8 ms·

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within

by Dowwie 10y ago

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas? Was truth revealed, without manipulation of content? It seems to be the latter. Attacking the polls would be unacceptable and deserve retaliation, but it hasn't happened yet. Attacking a whistle blower who has helped to reveal a corrupt political process isn't something I'd agree with. Schneier speculates that foreign influence will continue into the polls -- I guess we had better strengthen the election process and ensure transparency, then.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck. If, however, you leave evidence of moral or criminal wrongdoing out on the curb for everybody to see? Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. Simply because you were robbed doesn't mean that you get out of consequences for your actions once they become public. I'm tempted to view the ramifications of the leaked emails as a purely internal DNC affair. Having said that, I am reading partisan attacks that say there are illegal activities in there. If so? Well, somebody needs to face some kind of legal proceeding. And somebody else is still a robber. Whatever our views, it's important to come up with standards that apply no matter who's "side" you're on.
- retox 10y ago
  If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same way? I suppose it boils down to where on the continuum of severity you place corruption of the democratic process. Encouraging someone to break into private property looking for evidence would still be a crime, IMO.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this? Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids? This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure out, and it could easily vary by individual and circumstance. As to advocating for people to become robbers, would I advocate for another Snowden to appear? I think that's impossible for me to answer without answering your moral question, without knowing what sorts of things would be revealed by the crime. Whether I advocated or not, though, it'd still be a crime. Not sure if my advocacy is a crime. If so, then I'm a criminal and the law is an ass.
    - retox 10y ago
      My comment wasn't so much a direct response to the points you raised, and I wasn't disagreeing, the things I discussed were ideas which were inspired by your comment. I hadn't considered whether I would advocate for another Snowden, but assuming being 'another Snowden' implies exposing corruption I would have to say that I would. I personally think that corruption in any form is one of the things holding us back as a species. See Africa for a wealth of examples.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted here is one of those.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      No, it would be akin to anonymous tips leading to miraculous discoveries. After all, if the penalty would be to only be slapped on the wrist for the 'lesser' crime then that would up-end the whole system in place for evidence gathering, which is supposed to be lawful at all times. Parallel construction is sneaky in that it allows otherwise in-admissible evidence into a case or allows one to jump-start a case that would otherwise not have existed in the first place.
      - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
        Don't we already allow anonymous tips? Surely you're not saying we should disallow anonymous tips about crime, right? I apologize. You must be making some point that I'm missing. If somebody breaks into your house, they are guilty of a crime. Period. I didn't say anything about "slaps on the wrist" For all I care, you can make discovering a crime while breaking into the house the same as being complicit in the crime. Along this entire subthread, there seems to be several topics conflated. Punishment is a separate matter from culpability, as is the state breaking the law during a criminal investigation, which you seem to be focusing on by bringing up parallel construction. The only thing I am addressing is how society should treat the discovery of random bits of information put into the public domain by thieves. That's it. Not how criminal investigations should be conducted, not the relative punishment for various crimes, not how a robber's personal morals should affect his decisions, and not whether it's okay to publish such information once it is made public. These are all great topics. I'm just not talking about them.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck." What you've just unknowingly (I hope) done is encouraged continuously violating people's privacy, property, and physical health using powers of state just in case something is found. Given most are innocent enough, that means innocent people will be hurt constantly to find some extra guilty ones. That's ridiculous from a moral perspective. It also assumes the cops are all good: an assumption that's countered by existence of Bill of Rights itself. Not to mention steady stream of corruption cases, misrepresented evidence, lying to get fake confessions, and so on. Definitely not the kind of people that need any "right to ignore rights" if that should ever exist. Their incentive is to lock people up, not keep them free. So, the system should give us protection against that to force them to do it only when they have strong justification.
B-Con 10y ago
His point is that there are actors trying to influence the process by compromising technology, details of the DNC incident aside. In and of itself that is a very concerning threat to have and in general we have to take that into consideration when evaluating the role of technology in the election cycle, even if this time the hack seemingly had net positive benefit to the citizens. Next time we may not be so lucky. As he pointed out, Schneier has been beating this drum for years. Computer security is not a high enough priority in politics, and with what we know is possible and see happening we can't assume elections will be free of tampering by default.
mtgx 10y ago
I hate that he used the "Russians are coming" argument, but at the same time, he probably wouldn't have gotten even 1/4 of the attention if he just said "our voting machines aren't secure and anyone in the world, including our own government, could hack them." He's playing on the Russian fear, which is what the Democratic party is really pushing right now (by the way, isn't this something the Republican party used to do - what's happening here?!). If this leads to a ban on electronic voting machines, then the methods may be excused by the outcome, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen, so this just ends up helping one party over another politically.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CPLX 10y ago
  Your argument might make sense in the abstract, but I think Bruce has a uniquely credible position with which to comment on the relative dangers posed by Russian hacking specifically.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  > He's playing on the Russian fear, which is what the Democratic party is really pushing right now (by the way, isn't this something the Republican party used to do - what's happening here?!). During the USSR times, the project of Russia as a communist country was to be egalitarian and inclusive. It was a terrible place to live, but in the most abstract sense, lefties could identify with that goal, while righties saw it as fundamentally going against the social order. Thus the threat of "Russians" became a gloss for helping the poor, taxing the wealthy, minority rights, women's rights, etc. Now that Russia is an oligarchy, the basic social structure appeals to righties, and has become a boogeyman to lefties. "Russians" are now a gloss for gangster/crony capitalism, oligarchs, etc.
3pt14159 10y ago
> Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Parties choose their candidates. While it is democratic in the sense that people cast ballots; the process was never guaranteed to be a level playing field. Sanders was an outsider from the democratic party. The party has rules and systems to keep people like Sanders out. That is what super delegates are for. You and I may both have preferred Sanders, but we don't have a right to the DNC's private email. As for the polls, in Canada we do a simple pencil and paper system that works extremely well. You might be able to get an extra vote or two here or there, but the process is essentially unbreakable.
- wwwdonohue 10y ago
  The process was guaranteed to be a level playing field by the DNC charter (Article 5, Section 4): In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Is there any evidence that the bias of the DNC in this particular case is so uncommon as to be egregious? Candidates in both parties have cried foul that the process is 'rigged' (possibly with good reason) but only the Democrats are being accused of corruption.
    - leviself 10y ago
      I think it is always egregious, regardless of whether it happens all the time or not. For example, the USG is known to meddle with other countries elections. I don't think that's excusable. I assume the RNC played all kinds of tricks as well and that this is SOP for both parties. Wrong in every case.
jonathankoren 10y ago
The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere. It didn't happen. As Bernie Sanders's former press secretary, Symone Sanders, said, "We weren't cheated. We lost."[1] Look, we know what a stolen election looks like. This ain't it. There's no reason to be an election truther. [0] http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/ http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedu... [1] http://gawker.com/former-sanders-spokeswoman-we-lost-1784282813 http://gawker.com/former-sanders-spokeswoman-we-lost-1784282...
- revelation 10y ago
  You seem to equate "democratic process" with having a properly counted vote. There were elections with proper votes in East Germany, there just never was any actual choice in who you could vote for.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    What's your point? I ask, because we were talking about a competitive two person race, where the non-establishment candidate won several contests, and had a major role in shaping the party platform and changing the narrative of the election. Are you saying that was all a grand charade?
- haikuginger 10y ago
  The sheer banality of the "sabotage" found in the emails is honestly pretty good proof to me that there isn't anything truly horrible to be found- if there was, Sanders' folks would be trumpeting it, not "Sanders doesn't understand Democratic politics".
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
toth 10y ago
Well, I would agree with you if the DNC leaks were accompanied by equivalent GOP leaks. Personally, I didn't find the DNC leaks that damning to be honest - I don't think the same standards of impartiality that you need for the general election need to be applied to how parties select their candidates. However if other people do find them damning it is information they should have. The rub is that I would be very surprised if there weren't similarly shenanigans from the GOP side, and if that's the case then if you let foreign actors select what gets leaked that's giving them a lot of power...
- sverige 10y ago
  It wasn't just the open (amongst themselves) desire to keep Bernie out that was disturbing. The hypocrisy of the racist and homophobic comments from the people who are supposedly their champions is as smelly and toxic as creosote.
  - toth 10y ago
    If you leak tens of thousands of emails by hundreds of people that the senders expected to remain private you are pretty much guaranteed to find some that you can read as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever you want. In an ideal world we'd have leaks of every group involved in the election: DNC, GOP, Hillary campaign, Bernie campaign, Trump campaign, Trump's tax records, Clinton foundation donor list, etc. However, having a subset, which was selected by some actor with ulterior motives, leaked is IMHO strictly worse than no leaks at all.
krapp 10y ago
>Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas? Was truth revealed, without manipulation of content? It seems to be the latter. Why assume the " narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas" need to be fictitious in order to be effective? You're presenting a false dichotomy that either the Democrats are corrupt, or Russia had nothing to do with the hacks. It can be the case that Russia exposed Democratic party corruption in order to advance their own agenda.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Just releasing a large number of hacked emails at the right/wrong time, even if they contained absolutely nothing of note could affect the candidate negatively if it distracts from their planned talking points and supports others. Some might say that's exactly what happened.
Spooky23 10y ago
Not at all really. The leaks revealed the frustrations, biases, egos and banality of functionaries in a big political party. There was no scandal -- everyone knew, including Sanders, that the party didn't like him or his candidacy. You can be sure that the RNC and associated actors had similar communications about Trump and Cruz. What the leaks did is perpetuate the circus atmosphere of this election cycle. The longer and more absurd that atmosphere gets, the better for Trump. Trump is great for Putin, as Putin no doubt sees him as easier to manipulate for a variety of reasons.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions." Actually, the moral argument would be in favor of both DNC and RNC leaks. Selectively leaking a ton of dirt on one dirty party but not the other is not aiding democracy. Instead, it gives one the moral, high ground immediately. That one might be accused of facilitating the leak but many parties available to scapegoat in day & age where hacks and leaks happen all the time. So, this could be a setback for U.S. "democracy."
elgabogringo 10y ago
Funny that the left all of a sudden cares about security in our elections. Try to implement the most basic security that is common even in poor foreign countries, such as an ID requirement and the left is up in arms. The truth is, the left doesn't care about election security, it just cares about the left.
- xj9 10y ago
  What left? DNC is to the left of GOP, at best, but not left in any real sense.
elgabogringo 10y ago
If we care about foreign influence, shouldn't we be concerned about all the foreign money the Clinton's have taken? Millions to their foundation (just while she was SoS): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-... Millions in speaking fees outside the US (just while she was Sos): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees-from-foreign-groups-while-hillary-was-secretary-of-state/article/2564699 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees... And it's doubly-ironic how much the left suddenly cares about Email security after getting let off by FBI.
- krapp 10y ago
  The subject of this thread is the vulnerability of the networks and IT infrastructure involved with our democratic process, but fair enough. We should be concerned about all the foreign money the Clintons have taken, and all the foreign money Trump has taken. We should be concerned about foreign influence in our elections in general, regardless of which party it benefits.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.
    - krapp 10y ago
      I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpose was to polarize the topic for the sake of pushing your political bias. I agree with your comment in the general case, but derailing the thread into a discussion of how corrupt Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are is not on topic.

by Dowwie 10y ago

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck. If, however, you leave evidence of moral or criminal wrongdoing out on the curb for everybody to see? Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. Simply because you were robbed doesn't mean that you get out of consequences for your actions once they become public. I'm tempted to view the ramifications of the leaked emails as a purely internal DNC affair. Having said that, I am reading partisan attacks that say there are illegal activities in there. If so? Well, somebody needs to face some kind of legal proceeding. And somebody else is still a robber. Whatever our views, it's important to come up with standards that apply no matter who's "side" you're on.

retox 10y ago
If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same way? I suppose it boils down to where on the continuum of severity you place corruption of the democratic process. Encouraging someone to break into private property looking for evidence would still be a crime, IMO.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this? Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids? This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure out, and it could easily vary by individual and circumstance. As to advocating for people to become robbers, would I advocate for another Snowden to appear? I think that's impossible for me to answer without answering your moral question, without knowing what sorts of things would be revealed by the crime. Whether I advocated or not, though, it'd still be a crime. Not sure if my advocacy is a crime. If so, then I'm a criminal and the law is an ass.
  - retox 10y ago
    My comment wasn't so much a direct response to the points you raised, and I wasn't disagreeing, the things I discussed were ideas which were inspired by your comment. I hadn't considered whether I would advocate for another Snowden, but assuming being 'another Snowden' implies exposing corruption I would have to say that I would. I personally think that corruption in any form is one of the things holding us back as a species. See Africa for a wealth of examples.
jacquesm 10y ago
> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted here is one of those.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, it would be akin to anonymous tips leading to miraculous discoveries. After all, if the penalty would be to only be slapped on the wrist for the 'lesser' crime then that would up-end the whole system in place for evidence gathering, which is supposed to be lawful at all times. Parallel construction is sneaky in that it allows otherwise in-admissible evidence into a case or allows one to jump-start a case that would otherwise not have existed in the first place.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      Don't we already allow anonymous tips? Surely you're not saying we should disallow anonymous tips about crime, right? I apologize. You must be making some point that I'm missing. If somebody breaks into your house, they are guilty of a crime. Period. I didn't say anything about "slaps on the wrist" For all I care, you can make discovering a crime while breaking into the house the same as being complicit in the crime. Along this entire subthread, there seems to be several topics conflated. Punishment is a separate matter from culpability, as is the state breaking the law during a criminal investigation, which you seem to be focusing on by bringing up parallel construction. The only thing I am addressing is how society should treat the discovery of random bits of information put into the public domain by thieves. That's it. Not how criminal investigations should be conducted, not the relative punishment for various crimes, not how a robber's personal morals should affect his decisions, and not whether it's okay to publish such information once it is made public. These are all great topics. I'm just not talking about them.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck." What you've just unknowingly (I hope) done is encouraged continuously violating people's privacy, property, and physical health using powers of state just in case something is found. Given most are innocent enough, that means innocent people will be hurt constantly to find some extra guilty ones. That's ridiculous from a moral perspective. It also assumes the cops are all good: an assumption that's countered by existence of Bill of Rights itself. Not to mention steady stream of corruption cases, misrepresented evidence, lying to get fake confessions, and so on. Definitely not the kind of people that need any "right to ignore rights" if that should ever exist. Their incentive is to lock people up, not keep them free. So, the system should give us protection against that to force them to do it only when they have strong justification.

B-Con 10y ago

His point is that there are actors trying to influence the process by compromising technology, details of the DNC incident aside. In and of itself that is a very concerning threat to have and in general we have to take that into consideration when evaluating the role of technology in the election cycle, even if this time the hack seemingly had net positive benefit to the citizens. Next time we may not be so lucky. As he pointed out, Schneier has been beating this drum for years. Computer security is not a high enough priority in politics, and with what we know is possible and see happening we can't assume elections will be free of tampering by default.

mtgx 10y ago

I hate that he used the "Russians are coming" argument, but at the same time, he probably wouldn't have gotten even 1/4 of the attention if he just said "our voting machines aren't secure and anyone in the world, including our own government, could hack them." He's playing on the Russian fear, which is what the Democratic party is really pushing right now (by the way, isn't this something the Republican party used to do - what's happening here?!). If this leads to a ban on electronic voting machines, then the methods may be excused by the outcome, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen, so this just ends up helping one party over another politically.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CPLX 10y ago
Your argument might make sense in the abstract, but I think Bruce has a uniquely credible position with which to comment on the relative dangers posed by Russian hacking specifically.
lawpoop 10y ago
> He's playing on the Russian fear, which is what the Democratic party is really pushing right now (by the way, isn't this something the Republican party used to do - what's happening here?!). During the USSR times, the project of Russia as a communist country was to be egalitarian and inclusive. It was a terrible place to live, but in the most abstract sense, lefties could identify with that goal, while righties saw it as fundamentally going against the social order. Thus the threat of "Russians" became a gloss for helping the poor, taxing the wealthy, minority rights, women's rights, etc. Now that Russia is an oligarchy, the basic social structure appeals to righties, and has become a boogeyman to lefties. "Russians" are now a gloss for gangster/crony capitalism, oligarchs, etc.

3pt14159 10y ago

> Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Parties choose their candidates. While it is democratic in the sense that people cast ballots; the process was never guaranteed to be a level playing field. Sanders was an outsider from the democratic party. The party has rules and systems to keep people like Sanders out. That is what super delegates are for. You and I may both have preferred Sanders, but we don't have a right to the DNC's private email. As for the polls, in Canada we do a simple pencil and paper system that works extremely well. You might be able to get an extra vote or two here or there, but the process is essentially unbreakable.

wwwdonohue 10y ago
The process was guaranteed to be a level playing field by the DNC charter (Article 5, Section 4): In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
- krapp 10y ago
  Is there any evidence that the bias of the DNC in this particular case is so uncommon as to be egregious? Candidates in both parties have cried foul that the process is 'rigged' (possibly with good reason) but only the Democrats are being accused of corruption.
  - leviself 10y ago
    I think it is always egregious, regardless of whether it happens all the time or not. For example, the USG is known to meddle with other countries elections. I don't think that's excusable. I assume the RNC played all kinds of tricks as well and that this is SOP for both parties. Wrong in every case.

jonathankoren 10y ago

The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere. It didn't happen. As Bernie Sanders's former press secretary, Symone Sanders, said, "We weren't cheated. We lost."[1] Look, we know what a stolen election looks like. This ain't it. There's no reason to be an election truther. [0] http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/ http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedu... [1] http://gawker.com/former-sanders-spokeswoman-we-lost-1784282813 http://gawker.com/former-sanders-spokeswoman-we-lost-1784282...

revelation 10y ago
You seem to equate "democratic process" with having a properly counted vote. There were elections with proper votes in East Germany, there just never was any actual choice in who you could vote for.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  What's your point? I ask, because we were talking about a competitive two person race, where the non-establishment candidate won several contests, and had a major role in shaping the party platform and changing the narrative of the election. Are you saying that was all a grand charade?
haikuginger 10y ago
The sheer banality of the "sabotage" found in the emails is honestly pretty good proof to me that there isn't anything truly horrible to be found- if there was, Sanders' folks would be trumpeting it, not "Sanders doesn't understand Democratic politics".
- jonathankoren 10y ago

toth 10y ago

Well, I would agree with you if the DNC leaks were accompanied by equivalent GOP leaks. Personally, I didn't find the DNC leaks that damning to be honest - I don't think the same standards of impartiality that you need for the general election need to be applied to how parties select their candidates. However if other people do find them damning it is information they should have. The rub is that I would be very surprised if there weren't similarly shenanigans from the GOP side, and if that's the case then if you let foreign actors select what gets leaked that's giving them a lot of power...

sverige 10y ago
It wasn't just the open (amongst themselves) desire to keep Bernie out that was disturbing. The hypocrisy of the racist and homophobic comments from the people who are supposedly their champions is as smelly and toxic as creosote.
- toth 10y ago
  If you leak tens of thousands of emails by hundreds of people that the senders expected to remain private you are pretty much guaranteed to find some that you can read as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever you want. In an ideal world we'd have leaks of every group involved in the election: DNC, GOP, Hillary campaign, Bernie campaign, Trump campaign, Trump's tax records, Clinton foundation donor list, etc. However, having a subset, which was selected by some actor with ulterior motives, leaked is IMHO strictly worse than no leaks at all.

krapp 10y ago

>Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas? Was truth revealed, without manipulation of content? It seems to be the latter. Why assume the " narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas" need to be fictitious in order to be effective? You're presenting a false dichotomy that either the Democrats are corrupt, or Russia had nothing to do with the hacks. It can be the case that Russia exposed Democratic party corruption in order to advance their own agenda.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Just releasing a large number of hacked emails at the right/wrong time, even if they contained absolutely nothing of note could affect the candidate negatively if it distracts from their planned talking points and supports others. Some might say that's exactly what happened.

Spooky23 10y ago

Not at all really. The leaks revealed the frustrations, biases, egos and banality of functionaries in a big political party. There was no scandal -- everyone knew, including Sanders, that the party didn't like him or his candidacy. You can be sure that the RNC and associated actors had similar communications about Trump and Cruz. What the leaks did is perpetuate the circus atmosphere of this election cycle. The longer and more absurd that atmosphere gets, the better for Trump. Trump is great for Putin, as Putin no doubt sees him as easier to manipulate for a variety of reasons.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions." Actually, the moral argument would be in favor of both DNC and RNC leaks. Selectively leaking a ton of dirt on one dirty party but not the other is not aiding democracy. Instead, it gives one the moral, high ground immediately. That one might be accused of facilitating the leak but many parties available to scapegoat in day & age where hacks and leaks happen all the time. So, this could be a setback for U.S. "democracy."

elgabogringo 10y ago

Funny that the left all of a sudden cares about security in our elections. Try to implement the most basic security that is common even in poor foreign countries, such as an ID requirement and the left is up in arms. The truth is, the left doesn't care about election security, it just cares about the left.

xj9 10y ago
What left? DNC is to the left of GOP, at best, but not left in any real sense.

elgabogringo 10y ago

If we care about foreign influence, shouldn't we be concerned about all the foreign money the Clinton's have taken? Millions to their foundation (just while she was SoS): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-... Millions in speaking fees outside the US (just while she was Sos): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees-from-foreign-groups-while-hillary-was-secretary-of-state/article/2564699 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees... And it's doubly-ironic how much the left suddenly cares about Email security after getting let off by FBI.

krapp 10y ago
The subject of this thread is the vulnerability of the networks and IT infrastructure involved with our democratic process, but fair enough. We should be concerned about all the foreign money the Clintons have taken, and all the foreign money Trump has taken. We should be concerned about foreign influence in our elections in general, regardless of which party it benefits.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.
  - krapp 10y ago
    I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpose was to polarize the topic for the sake of pushing your political bias. I agree with your comment in the general case, but derailing the thread into a discussion of how corrupt Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are is not on topic.