Russia swayed US election

[quade 3]

brenthutch

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html

You didn't look too hard.

Yes, yes, I didn't listen to Hannity yesterday afternoon, nor did I read "RealClear Politics." I must be a horrible person.

Then again, those are horrible and I tend not to look at them to begin with.

Thanks for the link.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

*** Next up, "ad hominem".

Obviously you are a member of the Film Actors Guild. How is that for "ad hominem?"

Matt Damon

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 3]

brenthutch

*** Next up, "ad hominem".

Obviously you are a member of the Film Actors Guild. How is that for "ad hominem?"

Man, that would be such a burn if only an organization with that name existed. ;)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

A great movie

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

A great movie documentary.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Royreader8812 0]

If you actually listen to Julien, whether he is on Fox, CNN, RT other even infowars, it is him speaking, so the Avenue is irrelevant.

Wikileaks have an impeccable record of completely verified information for the last decade. Not one one false document. The CIA however?

If the CIA or anyone are saying they have evidence that the hacks came from Russia, and he is still adamant they didn't;

Don't you think he would be confident in saying so, knowing that if it were not the case, the CIA releasing the evidence would discredit a decade of hard work. Think about his personal predicament, who stands to lose the most from being wrong.

The CIA that are consistently wrong and don't seem to care, or a man in exile with an impeccable record?

Think about that for a minute.

[PhreeZone 14]

The "DNC email" hack occurred off of a single SpeerFishing email that is fairly well documented since it compromised a Gmail account. It linked back to a Bitly account that has been used over 1000 times previously to link to malware. Previous accounts that received the same malware have been identified as Eastern Europe journalists, politicians, business leaders. Previous code samples from those links have been disassembled and traces of code snippets have been seen in previous campaigns dating back several years. As I mentioned earlier source attribution is really hard so when you only get glimpses into the writers you need to infer details drawn out from years of examples. Most code writers are lazy and will reuse code if possible to make it easier to create a working program.When you see code used over years its either public and a lot of attacks use the code or its used by a single development team. In this case the code has only rarely been used so it's not public like lots of easily detected code sets are. Since its been public that the IT tech who saw the initial email come in and thought it was fine but later figured out it was a speerfish attack I would say that it is pretty well confirmed that an external attacker was targeting the data and not some internal leaker.

When you look at motivation and incentives for hacking there are a few major areas for each type of hacking. The easiest "hacks" are the ones doing it for publicity and they are doing simple defacement of websites. Going a little deeper are the ones doing it for financial motives. This is the largest area since there is so much money to be made in it. Stealing credit cards, creating DDoS services and charging for usage, stealing bank credentials, holding systems for ransom - that is the area that is the largest and is worth billions of dollars a year. Moving up are the attacks for espionage- corporate level attacks are rare and tend to be done by insiders but they are done either for financial or ideological reasons. Finally at the top level are state level actors and these are the ones by actors that have tens of millions of dollars of budget to create a single use attack. The whole purpose of these is to either do a Stuxnet style attack or compromise an entire foreign power so give a massive advantage against another foreign power.

In this case do I feel that it swayed the election? Only very slightly and not those that were swayed were likely to be swayed by something else also. This was only enough to push someone to vote a different way in maybe 1 in 10000 voters and even that might be stretching it a lot. I have seen a few comments on FB from a few voters that said they voted Trump since they felt the DNC was corrupt and the emails proved it. Those same voters would have likely been swayed by other factors also so I am not saying this was an impact. Keeping these events in the news and at the top of the voters mind certainly did a lot to move the needle for those voters but if not the DNC emails then it would have been something else I'm the news instead that influenced them. From what I remember total vote difference in the swing states was about 110,000 over all the 7 states in play so if it was enough to swing that many voters I doubt it. The bigger issue is both parties nominated extremely unlikable people. Clinton never had a chance of pulling many moderates to her side and Trump's populist message appeals to a lot of people that feel the whole system is against them. His likability percentages are the worst of any elected president to date so even a lot of voters that voted for him don't like him, they just liked Clinton even less.

I am upset about the general lack of caring about cyber security as a whole on both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats practiced extremely poor security in so many ways that it's just sad. Republicans are basically saying as long as it's not us there was nothing wrong with the events. The whole of cyber security is that there just are not enough people out there that even really understand all the issues to be able to protect organizations at near the level needed. This is an area that has a massive potential for hiring but the job skills needed are at the top of the technical peak.

Coding skills, networking knowledge, big data skills, the gambit of high tech knowledge is needed for a base skill set for effective computer security analysts and I am yet to hear from either party as to how they will be addressing this critical shortage of workers. Right now in Cyber Security positions there is a negative 10-15% employment rate. That means there for every 100 positions open 15 of them do not have a person to fill them since no one is trained and has the experience to do the job. If those critical positions are going unfilled it opens huge portions of our country up to attack and compromise.

Moving beyond just at the largest enterprises that can pay 100k+ per year for talent how are we expecting small business to be able to prevent these issues? Ransomware against home PCs is now a billion dollar a year business. With out a major change in how we as Americans deal with cyber security we will be facing a situation where we have large parts of our economy able to be destroyed via a single mouse click.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Elisha 1]

skycop

Damn,
I was going to post that one, beat me to it.

Haha, in first! A friend posted it on FB before me.

[quade 3]

I think what YOU need to think about for a minute is that I KNOW the CIA lies and I KNOW the record of WikiLeaks and I KNOW what can and can't be verified.

If you listen to Assange, just like the CIA, you'll notice he's always a bit cagey in what he says. He says HIS source wasn't Russia, but that in NO WAY proves the path the documents took wasn't through Russia or that Russia wasn't involved.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 232]

Royreader8812

If you actually listen to Julien, whether he is on Fox, CNN, RT other even infowars, it is him speaking, so the Avenue is irrelevant.

Wikileaks have an impeccable record of completely verified information for the last decade. Not one one false document. The CIA however?

If the CIA or anyone are saying they have evidence that the hacks came from Russia, and he is still adamant they didn't;

Don't you think he would be confident in saying so, knowing that if it were not the case, the CIA releasing the evidence would discredit a decade of hard work. Think about his personal predicament, who stands to lose the most from being wrong.

The CIA that are consistently wrong and don't seem to care, or a man in exile with an impeccable record?

Think about that for a minute.

Assange and Wikileaks has no ability to verify or investigate the hacks and how they received their information is no indicator as to where the info came from. Besides, it's not just government agencies but independent security companies such as Fidelis and FireEye who have reached the same conclusions.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Royreader8812 0]

Ok, point taken.

But what you have admitted is that many can be verified. And these show that the Clinton foundation was being paid by foreign entities for access to the state department, that Hillary was given debate questions in advance among many other things.

Do you condemn these actions. Do you believe it is in the public's best interests to know such things?

Or were we better off not knowing them?

Regardless of whether it was the Russians (which it clearly wasn't) or not, this information is true.

Truth is aparently rare in politics and press these days, so how can one ethically condemn the release of such information?

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

Assange and Wikileaks has no ability to verify or investigate the hacks

[DJL 232]

Quote

I am upset about the general lack of caring about cyber security as a whole on both sides of the political spectrum.

It's a cultural thing in both the military and government. How often do you hear someone say something like, "Ha, yeah, I'm technologically challenged." When I hear an Army Major say that I really wonder what the fuck our military is prioritizing. Sure, it's not his job to know what the nerds are doing but he needs to know what the fuck the nerds are doing and know what kind of threat his communication and operating systems are subject to.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 3]

I think there are several levels of "bad things that happened" in all of this.

Ethics -- We consider it bad form, but not against the law of the land.
Slander and libel -- defaming individuals through spoken and written lies. Civil crimes.
Misdemeanors -- minor crimes against the people.
Felonies -- major crimes against the people.

You will find nothing in the DNC emails or Podestal emails that rise above the level of ethical violations. There is no law whatsoever that says debate questions can't be given to a candidate by a member of the DNC who also happens to be a contractor for a company who is running the debates. You might not like it. I don't like it either, but it doesn't even rise to the level of an actual crime.

What you will see in all of this though is quite a bit of slander and libel. For instance, Pizzagate. However, that isn't a direct result of the DNC and Podestal emails, that's nonsense created by some nut jobs or possibly professional propagandists for profit (in the case of some clickbait bloggers) or under government contract contract (possibly in the case of others in former USSR countries).

It is a felony in the US to hack servers. Whoever did this has committed a crime far beyond whatever they brought to light by eventually getting it published on WikiLeaks.

So you tell me, what should we really be concerned with? Some ethical issues in the DNC and emails or actual felonies and possible foreign involvement?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bob_Church 7]

"It would be nice if you gave some indication that you had read or understood a word I just said. They had already held the primary and they already knew what the voters wanted, because they'd aleady voted. "

You just don't get it. I give up.

[Royreader8812 0]

You didn't answer my question. What are your thoughts on the conduct.

It is yet to be determined whether these were hacks or leaks.

'The law of the land ' assumes one is innocent until proven guilty. So please do not assume these were hacase when Clapper himself suggest they don't have any good insight.

Please tell us what you youself, think about Hillary knowing in advance the debate questions and personally and privately taking millions of $$ off foreign entities to have immediate access to the state department?

Do you think that is acceptable?

This is what I am trying to understand from my first post, but as expected the question is being dodged.

[ryoder 1,380]

NPR interview with James Woolsey: http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505658469/u-s-has-effective-ways-to-respond-to-russian-hacking-woolsey-says

I thought this was the most interesting comment from him:

... if the U.S. government does the response right - we may never hear about it because one of the things you want to do is make sure they know you can deal roughly with them when they deal roughly with you. And talking about it, giving speeches about it, is not the best way to proceed. It's a lot more effective and a lot more powerful if you do something very powerful to an adversary and don't say a word.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

Quote

This is what I am trying to understand from my first post, but as expected the question is being dodged.

The question isn't "being dodged."

I'm choosing to stay on topic and not get dragged down an irrelevant rabbit hole with regards to this thread discussion.

The question of the content of the DNC hacks have been talked about ad infinitum on this forum.

We're currently talking about the Russian connections to the hacks themselves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Royreader8812 0]

You say that as if it is certain they are hacks.

What we are actually talking about is the emails that wikileaks published. There is no evidence of Russians hacking the elections, just claims that they have.

The suggestion of Russians hacking is precisely a tactic to move the subject away from the content of the emails, to another topic that is pure speculation. No evidence will be forthcoming.

If you listen to Clapper, there is very little confidence that the hacks took place.

But I think I have proven my point. You Hillary supporters don't care about the truth. Just trying to come across as correct when you know you are wrong.

And for the record I don't support either candidate.

I do however believe the outcome of the election is a slap in the face to everyone and a huge win for democracy.

Hillary was a disaster as secretary of state, and was going to be an even bigger disaster as president.

You sir are a cop out.

Good day to you all.

[Bob_Church 7]

One last thing. They had decided what Virginia wanted. They didn't declare that, they declared Hillary Clinton as the next candidate while other people, including Sanders were sitting there. They had the arrogance and presumption to assume that the other 49 states and DC would go the same way.
Or maybe it wasn't arrogance and presumption. That's the real question, how early did the DNC already *KNOW* who there were going to give the candidacy to without any regard to what the rank and file wanted?

[quade 3]

This just in...

Quote

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

Source and more at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.3d00dadb2417

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Royreader8812

If you listen to Clapper, there is very little confidence that the hacks took place.

Please see post immediately above this one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

what should we really be concerned with?

- ethical issues in the DNC
- actual felonies
- possible foreign involvement?

I'll take a stab at it -
1 - yes
2 - yes
3 - yes

and add another
4 - making political hay on one or two in order to obtusely distract from the others?

Neat thing about #4 is I'm sure you both think the other is doing just that.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,380]

>What about the content of the DNC/HRC Wikileaks? Isn't that the important issue?

Sure. Let's compare them to the RNC leaks (the ones that Russia obtained but haven't released) and see which organization is more corrupt.

[normiss 620]

"but as expected the question is being dodged"

How does a freshly minted user name with only 6 posts know to expect that in SC?