4 ms·

The DNC is a private organization. Why does its hacking justify a government-sponsored response?

idlewords 10y ago
Because it's one of the two major political parties in a democracy, with an election just around the corner. I feel like you already know the answer to this question.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  So? Why does a democracy protect the 2 largest incumbents instead of promoting a freer system in which 3rd parties can have proportional representation?
  - yankyou 10y ago
    You're two thirds of the way to completing the reductio ad absurdum.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      You do realize American 'democracy' is absurd to the rest of the world, right? I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement.
      - aseipp 10y ago
        > I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement. Those people would be complete, total dipshits then, if they think Trump will be an improvement -- for the US or anyone else. Luckily, they aren't voting here.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  And if it had happened to the RNC, same response right? Somehow I doubt it. This is setting a very dangerous precedent.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, the same response.
    - marcusgarvey 10y ago
      I doubt it. Just as I doubt a Republican pres. would go after Russia for DNC hacking. When the president is the head of the political party, expect conflicts of interest. But warring with nuclear-armed foes - when things are already quite tense with them in Syria - seems dangerous and dumb.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        The people behind this attribution work aren't political appointees. People forget that the overwhelming majority of the public workforce consists of career public servants. If those public servants happen to work in law enforcement, the military, or intelligence, they're much more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. So with that having been said, and with I promise more respect than this question will make it sound like I have for your viewpoint: what is it, exactly, that makes your doubts about this attribution being politically motivated more credible than the (extremely common) doubts Trump supporters have that Hurricane Matthew wasn't generated by Obama's wind farms to suppress voter registration?
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        Your comparison is absurd. Did you somehow miss that whole bit about faulty intelligence causing the Iraq war? The hack seems politically motivated; no one can say with 100% assurance that it was caused by Russia; the DNC is a private organization, in any event, why should the citizens of the US be drawn into a war with a nuclear armed foe over their poor cyber security?
statsknowitall 10y ago
Are you arguing for a general principle where the US government only defends government assets from foreign attack, not private ones? This would be an unusual position to take.

Because it's one of the two major political parties in a democracy, with an election just around the corner. I feel like you already know the answer to this question.

Mikeb85 10y ago
So? Why does a democracy protect the 2 largest incumbents instead of promoting a freer system in which 3rd parties can have proportional representation?
- yankyou 10y ago
  You're two thirds of the way to completing the reductio ad absurdum.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    You do realize American 'democracy' is absurd to the rest of the world, right? I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement.
    - aseipp 10y ago
      > I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement. Those people would be complete, total dipshits then, if they think Trump will be an improvement -- for the US or anyone else. Luckily, they aren't voting here.
marcusgarvey 10y ago
And if it had happened to the RNC, same response right? Somehow I doubt it. This is setting a very dangerous precedent.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes, the same response.
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    I doubt it. Just as I doubt a Republican pres. would go after Russia for DNC hacking. When the president is the head of the political party, expect conflicts of interest. But warring with nuclear-armed foes - when things are already quite tense with them in Syria - seems dangerous and dumb.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The people behind this attribution work aren't political appointees. People forget that the overwhelming majority of the public workforce consists of career public servants. If those public servants happen to work in law enforcement, the military, or intelligence, they're much more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. So with that having been said, and with I promise more respect than this question will make it sound like I have for your viewpoint: what is it, exactly, that makes your doubts about this attribution being politically motivated more credible than the (extremely common) doubts Trump supporters have that Hurricane Matthew wasn't generated by Obama's wind farms to suppress voter registration?
      - marcusgarvey 10y ago
        Your comparison is absurd. Did you somehow miss that whole bit about faulty intelligence causing the Iraq war? The hack seems politically motivated; no one can say with 100% assurance that it was caused by Russia; the DNC is a private organization, in any event, why should the citizens of the US be drawn into a war with a nuclear armed foe over their poor cyber security?

statsknowitall 10y ago

Are you arguing for a general principle where the US government only defends government assets from foreign attack, not private ones? This would be an unusual position to take.