The ramifications of this are honestly pretty unsettling
At one level, it's the same old international great game BS that the world's powers have always played. The US engages in similar shenanigans, too, and this is pretty trivial stuff.
At another level, I'm disappointed that the DNC email server could be hacked. It's 2016. Securing an email server isn't rocket surgery. Political institutions ought to be better at stuff like that.
At level #3, I'm surprised the Russians were amateur enough to get caught in a way that's traceable.
And at the weird and frightening level, I'm kind of agog that the GOP (the US political party that thinks of itself as the "daddy" party on foreign policy issues, and who are, in their own minds, anti-communist legends) has been almost completely dismissive of the whole affair. I mean... it's kind of hard to overstate how much "Russia == bad" has, more than anything, been the ideological bedrock of the GOP since the end of WW2. So they've sold out their first, most important principle for... Trump? I don't like them, but I thought they were better than that. In fact, it scares the shit out of me that they're not better than that.
Just takes one person to click on the wrong link in an email. And sometimes the spearfishing attempts are pretty convincing. I've seen ones to "Dropbox" that looked almost genuine.
I can't help but think this DNC issue may cost her the election. It has all of the talking points that will either disillusion or turn away voters.
Who knows, we'd have to wait for some solid polling before making conclusions like that. That article mirrors my feelings and I'm still voting D, so it could mean nothing - electorally.
I can't help but think this DNC issue may cost her the election. It has all of the talking points that will either disillusion or turn away voters.
The Clinton campaign argument in the email sounded like they were saying the DNC should defend themselves because the attack from the Sanders camp impugned the DNC rather than being purely between the candidates, comparing it to the RNC defending itself from Trump accusations that impugned the RNC. I get the arguments for other stuff in the emails being inappropriate, but saying they shouldn't have responded is basically saying the DNC shouldn't be able to defend themselves at all from accusations against them. The Clinton campaign doesn't appear to have been saying to defend them because the DNC works for the Clinton campaign or anything like that in the email.
Yeah I mean I admit I thought most of the email shit has been nothing burgers but the greatest scandal out of this one has been the obvious russian political maneuvering.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This fits with my recollections of 2008. Then, I started out in nominally in favor of Hillary, but Obama won me over at some point before the convention. Things got really ugly towards the end.
I think Hillary's campaign was worse, but Hillary had more control over her delegates on the first day. But honestly I don't remember.
The campaign was worse on both sides, but ultimately Hillary was in control of the delegations. There was also more time for healing and reflection before the convention. There was a huge concern that there would be ruckus on the floor, but it didn't really materialize. There were a few jeers and shouts, but nothing sustained or close to last night.
Like 2008 went into crazy territory at some points. One time Hillary insinuated that she was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated. Or that weird "I was under fire in Bosnia" story. The Clinton campaign went hard after Obama on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Barack himself isn't without blame either. There was some pseudo sexiest things that got trotted out, and in particular the line "I can't tell if I'm running against you or your husband" was kind of uncalled for.
Ultimately though, we got past it. I hope that this too, shall pass.
Yeah I mean I admit I thought most of the email shit has been nothing burgers but the greatest scandal out of this one has been the obvious russian political maneuvering.
Which in my experience so far, many shrug it off as the DNC deflecting.
Yeah I mean I admit I thought most of the email shit has been nothing burgers but the greatest scandal out of this one has been the obvious russian political maneuvering.
Which in my experience so far, many shrug it off as the DNC deflecting.
See that's crazy. The emails don't really tell us anything we already didn't really know? But the fact that russia is clearly interfering in our elections using cyber crime should be more than a "well its a deflection."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also, Christ, I really need to stop going to /r/politics, but I can't stop myself, keep hoping it'll be better today.
Reddit will never be better ever again. Its community is entrenched and is not going anywhere. It's stormfront junior.
Also almost definitely infiltrated by paid Russian trolls. Guy who wrote that has been saying that most of the accounts he wrote about there are now Trump supporters.
Jesus that is terrifying
It sounds like the start of a cyberpunk dystopia
Dude, we're well into a cyber punk dystopia. It's just that no one noticed it happening.
Yeah I mean I admit I thought most of the email shit has been nothing burgers but the greatest scandal out of this one has been the obvious russian political maneuvering.
Which in my experience so far, many shrug it off as the DNC deflecting.
DNC doesn't do apparently goosey things, and the hacks mean nothing. The Russian angle is scary, and potentially has legs, but it doesn't take away from the narrative that the emails perpetuate.
Obviously I was in the Clinton camp, but even trying to think of it as a neutral observer that article is whatever. It's a legal fundraising construction that funnels money back into the DNC for use wherever they desire. You may disagree on if it should be legal or not, but that's not relevant to the current election.
Keeping it 1600 has a midweek pod out today where they cover the pollercoaster at the top. Might be relevant to people freaking out about 538, CNN, et.al.
The ramifications of this are honestly pretty unsettling
At one level, it's the same old international great game BS that the world's powers have always played. The US engages in similar shenanigans, too, and this is pretty trivial stuff.
At another level, I'm disappointed that the DNC email server could be hacked. It's 2016. Securing an email server isn't rocket surgery. Political institutions ought to be better at stuff like that.
At level #3, I'm surprised the Russians were amateur enough to get caught in a way that's traceable.
And at the weird and frightening level, I'm kind of agog that the GOP (the US political party that thinks of itself as the "daddy" party on foreign policy issues, and who are, in their own minds, anti-communist legends) has been almost completely dismissive of the whole affair. I mean... it's kind of hard to overstate how much "Russia == bad" has, more than anything, been the ideological bedrock of the GOP since the end of WW2. So they've sold out their first, most important principle for... Trump? I don't like them, but I thought they were better than that. In fact, it scares the shit out of me that they're not better than that.
I don't want to get too off-topic, but the bolded is just unfair. I work in the cyber security field, and security is hard. Like really really hard. Securing a network and infrastructure is difficult even for large multi-national corporations with millions dedicated to security. Target got hacked and they probably have 100X the capital/operational expenditure that the DNC has specifically preventing these types of breaches. It wouldn't surprise me if the email server and many pieces of their infrastructure were setup by unpaid volunteers.
Even a well developed SOC and security posture can be vulnerable to threats, zero-days, or well designed phishing emails. And that's just from common criminals. State actors, especially those engaged in cyber espionage, are usually some of the most well-trained, well-funded, and knowledgable people out there. There is no incentive for them to give up and find a softer target. They can continue to probe until they find a single weak spot and then exploit it. And there's no concern about their behavior being discovered or any accountability to authorities after the fact. Criminals will eventually give up unless the payoff is large. State actors have no monetary incentive so they can continue for years until they are successful. And it is nearly certain this was a state actor based on evidence we have and the fact that money wasn't the objective. That alone is a HUGE sign that this was political entity and not a criminal one.
When the Sanders campaign alleged that the Clinton campaign was improperly using its joint fundraising committee with the DNC to benefit itself, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias offered the DNC guidance on how to respond.
"My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true," Elias said May 3 in response to an email about the issue sent by communications director Luis Miranda to other DNC stuff that copied Elias and another lawyer at his firm, Perkins Coie.
Elias continued: "The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over 'rigged system', the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the the Democratic party."
Elias's guidance isn't perhaps all that shocking; he's Clinton's lawyer, after all. But the fact that he was talking to the DNC about how to respond would appear to suggest coordination between the DNC and Clinton campaign against Sanders in this particular case.
But the DNC email scandal and Trump’s relationship with Russia barely penetrated a steamy fairground in Winston-Salem on Monday night, where Trump supporters in red hats lined up for hours in 100F (38C) heat to see the Republican nominee.
One of the more politically savvy attendees, Dr Ada Fisher, a longtime member of the Republican National Committee, saw political dirty tricks to undermine Trump. Fisher described the controversy to the Guardian as “a false flag to cover up [Clinton]’s transgressions” and “probably the biggest lie I’ve seen”.
The ramifications of this are honestly pretty unsettling
At one level, it's the same old international great game BS that the world's powers have always played. The US engages in similar shenanigans, too, and this is pretty trivial stuff.
At another level, I'm disappointed that the DNC email server could be hacked. It's 2016. Securing an email server isn't rocket surgery. Political institutions ought to be better at stuff like that.
At level #3, I'm surprised the Russians were amateur enough to get caught in a way that's traceable.
And at the weird and frightening level, I'm kind of agog that the GOP (the US political party that thinks of itself as the "daddy" party on foreign policy issues, and who are, in their own minds, anti-communist legends) has been almost completely dismissive of the whole affair. I mean... it's kind of hard to overstate how much "Russia == bad" has, more than anything, been the ideological bedrock of the GOP since the end of WW2. So they've sold out their first, most important principle for... Trump? I don't like them, but I thought they were better than that. In fact, it scares the shit out of me that they're not better than that.
I don't want to get too off-topic, but the bolded is just unfair. I work in the cyber security field, and security is hard. Like really really hard. Securing a network and infrastructure is difficult even for large multi-national corporations with millions dedicated to security. Target got hacked and they probably have 100X the capital/operational expenditure that the DNC has specifically preventing these types of breaches. It wouldn't surprise me if the email server and many pieces of their infrastructure were setup by unpaid volunteers.
Even a well developed SOC and security posture can be vulnerable to threats, zero-days, or well designed phishing emails. And that's just from common criminals. State actors, especially those engaged in cyber espionage, are usually some of the most well-trained, well-funded, and knowledgable people out there. There is no incentive for them to give up and find a softer target. They can continue to probe until they find a single weak spot and then exploit it. And there's no concern about their behavior being discovered or any accountability to authorities after the fact. Criminals will eventually give up unless the payoff is large. State actors have no monetary incentive so they can continue for years until they are successful. And it is nearly certain this was a state actor based on evidence we have and the fact that money wasn't the objective. That alone is a HUGE sign that this was political entity and not a criminal one.
Yeah, there's also some evidence that they penetrated the private accounts of some DNC staff at Yahoo Mail, etc.
The first thing you learn on the defensive side of security is that there is no 100% way to stop a determined attacker with resources. You do what you can and then have strategies to limit the damage they can do once access is achieved.
a5ehren on
+5
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
GOP talking point of the day seems to be "No one said ISIS!"
That's comically pathetic. "We don't disagree with anything that was said! BUT NO ONE SPOKE ABOUT ISIS, TRAITORS!"
i wonder if its ever occurred to them to listen to what the Dems are actually saying, rather than focusing so much on what they're not saying.
GOP - "They wont say Radical Islamic Terrorism!"
everyone else - "They spoke about unity, hope and a better tomorr..."
GOP - "THEY DIDN'T SAY ISIS!!!"
It is true that they basically didn't talk about terrorism as an issue either (except obliquely with references to Orlando but those were mostly focused on the victims). But it was Bernie's night and Bernie was not really a foreign policy candidate.
its the first day of a 4 day convention. not everything is going to get covered on the first night. i'm sure there will be mentions of terrorism and ISIS, hell i'd expect them both to be brought up in Hillary's speech alone.
unles you're the disorganized RNC of this year and EVERY night is HILLARY TERRORISTS BLACK PEOPLE MEXICANS MUSLIMS. HILLARY TERRORISTS BLACK PEOPLE MEXICANS MUSLIMS.
then it's like well if you didn't mention every single thing you're scared of every single night I guess you don't think it exists.
What a self-absorbed ignorant asshole. I'm glad he understands FPtP, but holy shit, the entitlement dripping from these words rivals that of Trump himself.
What a self-absorbed ignorant asshole. I'm glad he understands FPtP, but holy shit, the entitlement dripping from these words rivals that of Trump himself.
The ramifications of this are honestly pretty unsettling
At one level, it's the same old international great game BS that the world's powers have always played. The US engages in similar shenanigans, too, and this is pretty trivial stuff.
At another level, I'm disappointed that the DNC email server could be hacked. It's 2016. Securing an email server isn't rocket surgery. Political institutions ought to be better at stuff like that.
At level #3, I'm surprised the Russians were amateur enough to get caught in a way that's traceable.
And at the weird and frightening level, I'm kind of agog that the GOP (the US political party that thinks of itself as the "daddy" party on foreign policy issues, and who are, in their own minds, anti-communist legends) has been almost completely dismissive of the whole affair. I mean... it's kind of hard to overstate how much "Russia == bad" has, more than anything, been the ideological bedrock of the GOP since the end of WW2. So they've sold out their first, most important principle for... Trump? I don't like them, but I thought they were better than that. In fact, it scares the shit out of me that they're not better than that.
I don't want to get too off-topic, but the bolded is just unfair. I work in the cyber security field, and security is hard. Like really really hard. Securing a network and infrastructure is difficult even for large multi-national corporations with millions dedicated to security. Target got hacked and they probably have 100X the capital/operational expenditure that the DNC has specifically preventing these types of breaches. It wouldn't surprise me if the email server and many pieces of their infrastructure were setup by unpaid volunteers.
Even a well developed SOC and security posture can be vulnerable to threats, zero-days, or well designed phishing emails. And that's just from common criminals. State actors, especially those engaged in cyber espionage, are usually some of the most well-trained, well-funded, and knowledgable people out there. There is no incentive for them to give up and find a softer target. They can continue to probe until they find a single weak spot and then exploit it. And there's no concern about their behavior being discovered or any accountability to authorities after the fact. Criminals will eventually give up unless the payoff is large. State actors have no monetary incentive so they can continue for years until they are successful. And it is nearly certain this was a state actor based on evidence we have and the fact that money wasn't the objective. That alone is a HUGE sign that this was political entity and not a criminal one.
Yeah, there's also some evidence that they penetrated the private accounts of some DNC staff at Yahoo Mail, etc.
The first thing you learn on the defensive side of security is that there is no 100% way to stop a determined attacker with resources. You do what you can and then have strategies to limit the damage they can do once access is achieved.
I've worked with some fortune 500s that have an incredible amount of resources dedicated to preventing exactly this type of threat. Some of the more confident CISOs/Directors of Security have insisted that leaks like the DNC hack can't happen to them.
I've politely explained that they are realistically about one large DDoS attack from this exact thing happening to them, and they wouldn't even know it.
Yeah no cyber security is 100% and if someone wants something and are determined they can probably get it.
About the only way would be to put it in a safe, fill the safe with concrete, shut the safe, give it a random combination, and then dump it in the Mariana Trench.
Posts
Just takes one person to click on the wrong link in an email. And sometimes the spearfishing attempts are pretty convincing. I've seen ones to "Dropbox" that looked almost genuine.
I can't help but think this DNC issue may cost her the election. It has all of the talking points that will either disillusion or turn away voters.
Who knows, we'd have to wait for some solid polling before making conclusions like that. That article mirrors my feelings and I'm still voting D, so it could mean nothing - electorally.
The Clinton campaign argument in the email sounded like they were saying the DNC should defend themselves because the attack from the Sanders camp impugned the DNC rather than being purely between the candidates, comparing it to the RNC defending itself from Trump accusations that impugned the RNC. I get the arguments for other stuff in the emails being inappropriate, but saying they shouldn't have responded is basically saying the DNC shouldn't be able to defend themselves at all from accusations against them. The Clinton campaign doesn't appear to have been saying to defend them because the DNC works for the Clinton campaign or anything like that in the email.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The campaign was worse on both sides, but ultimately Hillary was in control of the delegations. There was also more time for healing and reflection before the convention. There was a huge concern that there would be ruckus on the floor, but it didn't really materialize. There were a few jeers and shouts, but nothing sustained or close to last night.
Like 2008 went into crazy territory at some points. One time Hillary insinuated that she was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated. Or that weird "I was under fire in Bosnia" story. The Clinton campaign went hard after Obama on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Barack himself isn't without blame either. There was some pseudo sexiest things that got trotted out, and in particular the line "I can't tell if I'm running against you or your husband" was kind of uncalled for.
Ultimately though, we got past it. I hope that this too, shall pass.
Which in my experience so far, many shrug it off as the DNC deflecting.
See that's crazy. The emails don't really tell us anything we already didn't really know? But the fact that russia is clearly interfering in our elections using cyber crime should be more than a "well its a deflection."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Dude, we're well into a cyber punk dystopia. It's just that no one noticed it happening.
DNC doesn't do apparently goosey things, and the hacks mean nothing. The Russian angle is scary, and potentially has legs, but it doesn't take away from the narrative that the emails perpetuate.
Knew it would be Taibbi before I even opened it. I find his reading on the stuff he's quoted as slanted as usual.
I don't want to get too off-topic, but the bolded is just unfair. I work in the cyber security field, and security is hard. Like really really hard. Securing a network and infrastructure is difficult even for large multi-national corporations with millions dedicated to security. Target got hacked and they probably have 100X the capital/operational expenditure that the DNC has specifically preventing these types of breaches. It wouldn't surprise me if the email server and many pieces of their infrastructure were setup by unpaid volunteers.
Even a well developed SOC and security posture can be vulnerable to threats, zero-days, or well designed phishing emails. And that's just from common criminals. State actors, especially those engaged in cyber espionage, are usually some of the most well-trained, well-funded, and knowledgable people out there. There is no incentive for them to give up and find a softer target. They can continue to probe until they find a single weak spot and then exploit it. And there's no concern about their behavior being discovered or any accountability to authorities after the fact. Criminals will eventually give up unless the payoff is large. State actors have no monetary incentive so they can continue for years until they are successful. And it is nearly certain this was a state actor based on evidence we have and the fact that money wasn't the objective. That alone is a HUGE sign that this was political entity and not a criminal one.
I am not sure that this RNC member understands what a false flag is.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-ties-north-carolina-rally
Yeah, there's also some evidence that they penetrated the private accounts of some DNC staff at Yahoo Mail, etc.
The first thing you learn on the defensive side of security is that there is no 100% way to stop a determined attacker with resources. You do what you can and then have strategies to limit the damage they can do once access is achieved.
unles you're the disorganized RNC of this year and EVERY night is HILLARY TERRORISTS BLACK PEOPLE MEXICANS MUSLIMS. HILLARY TERRORISTS BLACK PEOPLE MEXICANS MUSLIMS.
then it's like well if you didn't mention every single thing you're scared of every single night I guess you don't think it exists.
fair enough I may have misinterpreted it. thanks for the correction.
What a self-absorbed ignorant asshole. I'm glad he understands FPtP, but holy shit, the entitlement dripping from these words rivals that of Trump himself.
what?
Well if you recall, Mr Pence laid out his loyalties in order, and America wasn't even #2.
Mr Trump, of course, is only loyal to one thing.
All splinters in her hands
All scratches on the ladder
Rubber foot all knocked off the end of the ladder.
But the DNC was unpatriotic because it had no American flags.
Chief of Department of Shade.
I've worked with some fortune 500s that have an incredible amount of resources dedicated to preventing exactly this type of threat. Some of the more confident CISOs/Directors of Security have insisted that leaks like the DNC hack can't happen to them.
I've politely explained that they are realistically about one large DDoS attack from this exact thing happening to them, and they wouldn't even know it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure there is.
Put a computer in a locked room with no electricity and no power button.
Boom.
Spokesperson for Feeding the Chicken.
Flags are probably still on backorder after the RNC drained the national reserve.
nice to see you've even got some redundancy built into that system to be extra safe. can't be to careful after all.
they only had american senators and families and held it in america so I guess it can be hard to tell whose side they're on
Extra funny again coming from the party benefiting from russian cyber attacks, running a candidate that praises foreign dictators.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Put the locked room in a Kmart.
Nobody ever goes there.
also, only a fraction of the flags on the stage at the RNC were actually real.
About the only way would be to put it in a safe, fill the safe with concrete, shut the safe, give it a random combination, and then dump it in the Mariana Trench.
And even then....