3 ms·
Even if the "hack" were the Russians, it seems the hack broke through pathetic email security measures. The security seems basically so bad that it's likely tha
by dv_dt 10y ago
Even if the "hack" were the Russians, it seems the hack broke through pathetic email security measures. The security seems basically so bad that it's likely that just about anybody could have been monitoring the emails at well below the level of sophisticated state-sponsored hackers.
We should be having a discussion about how the desires of the intelligence community to spy have undercut the improvement of general security for personal data in the US. The email infrastructure of the Democratic campaign, seems more or less like a slightly below average standard email infrastructure used by most of the US (that's another shocking issue, but a side discussion at this point too).
The main issues IMHO are a) the intelligence community spying capability did not prevent this hack - why not, and b) we should consider that spying infrastructure requests and the legal implications of them holds back development of better security. Better general security for most private email & communications for citizens and businesses in the US would have been more effective in preventing the issue than spying capability.
- matt4077 10y agoIt's well established that they got into Podesta's email when he fell for their spear-fishing and submitted his password on a fake site. But blaming the victim is just doing the aggressor's work. If russian agents broke into a power plant and blew it up, would you be writing about the need to fix the nation's fences. I also disagree with your assessment that the DNC's security was "slightly below standards". They could have easily enabled two-factor authentication which would have foiled these hacking attempts – and the US agencies' agenda doesn't play into this story at all.
- jwtadvice2 10y agoInterestingly this report does not establish or claim that Russia had accessed Podesta's email.
- dv_dt 10y ago> They could have easily enabled two-factor authentication which would have foiled these hacking attempts But it wasn't enabled, and that's one specific reason for calling it below standard... of what was even available in commercial technologies..
- matt4077 10y agoOh, misunderstanding. I was arguing that they were not just slightly below standard but grossly negligent, and therefore far away from being impacted by any attempts to discourage security by the 3-letter agencies.
- jwtadvice2 10y agoHow about a Cyber Treaty? Spending tons of money on cyber security and not getting very far seems like it ups the ante and continues the spy&hack game. In my opinion its better to find a way to deescalate the security competition.