FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[seanD]

Paper contains no actual explanation for why they think it was russian intelligence servers, in case someone looking for that thinks it's worth wasting time reading. It is a good summary of cyber-security incompetence and neglect (until Hillary lost the election and the DNC needed a distraction from their own incompetence).

lol the entire issue is a partisan issue, good luck discussing it with yourself.

I noticed that too. I thought it was just my lack of knowledge on the subject of hacking, so I didn't say anything at first. The Hill article is either misleading or they too just didn't understand the content in the report.

[ke7ejx]

The thing is, I just read this thread very carefully and I don't see how BTC or CP are off topic. They disagree with your argument, sure, but they're still addressing the opening post.

[Jaecp]

I'll leave too, if you want, but an attack on the DNC is not an attack on our national security; the DNC is not an arm of our government. Maybe you'd better explain in-thread why you think this is not on topic.

I don't like it that other countries attempt to influence the US by fair means or foul, but it's sort of a back-handed compliment; they wouldn't do it if the actions of the US were inconsequential.

The DNC wasn't attacked. The DNC was hacked. As was the RNC, Lindsey Graham's campaign, and many many others. Hacking happens all the time. What made this an attack on our election is that the Russia government then released this information in a strategic fashion.

The thing is, I just read this thread very carefully and I don't see how BTC or CP are off topic. They disagree with your argument, sure, but they're still addressing the opening post.

My OP states "No spam, talk about the content of the article itself and, especially, the JAR. This is about our national security and not partisan politics. Demi Conservative and LPoT are pre-banned."

[ke7ejx]

The DNC wasn't attacked. The DNC was hacked. As was the RNC, Lindsey Graham's campaign, and many many others. Hacking happens all the time. What made this an attack on our election is that the Russia government then released this information in a strategic fashion.



My OP states "No spam, talk about the content of the article itself and, especially, the JAR. This is about our national security and not partisan politics. Demi Conservative and LPoT are pre-banned."

Which they did. I'm sorry but I feel that you are being unfair here.

[Meh Gerbil]

The DNC wasn't attacked. The DNC was hacked. As was the RNC, Lindsey Graham's campaign, and many many others. Hacking happens all the time. What made this an attack on our election is that the Russia government then released this information in a strategic fashion.

So you're upset that our elections aren't being manipulated in the usual way, for example, by large donations to a family run slush fund posing as a charity?

^--- I typed that for my own amusement.

Back to your topic, I don't quite follow where you're going with your line of reasoning.
I assume you're trying to somehow delegitimize Trump's presidency.
The reason that doesn't work so well with me is because I'm left wondering: "How is there stuff on the DNC servers that make them out to be unethical dorks?"

If a hacker revealed to my wife that there was porno on my laptop the wife wouldn't be angry with the hacker.

So your point that 'Russia released this information in a strategic fashion' may very well be true but I'm left wondering 'Why wouldn't they?'
The New York Times digs up dirt on people and releases it strategically.
The DNC digs up dirt on people and releases it strategically.
The RNC digs up dirt on people and releases it strategically.

I don't know why strategically makes it bad.

[JimL]

There have been far bigger hackings than this one and Obama (and the media) completely ignored them. They would have ignored this one too if they didn't need the story to distract attention away from the fact that the DNC leadership is grossly incompetent and in need of purging. And the funniest thing is that it's working. The average Democrat is dumber than a sack of bricks, and while their leaders may not be able to run a country, they sure can easily fool rubes like jaecp.

Actually it is pseudo intellectuals like yourself that are so easily duped by con men like D.J. Trump.

[JimL]

Just to be clear: We are expected to trash relations with a super power because the Democrats found themselves embarrassed by unethical stuff found on their poorly managed servers.

Just to be clear, republicans were hacked as well, and the republican Congress has a responsibility as well as the President does when it comes to national security which they ignored and denied when the intel was brought to their attention prior to the election. And btw, it is not only spying, it is foriegn interference by enemies of the U.S. in the democratic process with the end goal being to install their comrade in the White House, which is an act of war.

[JimL]

Paper contains no actual explanation for why they think it was russian intelligence servers, in case someone looking for that thinks it's worth wasting time reading. It is a good summary of cyber-security incompetence and neglect (until Hillary lost the election and the DNC needed a distraction from their own incompetence).



lol the entire issue is a partisan issue, good luck discussing it with yourself.

Interesting that just about everyone, including your republican leaders, disagrees with you about it being a matter of national security. The only ones who seem to agree with you on that is the incoming administration who benefited from the breach.

[Meh Gerbil]

Just to be clear, republicans were hacked as well, and the republican Congress has a responsibility as well as the President does when it comes to national security which they ignored and denied when the intel was brought to their attention prior to the election. And btw, it is not only spying, it is foriegn interference by enemies of the U.S. in the democratic process with the end goal being to install their comrade in the White House, which is an act of war.

Question: When the Obama Administration hacked Angela Merkel's phone was that an act of war?

BTW, this is me slam dunking this thread:

griffinx-large.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

My OP states "No spam,

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Then you must ban Jim for post 21, or you will lose the ability to ban others from this thread completely. This is an official demand.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JimL]

Question: When the Obama Administration hacked Angela Merkel's phone was that an act of war?

BTW, this is me slam dunking this thread:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20302[/ATTACH]

No, thats what you call spying, not foreign interference in an election process.

[Meh Gerbil]

No, thats what you call spying, not foreign interference in an election process.

You're in over your head:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...213-story.html

The point isn't that this stuff is legal or even passably acceptable.
The point is that maybe declaring it an act of war is a bit.... over the top, maybe?

[seanD]

So, basically the evidence they're using that it was ordered by Russia (which wasn't explained in the particular article linked in the OP; it's actually here) is that the hackers used methods Russian hackers have used in the past, therefore it was ordered by Russian officials. But correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't an experienced hacker know similar techniques Russian hackers use either because those techniques are effective, or because those are the only techniques one could use to actually hack successfully?

[Meh Gerbil]

So, basically the evidence they're using that it was ordered by Russia (which wasn't explained in the particular article linked in the OP; it's actually here) is that the hackers used methods Russian hackers have used in the past, therefore it was ordered by Russian officials. But correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't an experienced hacker know similar techniques Russian hackers use either because those techniques are effective, or because those are the only techniques one could use to actually hack successfully?

It is my understanding that the Russian mob is big into computer hacking.
That would give it a Russian tactics flavor without it being an official government action.

We don't have all the data yet but JimL wants to nuke Moscow.

[seanD]

It is my understanding that the Russian mob is big into computer hacking.
That would give it a Russian tactics flavor without it being an official government action.

We don't have all the data yet but JimL wants to nuke Moscow.

Apparently DHS themselves are also into hacking US election sources. They seem to be basing this on the methods used. My point was that wouldn't DHS, for example, when they hack US sources, use the same methods Russia uses when they hack because those are the effective methods one would use when hacking successfully? Or perhaps because of my lack of knowledge in how to actually hack, there are a variety of different ways to hack that would accurately distinguish certain hackers from the other?