11 ms·
This is remarkably disingenuous. The Russians hacked into both political parties and leaked their information selectively to support their agenda. They even got
by bllguo 9y ago
This is remarkably disingenuous. The Russians hacked into both political parties and leaked their information selectively to support their agenda. They even got access to voting rolls. There is no evidence AFAIK that they changed anything, but they should rightfully be charged for penetrating the US at all.
EDIT: voter roll != voter systems... edited so I don't spread FUD. Don't want to distract from the main point. The success of Russia's efforts may be only a symptom of the problems in the US - you still have to treat the symptoms.
- justicezyx 9y agoYou'll need to fix the corruption first, and then fixing the bad actor outside. Like an old Chinese proverb: Mosquito only sting the eggs already with cracks.
- klodolph 9y agoThat's unreasonable. There are a lot of people working on this… we can work against corruption and against undue foreign influence in parallel.
- justicezyx 9y agoThose are not separate issues. The corruption is to a degree that anyone can influence US political system with comparably very insignificant cost. At this juncture, how can you fix the external influence while the internal is so eager to cooperate? Like a stick without support on ground, are you going to put a sign that no one should touch it, but how can you keep it stand? And what's the point of disallow people touching it, which I can blow it off using my mouth...
- dragontamer 9y agoWhen someone points out two problems, you don't try to "order" which problems to be fixed first. Fix both of them. In any order. US has both a corruption problem (although less so than other countries IMO), AND an outside influence problem. There are 300+ million people in the country and a budget of over $3 Trillion / year. We can afford the resources to simultaneously fix both problems. There's absolutely no reason to fix things one at a time.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 9y agoThe US has a corruption problem, an outside influence problem, and a domestic extremism problem. The first can be attributed to both major parties (albeit in different ways and to different ends), the second to resurgent great powers that reasonably wish to undermine US hegemony (again, to quite different ends), and the third is deeply rooted in the US' difficult history and has surged due to a hollowing out of institutions. I don't want to paint these issues in purely moral terms. In many ways they're attributable to the increasing complexity of a technological society and the momentum of economic relations. We don't have a good paradigm for self-governance in an increasingly networked society.
- dragontamer 9y agoUS has a ton of problems. We have an opioid problem. We have a corruption problem. We have foreign terrorism problem. We have domestic terrorism problems. We have outside influence problem. We have a schooling problem. We have mental health treatment problem. We have hospital problems. We have a budget problem. We have an aging population problem. We have an immigration policy problem (Too much? Too little? Depends on who you ask). We have election problems, we have voter problems. We have consensus problems. We have polarization problems. The list goes on and on and on for virtually forever. My point is: we work on ALL the problems, simultaneously, as much as possible. There should be no one suggesting that we only try to solve one or two of these at a time. We will fail to fix some problems, but we will succeed in fixing other problems. And it will only happen because people will throw their hardest try at fixing all of the problems. We are ahead in many respects: the population in general knows the wide variety of problems that this country has. So we're able to talk about it. So we're at least at step 1. It'd be nice if we could come to consensus faster, but politics has always been a painfully slow game (Civil Rights took over a decade of demonstrations for example to fix a single issue). This country has always been a bit slow on the uptake, but at least public awareness is generally good.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Glyptodon 9y ago1) If the parties acted principled, open, and upfront as befits the democratic process rather than turning themselves into utterly skeezy Potemkin villages there would be nothing to selectively leak/embarrass them with. Every leak is self inflicted damage caused by the notion that they can do, and get away with, anything as long as they keep the public far enough away. 2) Charging people with crimes for walking through open doors does not actually keep the doors closed. (And the utter disinterest in actually securing and auditing our voting systems relative to hunting heads only goes to show that we don't even care about locking the door, we just want a scapegoat to appease our rage.)
- ABCLAW 9y ago1) So? 2) Would you prefer it wasn't illegal to walk through the doors at all?
- Glyptodon 9y agoAt the very least it would make people more serious about locking them.
- IntronExon 9y agoSounds like paradise for lock pickers without moral fiber (actual pickers tend to have good rules they abide by) and desire to monetize their hobby. “Oh yeah, door was wide open, I swear!” Can we extend this a bit so that if you’re walking through a park at night, mugging you is kosher?
- Glyptodon 9y agoCan we extend this a bit so that if you design and build a house without a roof and you're wet when it rains it's the building company and construction code's fault?
- IntronExon 9y ago
- coldtea 9y ago>The Russians hacked into both political parties and leaked their information selectively to support their agenda. They even got access to voting systems. There is no evidence AFAIK that they changed anything, but the most logical conclusion is that they did. Actually there's no evidence that they hacked into anything -- it's all BS hearsay and "trust us" from secret agencies and no evidence pudding.
- res0nat0r 9y agoThis is false.
- T4NG 9y agogonna cite that then?
- seizethecheese 9y agoGo on...
- res0nat0r 9y agoGoogle?
- outsidetheparty 9y agoHere's The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton... Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
- 13years 9y agoThose were 2016. There has been many questions since. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-qu...
- hungerstrike 9y agoAt least they didn’t come in and overthrow our government like we’ve done to so many others.
- 13years 9y agoWe have a politically motivated lens focused on only the Russians. Does anyone remember before the Russia hysteria it was always the Chinese hacking into our systems? Did they actually do what is claimed? Maybe, but are they really doing anymore than anyone else? Less anyone doubt we might charge them with something they didn't do, remember we have fought wars over what countries were later proven not to do. In the end, what was revealed by whoever is that our own democracy's greatest threat lies from within and most likely always will
- knz 9y ago> Russia hysteria Even beyond the domestic political implications of Russian involvement in our election, Russia is actively supporting groups that are likely shooting at Americans and our allies today (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/17/evidence-russian-military-support-for-afghan-taliban-is-growing.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/17/evidence-russian-mil... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/04/24/russia-is-sending-weapons-to-taliban-top-u-s-general-confirms https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/04/24...). Is it hysterical to care about these issues?
- 13years 9y agoYes, the media is only reporting through the lens that promotes only a single view point of our relationship with Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia...
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoContext is important, because the US and co. did the exact same thing when Soviet troops were in Afghanistan.
- knz 9y agoContext is indeed important, one could argue that the Soviets did the same in Korea, Vietnam, or any of the other major Cold War conflicts.
- adolph 9y agoThe root comment seems to deal with the subject matter of the linked article which contains no mention of accessing political party information systems or voting systems.
- heartbreak 9y agoIs the claim here that context is irrelevant as long as it was omitted from the featured article?
- Panino 9y agoI've read that the Russians didn't hack the vote tallies, instead they hacked and selectively purged certain voter registries, thereby controlling who was "allowed" to vote in the first place. A different strategy to achieve the same goal of modifying eventual vote tallies.
- pdx 9y agoYou may have read it, but the states that were touted as that happening in, quickly debunked it, and it was then retracted.
- GVIrish 9y agoIt's not clear whether voter data was altered. But the possibility of that happening remains a grave threat to the integrity of our elections that to my knowledge hasn't been adequately addressed.
- smsm42 9y ago> They even got access to voting systems No they did not. They did get access to voter rolls in one (or maybe two? it's unclear) case, but that's it. Voter rolls and voting systems are not the same thing. > but the most logical conclusion is that they did No it is not. Most logical conclusion is that reading the data is much easier than changing it, and thus it is more likely that they gained just read access than that they gained both read and write access. Even if they did, changing voter rolls would not give them much, unless they somehow managed to also convince hundreds of people, otherwise ineligible to vote, to actually show up in person and vote using fake voter records (which would be an excellent case for voter ID if anybody in US politics could be bothered to have a logically consistent opinion). But most likely scenario is using these data for identity theft - as it includes driver license numbers, partial or full SSNs etc. - in short, everything you need to open an account online. By far the most likely scenario is stealing this data for commercial purposes. > Even if they didn't, they should rightfully be charged for penetrating the voting systems at all. They did not penetrate voter systems, they accessed voter rolls (list of voters). For which the culprits, of course, should be charged, even though it's mostly useless as there's no chance US can punish them in any way unless they are so stupid as to visit the US or a country which extradites to the US. Which astonishingly is what some people are stupid enough to do. Thus only "mostly".
- amaranth 9y agoInventing people and getting someone to show up and vote as them isn't what you'd do with write access to voter rolls. Instead you'd want to remove or corrupt existing voter information. This would cause huge delays at polling places as people protest their inability to vote and go through the provisional ballot process. If every voter went through with that we'd be fine as enough provisional ballots to tip an election means they have to get validated. The likely outcome however would be people giving up on voting because they're out of time and/or patience and leaving before they ever get a ballot, provisional or not. Target voters in enough locations likely to have large turnout for your opponent and you'd be able to tip the election in your favor, so long as you had any chance at all to win. This wouldn't be enough to help someone who is going to lose 83/17 but a 60/40 loss could be tipped your way and that's what most outcomes in the US are.