17 ms·
FCC admits it was never actually hacked
- InterestBazinga 8y agoAre there going to be any consequences for this? If no, then it is such a betrayal of trust.
- wwweston 8y agoBetrayal of trust can be all part of the plan when your platform goes hand-in-hand with the idea that government is the problem rather than a solution (and you can make the best effort to prove it when you get elected).
- maxxxxx 8y agoThat's pretty much Putin's textbook. Spread so much misinformation that people stop believing anything. That creates the climate for the strongman to come and drain the swamp.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoOh. Come on now. The system is designed for misinformation and manipulation. The difference this time was who - alledged - pulled the strings. The USA's IC has a long and not so pretty history of misinformation. The fact that you're so quick to point at Putin only proves the USA IC is as slick and effective as ever.
- smcl 8y agoI believe the Putin reference isn't about the recent paranoia about Russian interference, but about a how this specific tactic was pioneered by an advisor to Putin: Vladislav Surkov A nice summary is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od4MWs7qTr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od4MWs7qTr8
- maxxxxx 8y agoCorrect. This strategy has been used before but I mentioned Putin because he has perfected it. I see the same tendency in Trump with his "fake news".
- smcl 8y agoYep - the effect is ultimately the same, however I'm not convinced that in Trump's case it is deliberate. There's a lot of talk from right that he's some visionary playing "fourth dimensional chess" but I think he's just an impulsive person who just doesn't put a great deal of thought into what he says other than the simple phrases he knows will land with his target audience ("lyin' ted", "crooked hillary", "fake news", "make america great again" etc)
- maxxxxx 8y ago"who just doesn't put a great deal of thought into what he says" Don't underestimate Trump. He is a brilliant propagandist. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to his public perception. His while career has been about selling his image.
- smolder 8y agoMaybe earlier in life, there's nothing brilliant coming from him now. He is old and confused and important functions are delegated. He's a symbol.
- maxxxxx 8y agoHe certainly won the presidential election against all odds. I think that's pretty impressive. Being a good self promoter doesn't mean that you are a good president though.
- smolder 8y agoCrooked Hillary was a term that he was advised to use by someone at Cambridge Analytica, or they claimed to have given it to him anyway.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- xmichael999 8y agoIf you read about Steve Bannon, his plan for years is really to have people lose faith in government agencies and have them thought of as garbage, and then ultimately shut down. I'm not sure this is some great conspiracy or just a bunch of scumbags at work here, but like I say there are major well financed efforts to actually make the FCC, EPA, etc look stupid, and appear to be run by idiots. Appointing incompetent people to them, is the plan by some of these folks like Bannon.
- reubenswartz 8y agoHUD, DoE (both of them), etc... ;-(
- Avshalom 8y agoInvoking Steve Bannon is unnecessary: "losing faith in government" has been the Republican Party goal since Nixon.
- tasty_freeze 8y ago"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." President Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoArguably a misquotation, probably misleading absent the context, and definitely an incomplete quotation. Speaking narrowly and specifically about the economic crisis and stagflation of the late 70s: In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoThe surrounding context doesn't really change/clarify that core message very much.
- pkilgore 8y agoWas there ever any doubt? What a joke ( and waste of time and resources ). At this point I'm surprised Pai bothered to release a statement.
- krisroadruck 8y agoJust face-saving. Trying to get out in front of the report and frame the issue rather than let others frame it.
- krisroadruck 8y ago"Because it wasn’t a hack, it seems that the comment-filing system, though recently revamped, needs yet another fresh coat of paint to handle the kind of volume it saw during the net neutrality repeal." Or as an alternative, maybe don't shove through legislation that's so wildly unpopular with the american citizens that the entire internet comes crashing down on you in protest. Just a thought.
- dlp211 8y agoNit: it's not legislation, it's regulation in the FCCs purview. The reason this matters is because it is likely going to take Congressional legislation to get net neutrality now, which means electing (mostly) Democrats.
- devmunchies 8y agoIsn’t removing neutrality a de-regulation? To enforce neutrality would be a regulation.
- cma 8y agoImagine the government collecting everyone's taxes to put in electricity based on common will, and then once it is hooked up it corrupt politicians say a new unaccountable king gets to decide who gets to plug in. The king has a profit motive, so for the most part you can pay him extra, in addition to the taxes you already paid, to let you plug in. Was inserting that king really a deregulatory step? Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft. (king/comcast/att/etc.)
- koboll 8y agoEh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
- craftyguy 8y agoThe FCC should be disbanded and replaced with a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). Even though they could do good, and may have in the past, the lack of actual accountability for their actions means that it's too easy to do bad. They're not directly elected, so even the tiny shred of accountability that elected officials generally have is not there. If they can flat out lie to the public and get away with it, why do they exist and why should they continue to exist? The justification for the existence of a government organization should not be based on the possibilities of good they might do, but it should be based on the unchecked bad they could (and will eventually) do.
- monocasa 8y agoDon't fall into their trap of "look how terrible government is (when officials are actively trying to run it into the ground)". Fix the issues with officials lying, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- xmichael999 8y agoThis is a well run plan by many powerful figures. Steve Bannon has given many presentations about how appointing "idiots" to run the government is the best way to achieve a shrunken smaller more libertarian government. Sadly I think this plan is somewhat being hijacked to distract from the various other issues with the republican party and Trump.
- craftyguy 8y agoHow do you propose we fix the government when the government is trying to run the government into the ground and the only way to fix it is through the government? > Fix the issues with officials lying The only way to do that is by either 1: prosecuting them or 2: disbanding the FCC and forming a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). I was advocating for #2. #1 is largely a joke when targeting high ranking officials.
- 8y ago
- fphhotchips 8y ago"I am deeply disappointed that the FCC’s former [CIO], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. " The first envelope is open. Next up: reorganisation.
- an_account_name 8y agoI think it’s now the norm to just photocopy off the first envelope a few hundred times.
- dnzm 8y agoOn the company's copier, of course. You don't want to have to pay for something like that yourself, like some pleb, do you?
- binomialxenon 8y agoNo admission of responsibility of course, just scapegoating. I find it highly likely that Pai and his like-minded cronies were in on this the whole time.
- wavefunction 8y agoWhy would he have posted such trollish pictures of himself if he weren't? He got real serious suddenly when that nutter threatened his family.
- mrfusion 8y agoWhy don’t people trust institutions anymore?
- smolder 8y agoBecause the institutions were corrupted by people who don't want instutions telling them not to be corrupt.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bsparker 8y agoSo does this have anything to do with the fake comments (left in my name): http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/fcc-and-net-neutrality-check-to-see-if-your-name-was-used-for-fake-comments/ http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/fcc-and-net-neutrality-check-t...
- fourthark 8y agoYeah, I always assumed they were unintentionally DDoS'd by the bots spamming fake comments. Which anyone non-technical could honestly but inaccurately describe as "being hacked".
- yebyen 8y agoAnyone non-technical who was not directly involved with the deed, perhaps. It is not at all honest to say "we were hacked" if the truth is actually "we hacked ourselves." Honestly (and of course, I don't have anything concrete to back this up with) I'm quite sure the truth is "we hacked ourselves, maintaining just enough degrees of separation so as to preserve plausible deniability..."
- fourthark 8y agoHuh? There were plenty of interests who would have been willing to pay someone to generate a lot of fake anti-net-neutrality "opinions". Why assume that the FCC stuffed their own mailbox?
- yebyen 8y agoWhy else would they have made up this ridiculous story about being hacked? You're much too charitable.
- fourthark 8y agoThey only claimed they were DDoS'd, it's the media that used the word "hacked". Maybe we can agree that they might not have been able to tell the difference between bot comments and DDoS, or did not want to acknowledge that difference.
- foobarbazetc 8y agoAjit lies to us? Shocking development.
- mehrdadn 8y agoI'm confused, where did they say they were "hacked"? When I follow the links I get here [1] where they said they were DDoS'd, not hacked. Even TechCrunch's old article [2] doesn't say the FCC was hacked. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-service-attack-fcc-comment-system https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-servic... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/the-fccs-comment-system-targeted-by-ddos-attacks-during-filing-period-for-net-neutrality/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/the-fccs-comment-system-ta...
- stonogo 8y agoHere you go: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.p... It's linked from that page you posted. I guess you can be pedantic about the term "hacked," but they claimed their site was deliberately rendered unavailable to commenters by multiple attackers. In the common parlance, deliberately breaking computer shit is called hacking. It may save unneeded stress to make peace with the fact that words can mean one thing to a specialist and something else to all the other native speakers of the language.
- mehrdadn 8y ago> Here you go. It's linked from that page you posted. Uhm, yes, I have eyes, thank you. I think you can assume HNers are generally not obtuse enough to link to a nearly-blank page saying "Statement by FCC" and miss 3 glaringly obvious links referring to the actual statement. I was, indeed, referring to that statement. The very fact that their news release seemed to be missing "hack" or anything equivalent to it is exactly what I was referring to. The difference between "attacked" vs. "hacked" isn't "pedantry" any more than the difference between "arrested" and "convicted" is pedantry. Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, not that you were merely "attacked". Most of the press cares about being responsible with their choice of words, and you really should too. Nobody would say Google or HN or any other site was "hacked" the moment it was DDoS'd. Being hacked requires a security breach, and nowhere that I can see did the FCC claim there was such a thing. So unless they said this elsewhere, this is a recklessly irresponsible choice of words.
- wnevets 8y agoOf course it wasn't but the damage has been done.
- woodandsteel 8y agoI have been around a long time, and have observed many different presidential administrations. Some I liked and some I disliked. But I have never seen one that lied one tenth as often as the present one.