5 ms·

At what point would nation-state sponsored hacking be considered as an act of war? From this article it doesn't seem like the hacking effort had significant res

At what point would nation-state sponsored hacking be considered as an act of war? From this article it doesn't seem like the hacking effort had significant result, but if, let's say if, Donald Trump was elected due to direct hacking attempt by Russian military intelligence, then what is the correct course of action?

korzun 9y ago
The correct course of action would result in a complete restructuring of NSA. The idiotic course of action would be waging a nuclear war with Russia.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  > another country attacks us and an agency documents it > dismantles agency so that they can do it again ????
  - korzun 9y ago
    Somebody signed off on electronic voting; someone signed off on all the procedures and safeguards years ago. Etc. A hacking incident of this magnitude would indicate a complete national security failure on every single level. You can't trust that level of incompetence.
    - kem 9y ago
      But this isn't about the NSA, it's about state-level secretaries of state offices.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      You think it was the NSA who signed off on electronic voting? I think it was the state election boards, and maybe the Federal Election Commission. Anyway, the NSA is not the party that messed up to allow flawed electronic voting. They're the party that can (and often has) detected Russian attempts to mess with stuff. So, once again, how does cutting the NSA help?
      - Teever 9y ago
        Why can the NSA influence the decision making process at NIST but they can't influence the design and implementation of a safe and verifiable voting system if it's going to be electronic? Like this really is one of those "What would you say ya do, here?" moments because it sure as hell doesn't look like the NSA does anything preventative that is effective.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Government isn't a corporation that can be managed autocratically. Voting systems, norms, and technologies are highly politicized and contentious, and there's the federal government, numerous quasi-autonomous agencies, 50 state governments, and 20000 counties, not to mention 2 political parties and numerous regional factions. It seems like a single technical problem to you, but socially it's incredibly complex.
      - korzun 9y ago
        That's irrelevant. Those decisions are approved and closely monitored by federal agencies responsible for national security. The state may dictate the way federal laws are translated or adopted on their level; everything else is under federal juricstiction. The electronic voting machines were not covered under any 'law'. The FEC is just another arm for the FBI. They share the same block; if not the same building and security clerances. Neither operate on state level.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        > Those decisions are approved and closely monitored by federal agencies responsible for national security. Do you have any evidence for that claim? As far as I can see, they have had no influence on such decisions. > The FEC is just another arm for the FBI. Do you have any evidence for that claim, beyond just "they share the same block"?
anigbrowl 9y ago
It's interesting to compare American and Russian strategic military doctrine on the conduct of war in general. American strategic doctrine tends towards bright-line thresholds, past which a declaration of war is triggered. Russian strategic documents consider battlespace preparation the first and necessary phase of conflict and is less concerned with specific thresholds. Draw your own conclusions.

korzun 9y ago

The correct course of action would result in a complete restructuring of NSA. The idiotic course of action would be waging a nuclear war with Russia.

akhilcacharya 9y ago
> another country attacks us and an agency documents it > dismantles agency so that they can do it again ????
- korzun 9y ago
  Somebody signed off on electronic voting; someone signed off on all the procedures and safeguards years ago. Etc. A hacking incident of this magnitude would indicate a complete national security failure on every single level. You can't trust that level of incompetence.
  - kem 9y ago
    But this isn't about the NSA, it's about state-level secretaries of state offices.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    You think it was the NSA who signed off on electronic voting? I think it was the state election boards, and maybe the Federal Election Commission. Anyway, the NSA is not the party that messed up to allow flawed electronic voting. They're the party that can (and often has) detected Russian attempts to mess with stuff. So, once again, how does cutting the NSA help?
    - Teever 9y ago
      Why can the NSA influence the decision making process at NIST but they can't influence the design and implementation of a safe and verifiable voting system if it's going to be electronic? Like this really is one of those "What would you say ya do, here?" moments because it sure as hell doesn't look like the NSA does anything preventative that is effective.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Government isn't a corporation that can be managed autocratically. Voting systems, norms, and technologies are highly politicized and contentious, and there's the federal government, numerous quasi-autonomous agencies, 50 state governments, and 20000 counties, not to mention 2 political parties and numerous regional factions. It seems like a single technical problem to you, but socially it's incredibly complex.
    - korzun 9y ago
      That's irrelevant. Those decisions are approved and closely monitored by federal agencies responsible for national security. The state may dictate the way federal laws are translated or adopted on their level; everything else is under federal juricstiction. The electronic voting machines were not covered under any 'law'. The FEC is just another arm for the FBI. They share the same block; if not the same building and security clerances. Neither operate on state level.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        > Those decisions are approved and closely monitored by federal agencies responsible for national security. Do you have any evidence for that claim? As far as I can see, they have had no influence on such decisions. > The FEC is just another arm for the FBI. Do you have any evidence for that claim, beyond just "they share the same block"?

anigbrowl 9y ago

It's interesting to compare American and Russian strategic military doctrine on the conduct of war in general. American strategic doctrine tends towards bright-line thresholds, past which a declaration of war is triggered. Russian strategic documents consider battlespace preparation the first and necessary phase of conflict and is less concerned with specific thresholds. Draw your own conclusions.