5 ms·

>Read about how the Clinton server was "secured" (hint: comically). Read about how the DNC has been getting hacked: very simple phishing scams. Everything about

by AgentME 10y ago

>Read about how the Clinton server was "secured" (hint: comically). Read about how the DNC has been getting hacked: very simple phishing scams. Everything about the DNC screams shoddy. The worst thing is that you tend to get blamed for "victim-blaming" when you point this sort of thing out. No one ever wants to admit that they should have paid attention to security instead of jury-rigging things together incompetently. People like to make analogies to hackers being street-robbers attacking interesting-looking defenseless people. If you suggest that people should have secured their infrastructure better, they look at you like you suggested that people walk around on the street with body armor. No! Most hacks you hear about are like if a bank kept everyone's money in a pile in the corner of the front lobby and insisted on an honor code to make people stay away from the pile. Yes, the thief that takes something from the pile committed a crime, but that bank was incompetent in securing what their consumers trusted to them and has a great share of the blame.

sounds 10y ago
Ok, good analogy on how _businesses_ run their internet security. However, the government, and the DNC too, are only interested in security when they can't just use their thugs instead. We're way behind in cyberwarfare precisely because our federal government thinks like a thug ... or in other words, like a big dumb criminal. The DNC gets political mileage out of being hacked because they can create a controversy (blaming Russia) and look good (their opponent isn't as anti-Putin as they are). Why should they ask their contractors for better security? They pay top dollar and are getting what they want: none of the hassles of real security, and if ... when they get hacked, they get to choose their response: (1) blame Russia (2) blame Trump (3) blame the contractor (4) blame the government I'm sure there are more response strategies, I'm just too lazy to think them all up. The point is, they're not ignorant of their incompetence. No, they are very competent and manipulating the ignorant masses who will believe them when they announce "Russia did it!" (Everything I just said applies equally to the R party as well.) If the DNC, RNC, or federal government was even halfway smart in their criminal mindset, they'd secure their systems. Maybe plant some honeypots. Probably fire all the government contractors who are leaving them wide open.
- rtpg 10y ago
  DWS basically lost her job because of the leaks. Your thesis: They purposefully left their security shoddy because maybe they'd get hacked and then blame Russia. This was worth the cost of all their e-mails being out in the open. What do you think is more valuable? This accusation? Or not having to worry that every e-mail will be leaked. Ocamm's razor (DNC is run by people with no notion of security and nobody cared) is a lot easier to believe, because it matches what basically every non-tech organization does.

by AgentME 10y ago

sounds 10y ago

Ok, good analogy on how _businesses_ run their internet security. However, the government, and the DNC too, are only interested in security when they can't just use their thugs instead. We're way behind in cyberwarfare precisely because our federal government thinks like a thug ... or in other words, like a big dumb criminal. The DNC gets political mileage out of being hacked because they can create a controversy (blaming Russia) and look good (their opponent isn't as anti-Putin as they are). Why should they ask their contractors for better security? They pay top dollar and are getting what they want: none of the hassles of real security, and if ... when they get hacked, they get to choose their response: (1) blame Russia (2) blame Trump (3) blame the contractor (4) blame the government I'm sure there are more response strategies, I'm just too lazy to think them all up. The point is, they're not ignorant of their incompetence. No, they are very competent and manipulating the ignorant masses who will believe them when they announce "Russia did it!" (Everything I just said applies equally to the R party as well.) If the DNC, RNC, or federal government was even halfway smart in their criminal mindset, they'd secure their systems. Maybe plant some honeypots. Probably fire all the government contractors who are leaving them wide open.

rtpg 10y ago
DWS basically lost her job because of the leaks. Your thesis: They purposefully left their security shoddy because maybe they'd get hacked and then blame Russia. This was worth the cost of all their e-mails being out in the open. What do you think is more valuable? This accusation? Or not having to worry that every e-mail will be leaked. Ocamm's razor (DNC is run by people with no notion of security and nobody cared) is a lot easier to believe, because it matches what basically every non-tech organization does.