4 ms·

> Waits for downvotes from people who believe russians actually hacked the election! They waged overt info war, combining state run hacking efforts of politica

by seppin 10y ago

> Waits for downvotes from people who believe russians actually hacked the election! They waged overt info war, combining state run hacking efforts of political opponents with an army of paid trolls to degrade a democratic process. Yes "Russians hack election" is too simplistic, but to dismiss what happened is equally as wrong. This is warfare.

remarkEon 10y ago
>This is warfare. No, it isn't. This is common behavior that Sovereign states engage in all the time. One of the most fascinating things that has happened after this election is how easily people are lowering the bar to declare something "war". What has happened? Should we "declare Cyberwar" on Russia now? Do you think we're not already engaging in both defensive and offensive Cyber, shall we say, "activities" against the Russian Federation? http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-hist... https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/08/been-hacking-elections-for-more-than-century/okjziXPQDiegx53ABtpUOO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/08/been-hacking-el...
- seppin 10y ago
  Did Russia, via a not so subtle proxy in Wikileaks, directly and openly attack one candidate in favor of another? No, it's actions followed unwritten rules of espionage. They wanted to get caught. They wanted to openly break every rule. They are daring a response, b/c they have nothing left to lose.
  - remarkEon 10y ago
    Quibbles with your word choice aside, I'm not denying that it's possible (it's worth noting that we've yet to see actual, hard evidence for it) or even probable that they did (though the thought experiment works much better if you think they wanted to embarrass a President Clinton, not the candidate...seeing as how everyone else outside the US thought she'd win too). I'm simply noting that this is normal behavior for these countries stretching back half a century and, personally, I don't think it's worth starting WWIII over John Podesta's shitty password habits.

by seppin 10y ago

remarkEon 10y ago

>This is warfare. No, it isn't. This is common behavior that Sovereign states engage in all the time. One of the most fascinating things that has happened after this election is how easily people are lowering the bar to declare something "war". What has happened? Should we "declare Cyberwar" on Russia now? Do you think we're not already engaging in both defensive and offensive Cyber, shall we say, "activities" against the Russian Federation? http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-hist... https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/08/been-hacking-elections-for-more-than-century/okjziXPQDiegx53ABtpUOO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/08/been-hacking-el...

seppin 10y ago
Did Russia, via a not so subtle proxy in Wikileaks, directly and openly attack one candidate in favor of another? No, it's actions followed unwritten rules of espionage. They wanted to get caught. They wanted to openly break every rule. They are daring a response, b/c they have nothing left to lose.
- remarkEon 10y ago
  Quibbles with your word choice aside, I'm not denying that it's possible (it's worth noting that we've yet to see actual, hard evidence for it) or even probable that they did (though the thought experiment works much better if you think they wanted to embarrass a President Clinton, not the candidate...seeing as how everyone else outside the US thought she'd win too). I'm simply noting that this is normal behavior for these countries stretching back half a century and, personally, I don't think it's worth starting WWIII over John Podesta's shitty password habits.