4 ms·

It seems unlikely that email hacking will stop in the future. If the leaked emails actually influenced the elections, it was because of their content. I've he

It seems unlikely that email hacking will stop in the future. If the leaked emails actually influenced the elections, it was because of their content. I've heard exactly zero credible claims that the leaked emails were falsified in any way. Perhaps if political candidates/party executives are going to do unethical/illegal things, they shouldn't discuss them over email. Edit: changed "zero claims" to "zero credible claims"

depoll 10y ago
s/shouldn't discuss them over email./shouldn't.
khrakhen 10y ago
> I've heard exactly zero claims that the leaked emails were falsified in any way. Podesta and high-ranking Dems have leveled this very charge. The extent of the DKIM signatures all being true makes this very unlikely. RSA1024 and SHA-1 can be beaten, but not easily and not in this volume. It is not E2E from the people authoring the e-mails, so the server maintainer (often Google) could be forging and signing e-mails. However, again, doing it the volume it would have had to be done is not likely. The DNC has backed off from the forgery accusations. Besides the asinine nature of the accusations making them look bad, such accusations weaken their grand thesis: Russia hacked them. If they open up the possibility that most or all of the e-mails could have been fabricated whole cloth, then it undermines the argument that Putin pulled off an ingenuous heist of tens of thousands of e-mails.
- downandout 10y ago
  I suppose I should have said that I have heard no credible claims that they were falsified. Most of the denials I've heard were of the "I don't recognize that" variety, which literally means nothing.
  - thehood 10y ago
    There was that twitter post from John podesta "i've switched sides hi /pol/" post from his verified twitter page. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835460/Now-Podesta-s-Twitter-account-gets-hacked-day-Clinton-campaign-chair-accuses-Russia-hacking-emails.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835460/Now-Podesta-... if the emails are fake, how could a password from the emails dump be used to login into his twitter page.
- middleclick 10y ago
  Hey, another 6 hour old account.
acjohnson55 10y ago
It's rather naive to think these things didn't have an effect. The problem isn't the truth of the claims, it's that the illicitly gained information was strategically released to disrupt one specific campaign, effectively destabilizing our election. Much like Comey's last minute email announcement revealed nothing new, yet allowed the email narrative to renew its currency in the last days of the campaign. Imagine if the IRS "accidentally" released Trump's tax returns or been hacked to allow this data to come out. Or if the alleged tapes went public of Donald Trump making openly racist remarks on his TV shows outtakes. Even if these simply revealed things many people already expect to be true, it would have had mesurable impact on the election.
- smitherfield 10y ago
  > Imagine if the IRS "accidentally" released Trump's tax returns or been hacked to allow this data to come out. The NYT did publish Trump's stolen tax return, and were quite self-congratulatory about having done so... > Or if the alleged tapes went public of Donald Trump making openly racist remarks on his TV shows outtakes. ...and, the stories about the hacked material were outnumbered probably 100-1 by the simultaneous coverage of the stolen backstage Access Hollywood tape (which was doubly illegal because California is a "two-party consent" state). Which is not to say either of those things weren't newsworthy, or shouldn't have been reported on, but: it's completely, blatantly hypocritical to say that illegally-obtained information should not be allowed to affect the election when it hurts one candidate, but is fair game to use to hurt the other.
  - RobAtticus 10y ago
    re: two-party consent, IANAL but there seems to be exceptions where if the parties don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, consent is not needed. For example, somebody recording you giving a public speech does not need your permission -- the public can go hear you speak with or without the recording. Since Trump was mic'd up on the bus (they were going to film a segment), I think there is a case to be made that he couldn't realistically make the case he didn't know he was being recorded or could be recorded. I think it'd be a hard sell that this was an illegally recorded conversation.
jackfoxy 10y ago
In terms of illegally obtained content, the Democrats had no problem claiming higher ethical ground in releasing a tapped cell phone conversation of Newt Gingrich http://www.daviddfriedman.com/CCP_97/Gingrich%252fMartin%252fMcDerm.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/CCP_97/Gingrich%252fMartin%252... And if you want to focus on foreign (illegal) involvement in U.S. elections, look no further than the alleged Chinese involvement in the 1996 presidential election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi... My point being, this is almost entirely political. It changes no ones mind.

depoll 10y ago

s/shouldn't discuss them over email./shouldn't.

khrakhen 10y ago

> I've heard exactly zero claims that the leaked emails were falsified in any way. Podesta and high-ranking Dems have leveled this very charge. The extent of the DKIM signatures all being true makes this very unlikely. RSA1024 and SHA-1 can be beaten, but not easily and not in this volume. It is not E2E from the people authoring the e-mails, so the server maintainer (often Google) could be forging and signing e-mails. However, again, doing it the volume it would have had to be done is not likely. The DNC has backed off from the forgery accusations. Besides the asinine nature of the accusations making them look bad, such accusations weaken their grand thesis: Russia hacked them. If they open up the possibility that most or all of the e-mails could have been fabricated whole cloth, then it undermines the argument that Putin pulled off an ingenuous heist of tens of thousands of e-mails.

downandout 10y ago
I suppose I should have said that I have heard no credible claims that they were falsified. Most of the denials I've heard were of the "I don't recognize that" variety, which literally means nothing.
- thehood 10y ago
  There was that twitter post from John podesta "i've switched sides hi /pol/" post from his verified twitter page. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835460/Now-Podesta-s-Twitter-account-gets-hacked-day-Clinton-campaign-chair-accuses-Russia-hacking-emails.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835460/Now-Podesta-... if the emails are fake, how could a password from the emails dump be used to login into his twitter page.
middleclick 10y ago
Hey, another 6 hour old account.

acjohnson55 10y ago

It's rather naive to think these things didn't have an effect. The problem isn't the truth of the claims, it's that the illicitly gained information was strategically released to disrupt one specific campaign, effectively destabilizing our election. Much like Comey's last minute email announcement revealed nothing new, yet allowed the email narrative to renew its currency in the last days of the campaign. Imagine if the IRS "accidentally" released Trump's tax returns or been hacked to allow this data to come out. Or if the alleged tapes went public of Donald Trump making openly racist remarks on his TV shows outtakes. Even if these simply revealed things many people already expect to be true, it would have had mesurable impact on the election.

smitherfield 10y ago
> Imagine if the IRS "accidentally" released Trump's tax returns or been hacked to allow this data to come out. The NYT did publish Trump's stolen tax return, and were quite self-congratulatory about having done so... > Or if the alleged tapes went public of Donald Trump making openly racist remarks on his TV shows outtakes. ...and, the stories about the hacked material were outnumbered probably 100-1 by the simultaneous coverage of the stolen backstage Access Hollywood tape (which was doubly illegal because California is a "two-party consent" state). Which is not to say either of those things weren't newsworthy, or shouldn't have been reported on, but: it's completely, blatantly hypocritical to say that illegally-obtained information should not be allowed to affect the election when it hurts one candidate, but is fair game to use to hurt the other.
- RobAtticus 10y ago
  re: two-party consent, IANAL but there seems to be exceptions where if the parties don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, consent is not needed. For example, somebody recording you giving a public speech does not need your permission -- the public can go hear you speak with or without the recording. Since Trump was mic'd up on the bus (they were going to film a segment), I think there is a case to be made that he couldn't realistically make the case he didn't know he was being recorded or could be recorded. I think it'd be a hard sell that this was an illegally recorded conversation.

jackfoxy 10y ago

In terms of illegally obtained content, the Democrats had no problem claiming higher ethical ground in releasing a tapped cell phone conversation of Newt Gingrich http://www.daviddfriedman.com/CCP_97/Gingrich%252fMartin%252fMcDerm.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/CCP_97/Gingrich%252fMartin%252... And if you want to focus on foreign (illegal) involvement in U.S. elections, look no further than the alleged Chinese involvement in the 1996 presidential election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi... My point being, this is almost entirely political. It changes no ones mind.