5 ms·

The DNC is not an institution of the US government.

by triplewipeass 8y ago

cronix 8y ago
Neither is social media. Your point?
- triplewipeass 8y ago
  My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
  - gandhium 8y ago
    > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
  - learc83 8y ago
    How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.
    - triplewipeass 8y ago
      Cargo ships get attacked & hijacked all the time. There exist some shipping lanes where such risks are well known. In fact, US Navy ships regularly patrol such shipping lanes in an effort to curtail or stop piracy. At the very least, many pirates are turned off by the prospect of facing off against a heavily armed Navy ship. This isn't the same thing as retaliation. This is the US government deploying its considerable resources to mitigate an obvious vulnerability. Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons, leaving them defenseless against even the shabbiest of pirates. The navies - US and allied alike - are out there protecting ships that cannot legally defend themselves. Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Compare this with infosec vulnerabilities in the private sector. Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. I would even go as far as commend the government for subsidizing infosec consultants for companies that are considered important for the continued functioning of society. None of the above jives with retaliating in kind.
      - learc83 8y ago
        > Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons That isn't true. It's perfectly legal for an American ship in international waters to carry weapons aboard. Shipping companies hire armed security to protect their ships even though it's not common. Depending on the country, a very heavily armed ship may have a problem in certain ports, but small arms kept aboard aren't a problem in most places. If you want larger weapons, companies could hire escort boats. >Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. Sure companies need better security, but no security policy will stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Expecting private citizens to be solely responsible for protecting themselves from foreign militaries is absurd. >Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Retaliation in this case would be the US launching cyber attacks and stealing trade secrets from private foreign companies. Instead they are directly attacking cyber combatants.
  - CWuestefeld 8y ago
    the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. At the end of the day, the reason the government exists is to protect the people and their property. I agree that it's alarming that the US is doing this. But my alarm is because there's no Constitutional declaration of war, or even any apparent invocation of the War Powers Act.
    - shitgoose 8y ago
      I always thought that the reason the government exists is to collect taxes and spend them in the most inefficient way. Governments go to war to protect their cash flow, i.e. taxes.
  - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
    Well we just had a presidential election if not decided, certainly influenced by this same group, I can't think of a better thing to spend taxpayer money on than ensuring that elections are free from interference.
    - robdachshund 8y ago
      I fail to see how what amounts to a whistleblowing action revealing horrendous actions done by one of the two viable political parties is "interference." The information revealed was information I was happy to learn. It was true, factual information taken directly from the bad actors committing crimes, violating federal law, and committing election fraud. The other point is that we don't even know who leaked the information. The emails were completely unsecured and they were likely hacked by everyone and their dog. If the leak came from a US whistleblower, would it still be "interference?" Why on earth would you not want to know this information? Because of political bias?
    - espeed 8y ago
      Do you know the size of the Russian economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia How many individual US states have an economy larger than Russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_sovereign_states_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states... And the size of the PR industry? https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ We invented the modern PR industry, AI, and social media. That's our bailiwick. You think Russia outclassed us at our own game, at home on our own platforms, on the biggest stage, in the highest stakes game of all? That would be like the Russian basketball team [0] beating the US Dream Team [1] in all of our major sports at once. Not gonna happen. [0] Russian Basketball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_tea... [1] US Dream Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Oly...
      - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
lostapathy 8y ago
Would you feel differently if power plants (also mostly not government owned) were attacked? I know my analogy is a bit of a stretch, but at least at present it seems like the political parties are at the very core of american civilization (or lack thereof, depending on perspective)
- triplewipeass 8y ago
  Protecting privately owned power plants at all costs is just another manifestation of the "too big to fail" mentality. If the comparison doesn't seem immediately relevant to you, see if you can find similarities between financial firms that failed to stay solvent and power plants that failed to adopt a security posture commensurate with the function they perform in modern society. I'd much rather see the country face its problems and fix them, than hope Uncle Sam can paper over security vulnerabilities or the casino mentality on Wall St.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

The DNC is not an institution of the US government.

cronix 8y ago

Neither is social media. Your point?

triplewipeass 8y ago
My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
- gandhium 8y ago
  > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
- learc83 8y ago
  How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.
  - triplewipeass 8y ago
    Cargo ships get attacked & hijacked all the time. There exist some shipping lanes where such risks are well known. In fact, US Navy ships regularly patrol such shipping lanes in an effort to curtail or stop piracy. At the very least, many pirates are turned off by the prospect of facing off against a heavily armed Navy ship. This isn't the same thing as retaliation. This is the US government deploying its considerable resources to mitigate an obvious vulnerability. Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons, leaving them defenseless against even the shabbiest of pirates. The navies - US and allied alike - are out there protecting ships that cannot legally defend themselves. Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Compare this with infosec vulnerabilities in the private sector. Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. I would even go as far as commend the government for subsidizing infosec consultants for companies that are considered important for the continued functioning of society. None of the above jives with retaliating in kind.
    - learc83 8y ago
      > Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons That isn't true. It's perfectly legal for an American ship in international waters to carry weapons aboard. Shipping companies hire armed security to protect their ships even though it's not common. Depending on the country, a very heavily armed ship may have a problem in certain ports, but small arms kept aboard aren't a problem in most places. If you want larger weapons, companies could hire escort boats. >Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. Sure companies need better security, but no security policy will stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Expecting private citizens to be solely responsible for protecting themselves from foreign militaries is absurd. >Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Retaliation in this case would be the US launching cyber attacks and stealing trade secrets from private foreign companies. Instead they are directly attacking cyber combatants.
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. At the end of the day, the reason the government exists is to protect the people and their property. I agree that it's alarming that the US is doing this. But my alarm is because there's no Constitutional declaration of war, or even any apparent invocation of the War Powers Act.
  - shitgoose 8y ago
    I always thought that the reason the government exists is to collect taxes and spend them in the most inefficient way. Governments go to war to protect their cash flow, i.e. taxes.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  Well we just had a presidential election if not decided, certainly influenced by this same group, I can't think of a better thing to spend taxpayer money on than ensuring that elections are free from interference.
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    I fail to see how what amounts to a whistleblowing action revealing horrendous actions done by one of the two viable political parties is "interference." The information revealed was information I was happy to learn. It was true, factual information taken directly from the bad actors committing crimes, violating federal law, and committing election fraud. The other point is that we don't even know who leaked the information. The emails were completely unsecured and they were likely hacked by everyone and their dog. If the leak came from a US whistleblower, would it still be "interference?" Why on earth would you not want to know this information? Because of political bias?
  - espeed 8y ago
    Do you know the size of the Russian economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia How many individual US states have an economy larger than Russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_sovereign_states_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states... And the size of the PR industry? https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ We invented the modern PR industry, AI, and social media. That's our bailiwick. You think Russia outclassed us at our own game, at home on our own platforms, on the biggest stage, in the highest stakes game of all? That would be like the Russian basketball team [0] beating the US Dream Team [1] in all of our major sports at once. Not gonna happen. [0] Russian Basketball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_tea... [1] US Dream Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Oly...
    - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

lostapathy 8y ago

Would you feel differently if power plants (also mostly not government owned) were attacked? I know my analogy is a bit of a stretch, but at least at present it seems like the political parties are at the very core of american civilization (or lack thereof, depending on perspective)

triplewipeass 8y ago
Protecting privately owned power plants at all costs is just another manifestation of the "too big to fail" mentality. If the comparison doesn't seem immediately relevant to you, see if you can find similarities between financial firms that failed to stay solvent and power plants that failed to adopt a security posture commensurate with the function they perform in modern society. I'd much rather see the country face its problems and fix them, than hope Uncle Sam can paper over security vulnerabilities or the casino mentality on Wall St.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]