6 ms·

I think that's missing the point. Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't

I think that's missing the point. Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself. The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.

chroem- 10y ago
>The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself One could argue that the documented effort to override public opinion in the primary election is quite interesting by itself. I suppose you could also claim that it's uninteresting, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
- etchalon 10y ago
  That documentation does not exist. You could argue it is "hinted at" in the emails made public, but cannot argue it is documented or proven.
  - chroem- 10y ago
    Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.
    - etchalon 10y ago
      First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't. Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to. Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Do you believe the DNC tried to slow down the momentum of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
        etchalon 10y ago
        No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        >"I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him." Here's one example to start... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-democratic-officials-plotted-to-expose-bernie-sanders-as-an-atheist-a7151476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
        etchalon 10y ago
        The link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Here's another... https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 >"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
        etchalon 10y ago
        I'm not sure what the context of that is, and I hadn't seen that before. I'll do some reading. Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.
    - mejari 10y ago
      If your "evidence" is that people in public positions are removed from public positions because of public backlash, then that is no evidence at all. Public opinion often rules out over actual facts in such cases.
mathetic 10y ago
I don't like Russia as much as the next guy, but the US doesn't really have moral high ground here. The repeating argument in NSA revelations was that intelligence agencies are here to gather intelligence outside the country and on their own citizens. Well then it follows, outside the country it would be pretty weird if Russia spied on US citizens, but not political parties. This goes both ways of course. Once you see that having an intelligence agency necessarily means you're going to snoop on internals of another government, it would be even more weird if you don't meddle with it when you have the chance. I mean why not? Nation states are out for themselves. In particular if the stakes are high such as when the nation happens to have a good portion of the world's nuclear arsenal, why not take a shot?
- etchalon 10y ago
  The US does not have a "moral high ground" here, but that's also beside the point. Yes, we interfere in the elections of other countries. We also bomb other countries. And yet, if another country bombed us, we'd be pretty pissed about it.
  - mathetic 10y ago
    Categorical imperative is nasty.
jsmith0295 10y ago
I think it's also worth noting that this was not a particularly sophisticated attack. Podesta fell for a simple phishing attack. A lot of media attention around this has made it sound like something out of an action movie, but the attack itself was actually quite simple. People who have access to so much important information need more training about this sort of thing so they don't just give their password away. It might've been the Russians this time, but it could've been just about anyone, and unless the underlying problem is resolved, it'll continue to happen.
- etchalon 10y ago
  It wasn't even a sophisticated phishing attack. If you believe the reporting, the whole thing would have been avoided were it not for a typo.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  Exactly, it could have been a Russian national, or it could have been someone from the USA, Nigeria or Spain, with enough VPN tunnels and botnets at an attacker's disposal it might take years, if ever, that they could attribute the event back to the true source.
234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
"Weren't particular interesting" What? The results of the attack are the entire reason Hillary lost! Remember how it came out how she has two sets of beliefs, "One private and one public", aka tell the plebs what they want to hear then make backroom deals with Goldman Sachs. Did you even read any of the emails?
ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party." Is there any evidence that the hacks came from Russia? From what I've seen, the Russians have just been the scapegoats. Just because something is repeated a lot on the news, doesn't make it true. If there's evidence the hacks were orchestrated by the Russian government (or even involved Russia at all), let's see the evidence. Without the evidence, the claims are baseless.
- etchalon 10y ago
  Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia. Whether they'll release their evidence publicly remains to be seen, however, even GOP senators acknowledge it was likely Russia. We can assume they were briefed.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia." Let's imagine you're the President and you discover the leaks came from US citizens with ties to the DNC (e.g. DNC employees with access to emails). Would you have anything to gain from pointing the finger at foreign political actors interfering in US politics?
    - etchalon 10y ago
      Imagining motives and then working backwards is, in general, a terrible way to parse the world.
      - lotsoflumens 10y ago
        Terrible or not, it's the correct way.
        etchalon 10y ago
        It's literally the complete wrong way. You're inventing potential motivations, convincing yourself those are the motivations of the people involved, and then likely searching for evidence that proves your speculation correct.

chroem- 10y ago

>The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself One could argue that the documented effort to override public opinion in the primary election is quite interesting by itself. I suppose you could also claim that it's uninteresting, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

etchalon 10y ago
That documentation does not exist. You could argue it is "hinted at" in the emails made public, but cannot argue it is documented or proven.
- chroem- 10y ago
  Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.
  - etchalon 10y ago
    First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't. Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to. Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Do you believe the DNC tried to slow down the momentum of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
      - etchalon 10y ago
        No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        >"I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him." Here's one example to start... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-democratic-officials-plotted-to-expose-bernie-sanders-as-an-atheist-a7151476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
        etchalon 10y ago
        The link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Here's another... https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 >"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
        etchalon 10y ago
        I'm not sure what the context of that is, and I hadn't seen that before. I'll do some reading. Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.
  - mejari 10y ago
    If your "evidence" is that people in public positions are removed from public positions because of public backlash, then that is no evidence at all. Public opinion often rules out over actual facts in such cases.

mathetic 10y ago

I don't like Russia as much as the next guy, but the US doesn't really have moral high ground here. The repeating argument in NSA revelations was that intelligence agencies are here to gather intelligence outside the country and on their own citizens. Well then it follows, outside the country it would be pretty weird if Russia spied on US citizens, but not political parties. This goes both ways of course. Once you see that having an intelligence agency necessarily means you're going to snoop on internals of another government, it would be even more weird if you don't meddle with it when you have the chance. I mean why not? Nation states are out for themselves. In particular if the stakes are high such as when the nation happens to have a good portion of the world's nuclear arsenal, why not take a shot?

etchalon 10y ago
The US does not have a "moral high ground" here, but that's also beside the point. Yes, we interfere in the elections of other countries. We also bomb other countries. And yet, if another country bombed us, we'd be pretty pissed about it.
- mathetic 10y ago
  Categorical imperative is nasty.

jsmith0295 10y ago

I think it's also worth noting that this was not a particularly sophisticated attack. Podesta fell for a simple phishing attack. A lot of media attention around this has made it sound like something out of an action movie, but the attack itself was actually quite simple. People who have access to so much important information need more training about this sort of thing so they don't just give their password away. It might've been the Russians this time, but it could've been just about anyone, and unless the underlying problem is resolved, it'll continue to happen.

etchalon 10y ago
It wasn't even a sophisticated phishing attack. If you believe the reporting, the whole thing would have been avoided were it not for a typo.
TenOhms 10y ago
Exactly, it could have been a Russian national, or it could have been someone from the USA, Nigeria or Spain, with enough VPN tunnels and botnets at an attacker's disposal it might take years, if ever, that they could attribute the event back to the true source.

234dd57d2c8db 10y ago

"Weren't particular interesting" What? The results of the attack are the entire reason Hillary lost! Remember how it came out how she has two sets of beliefs, "One private and one public", aka tell the plebs what they want to hear then make backroom deals with Goldman Sachs. Did you even read any of the emails?

ZenoArrow 10y ago

>"Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party." Is there any evidence that the hacks came from Russia? From what I've seen, the Russians have just been the scapegoats. Just because something is repeated a lot on the news, doesn't make it true. If there's evidence the hacks were orchestrated by the Russian government (or even involved Russia at all), let's see the evidence. Without the evidence, the claims are baseless.

etchalon 10y ago
Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia. Whether they'll release their evidence publicly remains to be seen, however, even GOP senators acknowledge it was likely Russia. We can assume they were briefed.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia." Let's imagine you're the President and you discover the leaks came from US citizens with ties to the DNC (e.g. DNC employees with access to emails). Would you have anything to gain from pointing the finger at foreign political actors interfering in US politics?
  - etchalon 10y ago
    Imagining motives and then working backwards is, in general, a terrible way to parse the world.
    - lotsoflumens 10y ago
      Terrible or not, it's the correct way.
      - etchalon 10y ago
        It's literally the complete wrong way. You're inventing potential motivations, convincing yourself those are the motivations of the people involved, and then likely searching for evidence that proves your speculation correct.