, stronger photons, then that is the point where interception does not require breaking the cable or even attaching to it. Certainly the technology exists to extract signals and so listen in.
You doubt this? We've been treated to a few clever ways to listen into PCs, ways we have not thought could be, and some defy shielding.
Remember, every state is eavesdropping on every other st
Find replace walkie-chatter (Score:1)
He just admitted basically to having the capability to rewrite walkie-talkie chatter realtime using these subs.
He also just threw some companies under the bus.
Said too much.
Again with this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because as everyone saw with the Wikileaks DNC release, Democrats fund astroturfers to spread lies all around the internet. I wouldn't doubt the Republicans do it too, but the DNC ones are 100% proven. As more and more negative Hillary evidence is revealed, they only thing they can do is deflect and try to pin the blame on somebody else. Hence all the "evil Russians" stories this last week.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We already knew Clinton was spending at least a million dollars to 'correct' people online.
I'll never understand how she managed to get the nomination, it's one scandal after another with that woman.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe she got the nomination because those aren't scandals.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but security violations are criminal offenses. Just like adultery in the military is a federal offense. But the "lock her up" mentality is maybe a bit extreme. Usually its just a revocation of all clearances, and blacklisted from ever holding a position of trust ever again. And maybe some fines.
But the fix is in, so no use in arguing over it.
Re: Again with this? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but security violations are criminal offenses.
Seriously? You have the citations for any security violation being a criminal offense?
But the "lock her up" mentality is maybe a bit extreme.
It isn't just "lock her up, as Al Baldasaro, an advisor to Trump's campaign said, “Anyone that commits treason should be shot,” “I believe Hillary Clinton committed treason. She put people in danger. When people take confidential material off a server, you’re sharing information with the enemy. That’s treason.”
Then again, I suppose this is just another thing that needs massaged until it doesn't say what it said, And I'm not certain that it is a good tactic for Trump to take at the moment. Now if I might bring up another case of White House level shennagins as a comparison, let us take the Iran Contra mess.
In the 1980's direct intentional circumvention of the law was being practiced out of the White House. Oliver North was working on deals to have Isreal sell weapons to Iran, and have proceeds go to the Contras in Venezuela . In return, the Iranians were going to talk to terrorists in Lebanon who were holding some American citizens hostage. This complicated scheme was indeed selling weapons to an avowed enemy of the United States, and was indeed siphoning off proceeds to the Contras, an act prohibited by the Boland Amendment.
Details are the Iranians got some 1000 TOW missiles and other weapons and parts.
The cover was that Isreal would sell them the parts, then we'd replace them,
Things went along swimmingly, until a airlift of weapons were gunned down in Nicaragua.
As the wheels were falling off, Oliver North, and his secretary, Fawn Hall, started shredding documents specifically in order to eliminate the evidence of the illegal activities. Hall was caught smuggling classified documents under her clothing.
In the end, Hall recieved immunity, North had his conviction overturned on a technicality, and Poindexter who was convicted, was pardoned by Bush 1, and Reagan invoked not recalling or it's equivalent at least 124 times during testimony..
So if a bucket list of intentional illegal criminal activity resulted in essentially nothing, then it gets pretty hard to get spun up ofer what amounts to a security violation.
Unless the political intent is to just make it seem like treason. Whic sorta pales in comparison to the documented shenanigans that went on before to no avail. There is that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've found out that Department of State networks have been hacked for years. She made the right call security-wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the vast majority of the "scandals" are hyperbolically exaggerated BS or made up from whole cloth by the republicans. The one case where she could legitimately argued to have done something wrong was a bog-standard case of "shadow IT". And most of us have been in situations ourselves where... if we could have gotten around the obstructive BOFH going on about "my precious" network that they don't want tainted by the frivolity of those "dirty hobbitses" and gotten our email and notifications on our
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of made up bullshit going around about the emails. The emails are easily searchable, so it doesn't take long to disprove them, but then another pops up.
Time for Copy/Paste vs. ModTrolls again... (Score:2)
Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.
You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever. [motherjones.com]
Well, since the last millennium at least.
Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".
Hmm... where did I
Pity you're a coward... (Score:2)
You just went so hilariously overboard with ad hominems and lack of knowledge of history - you would be elected the local rightwing loon faster than you could come up with another crazy conspiracy.
If only you had the balls to sign your name...
Ah well... It is the roads not taken that made you the man you are today... or the man you're not, to be precise.
All those times you lacked the courage to voice your opinion, hiding in the crowds, helplessness and despair silently eating you from inside...
To the point
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to resort to the guardian, but... https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
There are better reasons than email idiocy.
Re:Again with this? (Score:5, Informative)
He made a very tired joke
Nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until Thursday before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:
From the Washington Post:
1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.
2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit â" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.
3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.
4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government â" Russia, China, anybody â" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Lastly, even though very clearly he wasn't joking, even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that. And all around fscked up for him anyway you see it.
But as Trump himself said, he could go and shoot someone in Times Square and his voters would still support him. That part he did get right.
Re:Again with this? (Score:4, Informative)
The felonies she committed didn't require intent,
They do, you are missinformed. Mens rea is crucial in this case. Read it up.
I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day.
Trump is equally corrupt. Haven't you read about Trump university or his 1,300 lawsuits against him or the fact that is damn nearly impossible to find a business partner of his that wasn't screwed over by him? That the only people they could find that would say a good word about him in the convention were D listers and his children? that he spent the last eight years slandering Obama as a Kenyan muslim only to cry like a baby when he's challenged by tough questions from the press? Lying about supposed evidence of his citizenship that was never forthcoming? Trump oozes corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
I did look it up and Hillary Clinton did commit several felonies, one specifically being 18 USC Sec. 793(f). Look it up.
Through negligence she has permitted national defense secrets to exist outside of a properly secured system. Intent is irrelevant, it is not important that she intended to expose state secrets to potential adversaries only that she has not taken care to prevent the secrets from being discovered by an adversary. Additionally, there does not need to be proof that an adversary has discover
Re: (Score:2)
18 USC Sec. 793(f). Look it up.
Part (f) explicitly refers to gross negligence. Gross negligence, while not the best defined of legal terms, has always implied mens rea. So we are back to square one. Nothing that you have said places extreme carelessness in the same realm as gross negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gross negligence, while not the best defined of legal terms, has always implied mens rea."
Wrong. Try again.
Murder is the act of intentional homicide, manslaughter is the lesser offense of homicide through negligence. What differs here is that the law makes no distinction between negligence and intent in the securing of classified data. Whether Clinton intended to break the law or not is irrelevant. Paragraph (f) that I pointed to above spells out that negligence is also a crime, other paragraphs before
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than just looking for what Google gave as a definition for "gross negligence" I went to a legal resource: https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]
"A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages."
Clinton did not seem to give any regard to how her handling of state secrets might affect others, that fits th
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing negligence with intent. If Clinton's actions were tantamount to a conscious decision, I'm sure there would have been many more classified documents on her systems. You're not providing evidence, other than your own opinions, that Clinton's negligence looked like a conscious decision, rather than incomplete attempts to keep classified documents off her personal systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer here, and I'm not saying she didn't break the law.
What I do know is that nobody has come up with a good account of anyone else facing criminal prosecution for what Clinton did. There have been criminal prosecutions for deliberate violations of the law, sure, but that's not what Clinton did. Nobody has shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence without intent involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no known harm. In practice, what she did has consis
Re: (Score:2)
You mention corruption yet describe a lack of ethics; they're not the same thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you say that Saucier deliberately took photos of his reactor room? That sounds to me like a conscious decision to break the law, which Clinton hasn't been shown to have.
I note that nobody has yet shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no harm known. Instead, people persist in coming up with cases of deliberate violation of the law and trying to tell me they're equivalent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are going to destroy Trump with garbage because the American people are too stupid to reject him for the truly horrible things he's said and done.
It's like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the name of the game.
Youa re not supposed to joke as a candidate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.
He'll probably then blame the Russian government for not realising it was a joke. Via the emergency broadcasting system, from his bunker underneath what remains of Washington.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.
He'll probably then blame the Russian government for not realising it was a joke. Via the emergency broadcasting system, from his bunker underneath what remains of Washington.
Why wait? Reagan made that particular joke decades ago. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.
I guess you're too young to remember Reagan's "The bombing begins in five minutes" joke.
So Reagan was not an actor? (Score:2)
See how a comment about "we will outlive you" being spun as a deadly threa
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty to dislike about Trump. But why keep making stuff up? He didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's email. He made a very tired joke (it's been made here and elsewhere for weeks) about maybe the Russians, if they can find her email in the stuff they already have, could turn it over to our FBI, who couldn't find most of what she deleted. Go after him for his abundant riches of nonsense, but don't make crap up. Makes this site look sillier than usual.
Its such a pity that the lad needs an interpreter, don't you think? Spouting off like the Oracle at Delphi, then the sycophants have to write many passages about what heactually said.
Which was: "But it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next."
Without any inter
Re: (Score:2)
Its such a pity that the lad needs an interpreter, don't you think?
No, it's a pity you're pretending that what he said wasn't perfectly clear. It's a pity that you think so little of the people you're talking to that you expect them to be that dumb.
There are things you just don't say, like telling a foreign country to find classified emails on our countries systems
What? Telling them to find them on "our countries [sic] systems" ? Hillary Clinton deleted those messages years ago. The only place where her yoga class and wedding planning emails (remember? that's what she said she deleted) could be would be in the hands of someone who hacked them years ago. The FBI has already said there's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting part is to listen to the comments.
Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections (July 27, 2016)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07... [cnn.com]
"Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their fa
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty to dislike about Trump. But why keep making stuff up?
Yeah, libtards and commies and socialists just make shit up, all out of whole cloth. Trump is just constantly being misinterpreted/
Well, since I have a loyalist sucking at the Don's teat, I want you to explain exactly why the Veterns of Froeign Wars are in that group of people making shit up. Tell me EXACTLY what Trump said, and tell me EXACTLY why it was misinterpreted? Was it a joke about a Gold Star Mother? Hey that's pretty funny. Or was it the liberal media tricking him? Inquiring minds want to kno
Re:Again with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, everything he ever said is a joke. Why can't people understand that?
Because it's easier to go on about Trump then accept the reality of what Clinton has done so far with power.
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing Clinton has done with power is use it to gain even more power. Clinton is the poster child for the entrenched political establishment. Just look at all the money she has collected from wealthy individuals and special interests. These donors expect a ROI when they buy a candidate. Just think about how upset both democrat and republican donors are going to be if Trump wins and they end up getting nothing for their millions if not billions. And Trump asking Russia if they could locate the missin
Re: (Score:2)
Right, everything he ever said is a joke. Why can't people understand that?
Because it's easier to go on about Trump then accept the reality of what Clinton has done so far with power.
This does two things, Trump's opponents are thinking and listening to Trump. Not Hillary. Free publicity. Millions of dollars worth.
It keeps the "strategists" in the DNC and on the left spinning for bullshit spin (which the "russians did it" little "fact" is) and every day they do that, is another day they are behind in the election and another day's worth of money down the tubes. The longer things go with the emails leaked the better chance someone will connect more of the dots which will be another blow.
Re:Again with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it's easier to go on about Trump then accept the reality of what Clinton has done so far with power.
Folks go on about Trump, because he's a bit of a loose canon.
However, there is one good thing about a loose canon . . . it will clear the deck and this is something Washington DC badly needs. Clear the deck of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Again with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go watch his FULL UNEDITED press conference. He was asking for existing materials (if any) to be released. He was not asking anyone to go and hack them now.
In case you didn't hear: Hillary deleted her e-mails and her server was handed over to the FBI. There's simply no way to hack those e-mails anymore. It's really not very hard to understand. They can only be released from existing materials, if those exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Takes a lot of spin to turn "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!" to 'hack please'. First off, that nasty present tense.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it up. This guy is a through and through shill. The joke used to be that we would just ask the NSA to find the missing emails because they scoop everything up. It was made about the IRS 5 failed harddrives without backups so emails concerning targeting conservative organizations couldn't be turned over to congress. It resurfaced with Hillary and her deleted emails. Now that the story being pushed is that Russia is doing the same to help trump, very little needed changed to make it again.
Make no mistak
Re: (Score:2)
Takes a lot of spin to turn "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!" to 'hack please'. First off, that nasty present tense.
And it takes a person who is willing to outright fucking lie and do it unashamedly to reformat what Trump said, the put quotations around it.
Here, and please feel free to interject more lies because I find it incredibly entertaining and illustrative is the direct quote, that is referenced by multitudes of videos:
"it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's law in politics. Politicians routinely say things in all seriousness that are so outrageous that when one does make a joke, it's hard to tell if it's really a joke or not. Especially true of Trump, as he has a history of hyperbole and general offensiveness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who needed an interpretation?
Only everyone who has been re-interpreting what he said. Only the people who make up new things that he said and put it in quotes, as if he actually said the stuff they just made up. Only the people who are so smitten with the guy that they will accept anything that he says, and if he says something that is obviously bad, they have to Astroturf him. You interpreted what he said as a joke.
The only thing that needs commentary is the smack-down the Hillary camp deserves for acting like their supporters are so dumb that they'd actually fall for the absurd faux-outrage and phony "he asked the Russians to hack" narrative.
Seriously, nice deflection try. I'm no supporter of Mrs Clinton, but I can tell you that if I had an employee with a cl
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, nice deflection try.
What? Show me where he said that he "called for the Russians to hack" - what he said was he hoped they could find (by inference, in the stuff they'd already long since had - how are you not seeing this) the stuff that she'd deleted. Deleted: past tense. You know, as in: the only way to have them would be for the hacking to have occurred years ago. Are you really not understanding this? And, how is it a security issue involving clearance? Clinton assures us that the 30,000 messages she deleted were all abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He made a very tired joke
Odd. I didn't hear anyone laugh. Not even a twitter, but there was a whole lot of tweeting.
Why would a room full of leftist lapdog "journalists" laugh at a joke mere seconds after he was done beating on them? Losers don't laugh. Especially those that take themselves very seriously.
Perspectives sure have changed, haven't they? (Score:1, Interesting)
In the past, when America would do this, it was cheered by the American populace. It was thought a good thing that America should have an advantage, and quite natural and obvious that we should do these things. After all, everyone else is spying on us, and fair's fair!
Now, the American media works overtime exposing every advantage America tries to get over other countries, and when writing about it, uses a chiding, tut-tut-tut tone that clearly indicates that what America is doing is wrong. How times hav
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by that logic the WTC attack was natural and obvious. After all, USA had repeatedly bombed the middle east, killing civilians, and fair's fair.
Surprisingly Americans reacted in a very different way.
Re: (Score:2)
Baby Bush came to power and worrying about such things became a low priority. His very strong Saudi connections blinded him to the danger.
Not comparable (Score:1)
But The Washington Post is reminding us that U.S.'s efforts in the cyber-security world aren't much different.
They are very different to what Trump asked. The USA is spying on a foreign country (Russia) just like Russia is spying on us. However Trump sided with the enemy in this spying effort. This is a huge difference and verging on treason, a word that is often thrown around half-haphazardly, but which in this case fully seems to meet the legal definition:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not an enemy though. You can call them the enemy but it doesn't make it so. Only congress or the president can define enemies unless in an actual invasion which cyber espionage isn't.
Listen. All the way back to the IRS targeting conservatives and their missing emails the joke was that the NSA could release them. It was the same with Hillary's missing emails, just ask the NSA for them. Now they claim it is Russia doing all the spying so the joke shift to just ask the Russians for it.
I know you are
Re: (Score:2)
Putin very much wants to be an enemy though. He is on record as pining for the "good old days" of the cold war, KGB and Soviet Union; having said publicly that he considers their dissolution "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". And he's been taking increasingly aggressive steps towards bringing all three back over the last several years.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true but your elected leaders don't think it makes Russia an enemy though. Perhaps one day they might but not as of now.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
He wants to be faced with nothing but the current situation of empty saber rattling while he does a Tsar Peter on bits of territory he'd like to have.
He'd be much happier to have to listen to distant ranting of an isolationist like Trump than be an enemy. He'd be much happier to move slowly and still get what he wants than move quickly enough for Hillary to even remotely consider putting troops in his path.
Expect history to repeat similar to Marines getting mo
Re: (Score:2)
If Snowden working for a subcontractor in Hawaii could get it then the Russians, Chinese and anyone who wants the stuff enough to cover a Vegas gambling debt already had it.
Treason (Score:1)
Trump has committed treason.
Wittingly or not, he asked a foreign government to publish information which he asserts to contain state secrets.
Trump Wants To Launch Hack Attacks (Score:4, Insightful)
I distinctly remember Trump having said that Russia should find Hillary's deleted emails -- the implication being that he believes, as many do, that her server had already been hacked -- and those emails only need to be found from within the FSB archives in which they're being kept. I distinctly don't remember Trump saying Russia should hack any server that is currently online, or even using the word "hack".
But now, not only has this "Trump called Russia to hack Clinton" meme propagated, it's being treated no longer even as speculation but as an accepted truth that premises other stories. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you argue that everything from Trump is a throw-away sarcastic statement, which would actually make a lot of sense.
Keep on looking at the big loud Trump instead of the close to nothingness behind the curtain of a casino boss pretending to have a big heart.
America Outsouring: China, Russia Don't Need Subs (Score:2)
He didn't ask anyone to launch hack attacks (Score:3)
Hillary's e-mails have already been deleted. No "hack attack" is going to reveal them. The suggestion that a hack is wanted to reveal the e-mails (made by the press, not Trump) is plain ignorant.
If you go back and look at Trump's speech he wasn't anyone asking to go and hack. He simply asked that if someone has those e-mails already (from older hacks), to please share them.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the editors? (Score:2)
This block of text inside ( ) has NO NEED to be bracketed like that. It is a thought consistent with the one before and the one after and not some sort of abstract that needed to be separated. It's also huge, much too large to be an aside. Where are the editors and proofreaders these days? A properly written and constructed article should never need to break out into brackets.
... Soviet forces. (The National Security Agency has continued that tradition, monitoring underwater fiber cables as part of its globe-spanning intelligence-gathering apparatus. In some cases, the government has struck closed-door deals with the cable operators ensuring that U.S. spies can gain secure access to the information traveling over those pipes.) These days, ....
It's what most of them are for (Score:2)
Nuclear subs are a bit noisier (coolant pumps are apparently running all the time) but it's all relative since at a distance background noise is going to mask them.
Re: (Score:2)
That just means they love America.
Re: (Score:2)
The only payment I get is the sweet, sweet outrage from the misogynists and racists when someone does not believe as they do, but it's payment enough.
Trump doesn't understand even the basic philosophical concepts on which our government is based. You assholes don't give a crap because he's finally saying the right things about the wrong people. Plus he's an idiot who doesn't understand foreign policy, but you guys don't care about that, either.
For the record, I'm with Bernie, but I'm not sad that Hillary
Re: (Score:3)
I don't approve of Hillary's foreign policy. It's just better than the alternative available. Trump doesn't understand that the US nuclear umbrella keeps Japan from wanting to get nukes, and that's very good thing. Trump doesn't understand that NATO security guarantees prevents an arms race in Europe. Any student of history knows that's a very good thing. Trump doesn't understand that banning Muslims will not prevent terrorism, but will hurt our image, tramples over our founding philosophical concepts,
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how many anti-Hillary comments there are. If you think Slashdot's in the tank, you're either ignorant or delusional.
I have not talked to anyone in the Clinton campaign about saying anything about her or this campaign. I certainly wouldn't accept money for such a thing. I bash ignorant and spiteful and stupid people for free. Consider it a public service.