Former FBI Director Predicts Russian Hackers Will Interfere With More Elections (nytimes.com) 506
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
James B. Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., testified that the Russians had not only intervened in last year's election, but would try to do it again... Russian hackers did not just breach Democratic email accounts; according to Mr. Comey, they orchestrated a "massive effort" targeting hundreds of -- and possibly more than 1,000 -- American government and private organizations since 2015... As F.B.I. director, he supervised counterintelligence investigations into computer break-ins that harvested emails from the State Department and the White House, and that penetrated deep into the computer systems of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet President Barack Obama's administration did not want to publicize those intrusions, choosing to handle them diplomatically -- perhaps because at the time they looked more like classic espionage than an effort to manipulate American politics...
Graham Allison, a longtime Russia scholar at Harvard, said, "Russia's cyberintrusion into the recent presidential election signals the beginning of what is almost sure to be an intensified cyberwar in which both they -- and we -- seek to participate in picking the leaders of an adversary." The difference, he added, is that American elections are generally fair, so "we are much more vulnerable to such manipulation than is Russia," where results are often preordained... Similar warnings have been issued by others in the intelligence community, led by James R. Clapper Jr., who has sounded the alarm since retiring in January as director of national intelligence. "I don't think people have their head around the scope of what the Russians are doing," he said recently.
Daniel Fried, a career diplomat who oversaw sanctions imposed on Russia before retiring this year, told the Times that Comey "was spot-on right that Russia is coming after us, but not just the U.S., but the free world in general. And we need to take this seriously."
Graham Allison, a longtime Russia scholar at Harvard, said, "Russia's cyberintrusion into the recent presidential election signals the beginning of what is almost sure to be an intensified cyberwar in which both they -- and we -- seek to participate in picking the leaders of an adversary." The difference, he added, is that American elections are generally fair, so "we are much more vulnerable to such manipulation than is Russia," where results are often preordained... Similar warnings have been issued by others in the intelligence community, led by James R. Clapper Jr., who has sounded the alarm since retiring in January as director of national intelligence. "I don't think people have their head around the scope of what the Russians are doing," he said recently.
Daniel Fried, a career diplomat who oversaw sanctions imposed on Russia before retiring this year, told the Times that Comey "was spot-on right that Russia is coming after us, but not just the U.S., but the free world in general. And we need to take this seriously."
No shit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they will. Did anyone think otherwise?
I guess if you really bought into the "Trump works with Russia" DNC story, then you would expect it to end.
But any rational person would realize that Russia, like the USA, will attempt to interfere in any election where they think they can get away with it and get an advantage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Roger Stone, Trump's best friend, literally tweeted advanced notice of the Guccifer 2.0 (Russian Intelligence) hack. I'm shocked at the absence of knowledge on this site nowadays. Yes Russia just wants influence, Russia just wants chaos. But They also co-opted the Trump campaign.
Re:No shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
One might also mention that Russia has just recently discovered that American's reliance on online media is an awesome way to influence elections and to a magnitude they could never have before.
Re:No shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out one of the main aggravating factors... the ridiculous length of a typical US election cycle gives hackers the luxury of taking time to build up sophisticated attacks.
Cut the election cycle back to something sane, like 2-3 months, and a lot of this vulnerability disappears.
Not that I expect to see it happen. In fact, I sorta expect to see the exact opposite.
News from 1920 (Score:5, Interesting)
The Soviet Union used propaganda and dirty tricks to try to interfere with EVERY US election they existed, and Russia just continues the tradition. They didn't call it fake news back then, it was just journalism with an agenda. Walter Duranty wasn't an accident, ya' know.
The only difference is that instead of stealing letters and publishing them, they're hacking email accounts and publishing them. Still no hacking of voting machines, still no manipulation of vote counts. In other words, still no 'hacking the election'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Still no hacking of voting machines"
Given the lack of audit trails in Diebold's systems, how would you ever know?
Russian against free world by exposing facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the free world will fall apart if everyone in it knows the truth about their government? I find it interesting how US government justifies spying on their own citizens with "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" and yet calls anyone who informs the people they serve with what the government does an enemy of the state. It's not like they hacked the personal sex videos of the Clinton, or some embarrassing comments made off-the-record; what they allegedly exposed were facts that have to do with her profession and potential corruption. I get that exposing those possibly affected the outcome of the election, but shouldn't the voters be entitled to know what the politicians they vote for actually do?
Re:Russian against free world by exposing facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
You evidently believe that facts can do no harm to your understanding.
Except they can. Only a fool treats carefully selected facts the same as if they were impartially selected, but there are quite evidently a lot of fools out there.
If you can't understand the importance of considering the selection and arrangement of information, you are utterly helpless in the face of a simple product testimonial. Even if the testimonial is completely factual, it gives you no useful information.
Re: (Score:3)
Only a fool treats carefully selected facts the same as if they were impartially selected,
That isn't what happened here. The DNC looked bad on their own merits. The emails just corroborated things we already knew. Also they were entertaining.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This mindless parroting needs to be put on ice. Trump's team has been under a counterintelligence investigation [usatoday.com], but not Trump himself. That's what his comment was about.
There is also, now, the collusion investigation, which Mueller has taken over. That is what Trump is being investigated for. Believe it or not, our intelligence community can handle more than one investigation at once. And I wouldn't expect any of them to tell the subject of their investigation that they're under investigation.
All
Re: (Score:3)
So you STILL believe he was under investigation, even after Comey's hearing, where he testified he wasn't?
I have no opinion, because the question is in part dependent upon a dubious distinction. Is there a difference between investigating the President and investigating a large number of people who are around him?
Not really. There's no special juju that happens when you name a president as a target of an investigation other than this: a massive shitstorm of a Constitutional crisis automatically ensues. That's why it's the very last thing you do -- if you're going to do it. You're probably not old enough to rem
Put up or STFU (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are alleging vote frauds, very simple. Liberals, Democrats and Rinos have pushed insecure voting and counting methods for years. I would welcome traceable, simple paper based systems with voter ID.
Given any honest efforts, the Russians don't worry me. But you do.
With the massive surveillance in place, if you can't immediately produce hard evidence, SHUT THE F*** UP and go away!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a reason why hard evidence will not be in the public domain - it's a matter of national intelligence. Voting systems/people are not the only thing they're trying to influence afterall. There's a reason why Comey's public hearing didn't tell much - because what really mattered was almost certainly found in the closed hearing afterwards.
Voter fraud is not really a problem - it's so small as to be meaningless. That is the only reason to have voter ID. The real problem is the lack of verifiability i
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason why hard evidence will not be in the public domain - it's a matter of national intelligence.
So you expect the rest of us to take their claims on blind faith? Because they've proven so honest and trustworthy in the past? Yes our intelligence agencies have never lied. Of course we can trust them! Fuck your blind faith. No evidence or it never happened. Period. That's what is right and just.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, red state voter systems are air tight.
Give me a fucking break you over partisan jackass.
What Trump Really Fears (Score:5, Interesting)
As usual the media noise machine has managed to deflect everyone from the real issue. Of course the Russians will interfere if they can. This last time around they probably didn't think when they started that it would work out so well but it did. It was a low cost, low risk enterprise probably intended to a) test the weapons and b) trim Hillary's wings rather than win Trump the White House.
Had Comey not done his political stunt with the Weiner's e-mails it wouldn't have flipped the election and I doubt they expected it to. Yet Nate Silver's numbers are pretty clear: Hillary had 6%+ lead until Comey did that and down 3%+ points after, close enough for the EC to do its thing. Had it not been for Comey the election would not have even been close.
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy. Hillary would not have. She would have continued Obama policies. That is not a bad payoff for what this cyber op probably cost.
Back to the point at hand is Trump is most likely innocent in the part about the election. What has him worried is that he knows that if they keep digging on the investigation what will come to light is his deep financial dependents on Russian money interests, all of whom are either pals of Putin if not outright operatives of his office.
A month or so ago Trump had one of his lawyers write up a letter that declared that "nobody in Russia owes Trump money." While the Trump supporters view that (as intended) as some sort of vindication/valdiation the reality-based world realizes nobody ever thought he did. What the real problem is that Trump owes Russians (i.e. Putin money big time.)
For the last two decades no American based bank would loan Trump money due to his shady business practices and so the money he has been using comes from either Russia. Or China (a whole new issue.) So I would bet that a lot of Trump businesses are heavily leveraged in Russian debt and possibly in default. In other words Putin probably has the power to ruin Trump -- the U.S. President! -- and family financially with just a phone call.
That is what Trump doesn't want you to know and why he has been so eager to stop any investigation regarding Russia. It will come up eventually and the only real question is how far Trump will hang on and how far the Republicans in the house will go to protect him. Based on what has gone on so far is pretty damn far.
Re: (Score:3)
This. The reason that Trump is so condescending with Russia in general is not that he's in bed with the Kremlin but that it is in his best financial interests.
The problem arises when he ends up doing retarded stuff like asking Comey to drop an investigation on Flynn just because it might reflect poorly on him.
Re: (Score:2)
So if no banks will loan Trump money, why would Russia or China take those loans? Surely they know its bad business.
Re: (Score:3)
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy.
Temporary. The Rubel is pretty much back to the same exchange rate it was before the sanctions, and chinese goods have largely replaced european and american goods. The first year or two were difficult, then the russian economy adapted.
The sanctions have been crippling to the european economy, for which Russia had been a large trade partner, and unlike Russia which was mostly a consumer and could switch to another supplier, due to the ongoing financial crisis, there were few other consumers to find. Industr
In other news: (Score:2)
If you're wondering why it matters (Score:2)
Well, no shit (Score:2)
See the email leak smear attempt just two days before the French presidential election for a more recent example.
Re: (Score:2)
See the email leak smear attempt just two days before the French presidential election for a more recent example.
It did not change the outcome, smeared Macron is president.
Re: (Score:3)
Never said it did; that doesn't mean that the attempt wasn't made. This is interference, not hacking.
Won't anybody DO SOMETHING!!! (Score:2)
I have to say, I used to be all for civil liberties; but now that I'm told that these devious Russians are trying to influence our elections, well then obviously what we need is strict controls in place to shutdown all that FAKE NEWS and ensure that our news sources publish only Real News! Why isn't anybody talking about this!!!!!
Even if it is true (Score:2)
I like the Russian method of regime change more than the American way. I think the population of most of the countries that the US bombed agrees with me.
Obligatory (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, government chooses YOU!!!
Politics..Again (Score:3, Interesting)
I like this site and I really liked it when the byline used to be "News for nerds Stuff that matter". Is there an extension or bookmarklet or something that I can use to filter out stories based on keywords? Keywords like Comey, Trump, Government, Clinton, Democrat, Republican, Brexit, and on and on? I sure would like that. I really would.
And bears ... (Score:2)
... always face forward.
There's no news value here.
This... (Score:2, Interesting)
My God, this is getting more tedious than the McCarthy hearings.
I'm still waiting for someone who has the guts to ask the Democrats "Have you no shame!!"
Unfortunately the answer to that question in this case is yes, the Democrats have no shame...
Making things complicated (Score:2)
Maybe if the US didn't have to make things so overly complicated on voting day by having electronic voting booths then you wouldn't have to worry about hacking. Hand the voter a couple of ballots, one for each thing they are voting for, and they put an X on each one. It's simple and it works. Secure and easy to (re)count.
But then there's this fascination of voting for so many positions. Like clerks. Why do you need to vote for clerks? They are part of the civil service. And some states elect judges. WTF? T
Re: (Score:3)
Cut down on the number of elected positions
I would say that the number of elected positions is something that is beneficial and relevant. The reason why so many positions are up for election is precisely because we live, in American, in a representative democracy. All of those positions, including clerks (you really don't know what those clerks do, don't you) are very important and powerful positions if you really get into it. A clerk in this case is actually the head figure for a whole office and is a significant executive office. Think of it m
A choice (Score:3)
It's a simple choice really.
Either open source the E-voting systems so exploits and generally bad things can be found, fixed and secured . . .
or
Go with the Russia* solution and revert back to old school methods by dropping E-Voting completely.
*Recall the story where they quit utilizing computers and switched back to typewriters for sensitive documents when spying revelations became apparent.
Paper methods are a PITA for sure, but also impossible to manipulate with a simple keystroke.
give me a break! (Score:3, Insightful)
Russian interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation? Really? Let's compare that to the king of manipulators- the USA. Ask any insider in Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Germany or Russia ... The USA is there, with the carrot and the stick, arranging weapons contracts, CIA connections, generous bribes, commercial alliances, and assuring that the 'right' people win elections. Maybe the US has achieved a level of subtlety and control over the press that makes these activities seem less significant, but you can bet that they are well supported with our tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
During the Cold War, China had Coke and the USSR had Pepsi.
Re: (Score:2)
And Hillary looked sooooo stupid up on the stage holding that giant Reset Button.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Just like Bush had months of daily warnings of an impending attack but chose to do nothing. Which led to the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Then Bush lied to the American people about the need to invade and occupy a foreign country which had nothing to do with the attacks, which led to the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, over 250,000 Iraqi civilians and a $3 trillion+ price tag foisted on the American people.
Very Bush.
Re: So (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush had months of daily warnings of an impending attack but chose to do nothing.
The intelligence provided the president is shared with congressional leaders, and as I recall was not what the intelligence community refers to as 'actionable intelligence' - there was nothing specific to act on.
You want to play the blame game, what about Clinton's siloing of the intelligence bureaus that prevented the field reports of the middle-eastern flight school students that had no interest in learning to take off or land, but only in controlling a plane once airborne from ever being investigated?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush had months of daily warnings of an impending attack but chose to do nothing.
The intelligence provided the president is shared with congressional leaders, and as I recall was not what the intelligence community refers to as 'actionable intelligence'
From what I recall McConnel threatened to basically rebuke obama. link [businessinsider.com] That still seems odd and Obama should have spoken more forcefully.
The main problem is garbage in garbage out. CItizens are poorly informed at the best of times, let alone when they are fed raw sewage thanks to the alt right and all the fake crap. For the good of our country, it would be best that if politicians stood together and defended it. The other options are attacking back with cyber weapons to expose truth, or just blindly hopi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
The generals and the White House had originally planned on using the Iraqi army to maintain security and law and order; and getting elections going as soon as possible to create a new constitution and government.
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
How is this even a [dailymail.co.uk] question [al-monitor.com]?
“...I am one of the political prisoners who was arrested in 1988, but life was better in Saddam’s days, compared with now.”...
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government.
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
No, the biggest problem was the invasion. I'm not saying you're completely wrong. But to pick out one mistake out of so many is misleading. To begin with the war was based on a lie [salon.com]. So if not WMD, what were the real reasons for going to war? If Jack shoots himself with a gun, then doesn't dress the wound properly, the reason Jack died was because he shot himself.
But anyway, after the invasion, Col. Ted Spain was the guy in charge of law & order, he seems like a great resource to list all the mistakes [nytimes.com]:
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
Bremer says those weren't his decisions. He says he was ordered to do so, that order came from Rumsfield's office but Rumsfield also says he was ordered to do so but won't say by whom. It seem likely that the order originated from Cheney's office and was made on the recommendation of Chalabi, who wanted to install his own army and government in Iraq. If that's the case, then it wasn't a mistake, as much as it was a deliberate betrayal of America and Iraq's common interests to profit an ally of Dick Cheney.
Re: So (Score:5, Informative)
Some of you seem like you don't even read the news you comment on. Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats when he found out, closed the embassies they were housed in and accused them of using the premises the conduct espionage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In regards to altering the outcome, all they did was publish the dirty laundry of Hillary and the DNC.
Re: (Score:3)
In regards to altering the outcome, all they did was publish the dirty laundry of Hillary and the DNC.
No, that was not all they did, they also have been shilling, and spying, among other things. And the neat little insinuation that there was any dirty laundry to expose is not supported by the facts.
Indeed during the election, I was interested in reading some of this supposed "dirty laundry" but time and again the claims were not backed up by actual facts. They relied of extremely tortured interpretations of sentence fragments from emails. For example, there was one about "Hillary hates Catholics", which Trump actually tried to use in his speech at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The actual email was between two staffers, Hillary was not involved as either a recipient or a sender and
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Republicans who were communicating with Russians who were being monitored had their conversations picked up. There was no "active wire tapping and spying on a republic candidate for president". None. Zero. Claiming that is like getting busted at a sweep of a whorehouse and then whining that "they" are out to get you.
Re: So (Score:5, Interesting)
Your thinking is what is so bizarre about today's political climate. A variety of US intelligence services, in the course of monitoring Russian agents who often are part of recruiting US citizens, noticed a high level of contact between high level trump campaign people and these agents. It's become clear that there was an intense effort by the Russians to get trump elected, and that's part of an ongoing effort to influence and ultimately control US elections.
Let that sink in. A hostile foreign power wants to decide who is running the US government. However bad you think the USA is today, it would be a crap ton worse with Putin running it, and elections being utterly meaningless.
And with all that, with the fate of our democracy at stake, people are worried that some of trump's buddies who were busy talking to these Russian had their names revealed... again, NOT because THEY were being monitored, but because the RUSSIAN AGENTS they were talking to were monitored.
Congratulations, you've managed to focus on the mote, and ignore the tidal wave bearing down on you. People like you are why our democracy is in such trouble right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The other day, someone posted on
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
I just said this here last week: The Russians post comments on Finnish news sites and forums in Finnish. If they have the time and the resources to do propaganda on sites with readerships that are a tiny tiny fraction of /.'s, there's absolutely no doubt that they're actively posting and moderating here as well.
The way they operate in the social media is by having vast amounts of bots/fake accounts, usually with western names. Then they push out articles through their own media corps directly (RT etc,) or via 3rd parties like different conspiracy sites and communities that then share these on FB & al. Then they use the bots to 'moderate' these post for high visibility with likes and shares. In here, probably some of their people just gather mod points and then other write posts which the modders then vote up.
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
I just said this here last week: The Russians post comments on Finnish news sites and forums in Finnish. If they have the time and the resources to do propaganda on sites with readerships that are a tiny tiny fraction of /.'s, there's absolutely no doubt that they're actively posting and moderating here as well.
There was absolutely no doubt of that during the election. The moderation of politicial stories took a sudden and drastic turn. What was even more obvious was that even more than pro-trump posts, what was getting +5 mods was ridicule of the meer idea that Putin or Russians might be involved. You tell me what group of people would be flooding a US political forum with their #1 priority being promoting Russia and Russian politicians and only their #2 priority being promoting their favorite US politician?
I had to quit posting on the stories, simply because it got to be such a drag reading page after page of upvoted Russian propaganda. They basically removed /. as a useful forum for the last 3 months of the election.
Re: So (Score:3)
The thread is a bit stale, but I want to chime in.
With some regularity, Slashdot members have called me a paid Microsoft shill. I am a Linux user and don't actually need money. In all those cases, I posted factual information, to the best of my recollection.
I was away, dealing with some personal stuff, during the election.
Since returning, I've had just one comment that accused me of being a Russian. I've had several that accused me of being a Trump voter. I didn't vote for Trump and don't even like the guy.
Re: So (Score:5, Funny)
You're right, the Republicans 'hacked' the election and cost Hillary the Presidency - when will the Democrats start their investigation into those pesky Republicans and their 'better than thou' candidate that WASN'T under an FBI investigation?!?!
Re: So (Score:3)
You're right, George W. Bush started Project Echelon [wikipedia.org] in the mid-sixties... oddly, I'm not sure why he did that when LBJ was President?
Re: Oh That's Rich (Score:3)
And the Israeli election also...
The Russians interfered in elections before 2016, so why would they stop after 2016, since (according to Democrats) The Russians masterfully caused "Their Candidate" to win the election?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hear that Israel has some influence in US elections too.
Re:Oh That's Rich (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand -- Russia is immune here, as they don't even know the concept of a fair election. They did not have a single one during their whole history -- not by the tsars, not by the soviets, almost had one by Yeltsin, then back to the usual. They don't even bother with any semblance of propriety: Chechnya voted 99.5% for One Russia (Putin's party) with 99.4% turnout; just 11 years after a second war against them led by said Putin.
Re:Oh That's Rich (Score:5, Informative)
Intervened? I missed that, but wikileaks reported on US espionage on the French elections.
However , here is an article "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere". Is Washington Post MSM enough for you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Perhaps it would help if the US admitted past CIA corruption of democracy and apologised.
The Russians have been interfering for decades (Score:3, Insightful)
And despite all the interference all the US intelligence agencies agree. There is no evidence that votes were tampered with; nor the outcomes of the election changed.
And even from Hillary, there is no dispute that the damaging emails were fake, merely that they were s
Re:The Russians have been interfering for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
So the Russians went about looking for dirt by hacking the DNC. I feel it is pretty safe to say it was not altruism that prompted the Russian hacks and therefore, while they did uncover shady practices (although everything was perfectly legal) that it was indeed an effort to change out election results in their favor.
Honestly, how can you rationalize it in any other manner? Do you really think Russia was hacking the DNC to save America? If you're a sane American and the answer is "no" then maybe you should feel uncomfortable about the candidate that did benefit. On the other hand, maybe you're Ivan.
Re: The Russians have been interfering for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Registration tampering has been a standard tactic for decades. Sometimes they hide behind a facade- like Voter ID.
Sometimes they don't even try, like the "felon purge" across several key swing states in 2000 and 2004 where the GOP had control. They ordered their staffers to purge the voter registration rolls of ex-felons in states that ex felons have the right to vote. Worse, they purged people in their state who had felonies from other states which cannot prevent you the right to vote in another st
Re: So... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's most pissed that he was being shitcanned while on the other side of the continent. No chance to clean up his office, shred stuff, etc.
I'm OK with him not being able to clean up his office, shred stuff, etc. - when you or I do it it's called 'destroying evidence'.
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
I think China is a hundred times more of a threat than Russia. Russia grandstands. They want attention. China doesn't want attention. ... Because they're an actual threat. They manipulate information, they manipulate currencies, they have tons of spies and the largest group of hackers on the planet. 27% OF ALL ATTACKS come from China, and as much as 47% can be tracked back to China. This is not a fucking joke. This is the calm before the storm. China has the largest standing military (over a MILLION MORE than the USA). For all the "military-industrial-complex" people harp on the USA (and it's warranted) 99% of the public has no idea how big a threat China is becoming.
And manipulating the election? China does that too in both the US and the UN. Google it.
We've also had tons of ACTUAL state secrets "leaked" and straight up SOLD to China. Not this "war in iraq"/"poor civilians got shot" shit that's just a PR blunder. ACTUAL secrets that represent tens of BILLIONS of dollars and decades of US research that ends up overseas. Like ultra-high resolution modern radar systems. We're paying for it, and they're benefiting from it.
Here's a report from 2017 that China is reaching "near parity with the West's military." That should horrify you. China does not give two shits about your civil liberties or peace among nations. They've been the sole reason North Korea hasn't been bombed into dust. Why? Because it's in their best interests.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Russia is a freaking distraction. An underdog. China is a resting giant quietly growing a military capable of conquering new territory.
Re: Destroy Russia (Score:2, Insightful)
Nutsign detected: vague non-specific claims with "Google it" instead of providing links to corroborating evidence.
Re: Destroy Russia (Score:4, Informative)
Nutsign detected: vague non-specific claims with "Google it" instead of providing links to corroborating evidence.
No. Some of us are old enough to remember and its only the "kiddies" who need to Google things. Some of the top links for Clinton and Chinese donations.
... According to congressional investigators, Ng laundered the illegal campaign donations through a close Clinton associate in Arkansas named Charlie Trie during the 1996 election."
"The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton's personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million."
http://time.com/4348675/terry-... [time.com]
"Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. "Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest threat in the world is actually USA, they are the only country that has troops all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
http://fortune.com/2017/04/12/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Some good news about China stealing the information because if they have taken the plans for the F-35 their fighter program will be set back by decades!
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:5, Informative)
China is only a scary boogieman if you ignore all of the serious internal issues they have. They're undergoing a socioeconomic change the pace and scale of of which the world has never seen before. That can't continue if they need to divert resources to a war. It's not clear if it can continue anyway, given the serious raw material and energy shortages they have.
A million plus man army is indeed staggering, but china has 1.3 billion people that are increasingly exposed to and embracing the standards of living in the west. Hundreds of thousands, now perhaps millions of young people educated in the west, and who saw the freedom the west has. While I don't discount that China has stolen vast amounts of tech from the west, and is using this to make dramatic leaps forward, their current struggle is to take care of themselves. More and more goods are not being shipped to the west, and are instead kept for their own populace.
The major issue is this rapid pace is slowing down, and a half billion [geopoliticalfutures.com] Chinese still live in abject poverty. Large swathes of China still aren't electrified. China's rapid growth is not impacting half of the country, and that's causing a lot of unrest. As China's manufacturing growth slows and exports continue to drop off, that's going to really impact their economy. None of this is conducive to them being a world military power. Regional? Sure. But definitely not one that's going to go out and conquest. That's just a fever dream.
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:5, Interesting)
While all you are saying is true, China does not show any ambitions of building an empire. It especially lacks any capability to project its military power. Last I checked, they had two aircraft carriers. (for comparison, the USA operates 10, half of the world-wide fleet).
China does understand the power of economics. Their economic activities around the world, especially their long game in Africa and South America, should worry anyone who looks beyond two election periods much, much more. This country is used to thinking in terms of centuries. They plant seeds now (of economic cooperation) that will blossom in 50 or 100 years.
The same is true for hacking. I don't think they care much about elections. In chinese terms, a US president is a temporary event. There'll be another one soon. But military secrets, technological advances, scientific progress - those are things worth stealing.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually agree with a lot of this, but I don't think it makes sense to downplay the military (specifically naval) threat.
Last I checked, they had two aircraft carriers
That would be more reassuring if it weren't for the fact that last *I* checked, they had only one carrier, and no planes that could land on it. They currently have those two, two more under construction, and another planned. Two to Five operable fleet carriers is actually pretty dang muscular. Sure, they may have to think twice about anything the US will fight over, but would the US fig
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is - China isn't going to invade America
Neither is Russia.
What, exactly, are you americans all so afraid about? Not being able to be the bully on the playground anymore, that's what?
Nobody is threatening you. Some countries are just tired of being threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is after its old glory and aims to destroy the rest of the world to get it. There is no ambiguity, there is no hesitance. Putin is evil and must be removed. Russia must be reformed again, and it may require that Putin is assassinated first. He is poised to invade the Baltic with paratroopers, and NATO can't defend anything at its current readiness. War is inevitable, and taking initiative is the primary concern.
Don't try to hide the only strategic analysis of revealed Russian aggression. They must be fought directly and quickly or the losses will be even greater.
Re:Destroy Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Russia under Putin as a bad actor all right, but what I don't get is how can they really be a threat to the West, or at least a semi-unified West.
I think, Militarily, they are not really a threat, except to their immediate neighbours. The larger threat lies in espionage and destabilization. Russia literally operates entire armies of propagandists to maintain order in Russia, and they are starting to see the benefits of directing that propaganda power outside of their country to sow chaos among their enemies. Crimea, for example, was a the result of a several years long propaganda campaign by Russia followed by with a small, clandestine, military a
Re:Insert "collapse from its own contradictions" h (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I've ever seen someone argue the morality of any particular country that they didn't live in. It seems like you may be conflating people's desire to avoid war and the involvement of foreign nations in wars.
I also don't think we should be fighting Russia but we should be defending ourselves from all forces that seek to mislead the public, both foreign and domestic.
I know it's crazy right? (Score:5, Informative)
As for Iran, they were well on their way to modernizing before we put a bunch of religious nuts in power. There's pictures of girls in Iran wearing the sorts of skirts that wouldn't have been out of place in 1960s America before we screwed with 'em. And don't get me started on the shit we do and did in South America so Code can sell cheap sugar water.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at you here making up your own history.
The Left had a problem with US actions during the revolutions in Iran because we overthrew a democraticaly elected government and installed a dictator. When the Iranians found out they went apeshit which is how we got the modern day Iran and all of the problems that come with it.
The Left has had a problem with the vietnam war because of lives lossed and the fact that both the French and Americans knew that the communists would win any election that was put forwar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SO far they claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election ...
Really? The only ones I have seen make that claim are pundits on Fox News and Breitbart trying to defend their 'Dear Leader', the greatest negotiator of all time. Most of the rest of the media claims the Russians hacked the DNC and used carefully timed leaks of that information in an attempt to influence the voting behaviour of the US electorate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:another false flag? (Score:4, Informative)
And that's all they talk about, to distract from the heart of the matter. It's nothing but a 'shoot the messenger' campaign. The DNC and Clinton were behaving in an unethical manner, and the Russians leaked the evidence of it. The underlying unethical behavior should be the focus. And yes, the retort is that they only leaked information on one party, but a) that doesn't absolve the DNC and HRC of what they did, b) What they did pales in comparison to what Trump openly did anyway, and c) They almost certainly alienated even more voters who realized a) and b) and watched them try to scream about Russians stealing the election anyway. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, because Clinton was still the lesser evil by miles. Thinking that anyone who says anyone other than Russia was at fault is automatically a Trump supporter is another thing that's just alienating even more people so that they stay home and cost the Dems the midterms and next presidency too.
I agree, the Democrats behaved unethically but quite frankly, having taken a look at Donald Trump's extensive record of unethical behaviour (excluding the hullabaloo about Russia), the Democrats look like a bunch of Eagle Scouts by comparison.
Re:another false flag? (Score:4, Interesting)
SO far they claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election ...
Really? The only ones I have seen make that claim are pundits on Fox News and Breitbart trying to defend their 'Dear Leader', the greatest negotiator of all time. Most of the rest of the media claims the Russians hacked the DNC and used carefully timed leaks of that information in an attempt to influence the voting behaviour of the US electorate.
How about Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com]? Are they an alt-right media outlet, too?
Re:another false flag? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure whether you're going for "funny" or "insightful"; perhaps you're going for "funny" but getting modded "insightful". So for the benefit of the irony impaired:
SO far they claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election but yet not 1 piece of proof has shown that to be true, only so called "hack" that happened on elections was by the DNC
Gee, how do we know about the so-called DNC "hacking" exactly [note 1]?
as well as in states like California letting people vote that don't even hold US citizenship.
California did no such thing. What California did was pass two separate laws, one of which enabled American citizens to register to vote when they obtain a driver's license, another of which provided a separate registration process that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses. That process does not include voter registration, for obvious reasons.
note 1: the DNC did not "hack" the election. It just worked for HRC and against Sanders, which pissed of some Sanders voters, but in fact was legal both by US law and the party bylaws (you *have* read your party's bylaws, haven't you?)
The DNC, like the RNC, is not an impartial, non-partisan organization. Both national committees are power centers which, by design (those bylaws again) serve the party insiders. The way you deal with people using the national committees in ways you don't like is you put your own people on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So where is the actual meat of the proof? Where are the actual technical proofs? Logs, times, IP addresses? Please.
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Informative)
As an outsider i'm quite shocked that this isn't a bigger scandal than it is in the US. I think the only reason is a group of people are in flat-out denial when it comes to anything that might tarnish Trump's image.
This is Cold War shit all over again.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's the cold war again because Russia invades any free and independent country near its boarders that tries to go pro west and territories like Chechnya have impossible elections where 95% of their population votes and 95% vote pro Russia. No populace is so united, particularly in a region known for it resentment towards Russia.
The US couldn't even influence Russian elections the way they do ours because there's aren't anywhere near honest.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Three different government agencies agreed on Russia attempting to interfere with the latest election.
I'd like to see some evidence of this. How exactly did they interfere? What did they do? Did they buy electors? Did they leave some kind of paper trail? Swiss bank accounts? WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
Good questions - an investigation could answer those if it isn't shut down.
Getting the point yet?
Re: United Federation of Countries (Score:4, Interesting)
Countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, much of the EU, and many others, have generally been strong supporters of freedom, democracy, and human rights. Together, they are powerful to defend those values.
Wait, what? When? In this century? That hasn't been true for a long time.
There is no reason to 'push back' against Russia. Whatever they did there is no evidence and even if they really did say buy some electoral votes or something you know what? It doesn't matter. Use that knowledge to improve the system so it isn't so vulnerable to corrupt electors. Although the electoral system does seem inherently vulnerable to bribery it has always been that way. Maybe it's time to dump it, but our insecure outdated election system is no reason to go to war with Russia, something that is always a bad idea. This isn't even worth saber rattling about. It's nothing. Not a big deal. Even if it's true and so far there is zero evidence that it is. At best some Russian hackers hacked some emails and set some information free. If certain people were not tech illiterate their emails would have been strongly encrypted and not stored for any length of time, especially not in an insecure location. But I'm happy with email leaks because it gets the information out there. I'd be just as happy to see Trump's emails. The more information the world has about our leaders the better.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if we don't want the Russians to interfere with "elections", then maybe we should stop having them!
That worked out really well for Germany in the 1930's. And then worked out wonderfully for the rest of the world in the 1940's. :)
To be honest, I think that a much better system would be to simply hold a lottery made up of interested citizens that could serve in a legislative capacity and help make the laws rather than holding elections. This is called a Sortion election [wikipedia.org], something that even dates back to ancient Athens as a governing body selection process. IMHO those who would serve in such legislative
Re:“Better to collapse a country from within (Score:3)
This is all just fallout from Trump doing anything he could to win an election and Putin taking advantage of the chaos. Discussing the issue improves the situation and does not "damage" anything other than deservedly damage the election prospects of a few people in a few years time.
Did your earlier discussion of Hillary's email server create damage? No? Then why should this? Why one rule for your party and another for everyone outside it? Do you re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want more proof
before you can offer more proof, you need to offer some proof.