Obama taking actions against Russia for "Election Hacking"

[2FA]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

No one ever wigs out when China does it. Why is that? Also, what if the 'serious data breach' was virtually allowed by leadership within that major party?

1. China attacks regularly and we regularly attack back. There targets are industry and the military. Russia does it quite often as well which you don't hear about but this particular attack is different considering the circumstances of a major election and the fact that something similar hasn't occurred in the US before. If anything, that's a straw man argument.

 

2. The party leadership is a bunch of old people that hardly know anything about technology which is demonstrated by Podesta's use of a single simple password that  he used for many different accounts. Speculation without evidence is just that, speculation. I know they didn't do much when the FBI warned them originally but there wasn't much solid evidence of a breach until quite a bit later.

[DutchTexan]

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

You're right.
If there was actual election hacking by Russia then we should look into it, but we should understand that this "hacking" isn't like Russia changed the votes in the election results; it was a leak of information that exposed how the DNC primaries were rigged and brought to the public eye how corrupt Hillary and many of those on the Left are, which influenced the minds of voters.
It's kinda like if i were to get evidence that Jared, from Subway, touched little kids and i gave it to the police, so i "influenced the minds of the police" by giving them evidence that Jared, from Subway, is a child sexual predator.
Just so we're all in the clear here on exactly what this situation really is.

I want everyone to think about how an individual connected to the leaked information, revealing the democratic nomination was rigged for Hillary, was hired by the Clinton campaign right after she resigned.

 

"Mere hours after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as chair of the DNC, Hillary Clinton has already given her a high-profile position in her campaign."

 

So, Bernie gets screwed and the Clinton Campaign basically says, "Yeah fuck Bernie and his supporters"

 

just sayin

[DutchTexan]

3 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Well, the chinese invaded RSA Labs just to be able to enter in Lockheed Martin VPN so that they could steal a bunch of planes and research information. They did that for months, but US government didn't moved a finger when it was discovered, even depending on Lockheed Martin stuff for defense. That overreaction seems really strange to me...

preciously

[2FA]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Are you serious? DNC docs were leaked so we're trying to find out how (still no evidence Russia did it). What exactly happened to Trump or the RNC that needs to be investigated? Yes, he's an idiot for making shit up.

Metadata of some of leaked Word documents show they were edited in St. Petersburg and Moscow which can technically be spoofed but saying there is zero evidence isn't exactly true. There is a evidence, just not enough to conclusively say that without a doubt Russia was behind the attack.

 

At this rate I think "If it looks and sounds like a duck, chances are it's a duck" applies.

 

I personally think that it is pretty likely Russia was behind it but there is a bit of chance that it wasn't.

[AresKrieger]

I will remind everyone that assange and third parties still maintain that the source for the info was a leak, not a hack, ie someone with connections to the people who's info they acquired gave them the data, granted this can't be verified anymore than these Russian hacker claims but wikileaks has more credibility than the CIA, and doesn't have a partisan agenda given their leaking of past Bush information that showed lying about the whole Iraq WMD nonsense.

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I want everyone to think about how an individual connected to the leaked information, revealing the democratic nomination was rigged for Hillary, was hired by the Clinton campaign right after she resigned.

 

"Mere hours after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as chair of the DNC, Hillary Clinton has already given her a high-profile position in her campaign."

 

So, Bernie gets screwed and the Clinton Campaign basically says, "Yeah fuck Bernie and his supporters"

 

just sayin

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Hillary's campaign chairman in 2008 and has been a longtime friend. Of course they were in on it together...

[DutchTexan]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Hillary's campaign chairman in 2008 and has been a longtime friend. Of course they were in on it together...

No, Russia is the bad guy. You're being sexist now. 

[BuckGup]

Didn't they not break the law? They just used bots to make influential news that wasn't factual show up in front of dumb americans faces on Twitter and Facebook.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

I will remind everyone that assange and third parties still maintain that the source for the info was a leak, not a hack, ie someone with connections to the people who's info they acquired gave them the data, granted this can't be verified anymore than these Russian hackers claims but wikileaks has more credibility than the CIA, and doesn't have a partisan agenda given their leaking of past Bush information that showed lying about the whole Iraq WMD nonsense.

Only because it was through social engineering that they first gained access which technically isn't a hack.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

35 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Independent enough for you?

I'll respectfully say "no".  They're companies, not international organizations.   US-based companies too.  Depending on the size of the bag of money you throw on their desks, those companies can be persuaded to blame the hacks on whoever you want them blamed on.

When I say "independent", I'm actually referring to an investigation ordered/conducted by (for example) the EU or the UN.  Perhaps I should have clarified that from the start.

 

Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the DNC mails.  While that could theoretically be a false claim just to gain some notoriety, proper hackers (the kind that don't do DDoS attacks using someone else's scripts) generally don't have a habit of doing so.  They know you can't lie to the internet without eventually being found out and then your reputation would be ruined forever. 

There's also Assange, who has repeatedly denied that his sources have anything to do with Russia.  As unlikable as the man is, I'll take his word over that of any US officials.

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Only because it was through social engineering that they first gained access which technically isn't a hack.

Not what I'm talking about, what I'm saying is that someone with connections to the DNC leaked the info to wikileaks not the Russian government. I have no doubts that the Russians have hacked gov servers I'm just saying the source wasn't the Russians whether they could access the info or not.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

No, Russia is the bad guy. You're being sexist now. 

Ehh, I could care less about Hillary. All she did throughout the primaries was copy pretty much all of Bernie's ideas but try to make them sound more moderate in attempt to appeal towards young voters and progressives. She tried to appear more left than she actually is which is something I don't like about her, ie her fakeness.

[Memories4K]

4 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

When I say "independent", I'm actually referring to an investigation ordered/conducted by the EU or the UN. 

HAHAHAHA

 

LIKE I'D EVER TRUST THE LOSERS IN THE EU OR UN.

These groups are one of the last i'd ever trust as an independent source/entity.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Not what I'm talking about, what I'm saying is that someone with connections to the DNC leaked the info to wikileaks not the Russian government. I have no doubts that the Russians have hacked gov servers I'm just saying the source wasn't the Russians whether they could access the info or not.

Well, the fact that he doesn't say anything other than it was leaked doesn't give very much information. There are multitudes of way that he could have received it.

 

3 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

When I say "independent", I'm actually referring to an investigation ordered/conducted by the EU or the UN.  Perhaps I should have clarified that from the start.

Clarification is always nice. 

 

EU isn't involved so they don't matter here. The UN is iffy, it's not like these sorts of things haven't happened before so I doubt they would care much especially considering there wasn't some major result due to the attack. 

 

Also, neither company was conclusive that it was Russia. Both said that there was reasonably probability that it was Russia though (the distinction is subtle but there).

[Centurius]

37 minutes ago, Ion4545 said:

Even if they did hack it. DIdn't they make a recount because Hillary wanted one. (correct me if I'm wrong i ju8st googled this) And didn't she lose the recount soooo

You shouldn't rely on quick Google searches. The Green Party's Jill Stein wanted recounts in several states, the Democratic Party(and the Clinton campaign) sent observers but so did the GOP(and the Trump campaign). They were very much Stein's efforts. 

7 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

I'll respectfully say "no".  They're companies, not international organizations.   US-based companies too.  Depending on the size of the bag of money you throw on their desks, those companies can be persuaded to blame the hacks on whoever you want them blamed on.

When I say "independent", I'm actually referring to an investigation ordered/conducted by (for example) the EU or the UN.  Perhaps I should have clarified that from the start.

 

Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the DNC mails.  While that could theoretically be a false claim just to gain some notoriety, proper hackers (the kind that don't do DDoS attacks using someone else's scripts) generally don't have a habit of doing so.  They know you can't lie to the internet without eventually being found out and then your reputation would be ruined forever. 

There's also Assange, who has repeatedly denied that his sources have anything to do with Russia.  As unlikable as the man is, I'll take his word over that of any US officials.

So you don't trust a company because they can be bribed with money but you do trust organizations that can be bribed with money, political favours, assets, etc.?

 

As for Assange, he has often been linked to the Russian government and his leaks tend to always conveniently have the least negative impact on Russia.

[SurvivorNVL]

Seth Rich.  DNC -Leak-.  Podesta.  Phishing scam when he was looking for hot singles.  I mean.  Wow.  That's some A+ hacking.  They make it sound like Russia hacked the election and changed the votes - if anything, and if Russia -did- anything, they showed the absolute corruption and collusion in the DNC and Media.  Good.

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Well, the fact that he doesn't say anything other than it was leaked doesn't give very much information. There are multitudes of way that he could have received it.

This is the interview on the subject, he doesn't hint the source obviously he never gives their sources my point was simply this do you trust wikileaks more than the CIA, the answer for me is yes. He also answers questions on hacking in the US in general.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

This is the interview on the subject, he doesn't hint the source obviously he never gives their sources my point was simply this do you trust wikileaks more than the CIA, the answer for me is yes. He also answers questions on hacking in the US in general.

Why would I trust either at all? My field is security so I obviously don't trust someone that leaks info and I don't trust someone that steals and fabricates info. I'll watch the video later when I have a chance.

[2FA]

11 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Seth Rich.  DNC -Leak-.  Podesta.  Phishing scam when he was looking for hot singles.  I mean.  Wow.  That's some A+ hacking.  They make it sound like Russia hacked the election and changed the votes - if anything, and if Russia -did- anything, they showed the absolute corruption and collusion in the DNC and Media.  Good.

First off, initial access was through spear phishing that downloaded malware. Social engineering is a valid form of hacking since you're hacking people (Kevin Metnick is a hacker famous for his social engineering skills) plus actual systems were hacked as well after the initial access.

 

You don't ignore one wrong just because another wrong took place. 

 

Also, please tell me that avatar is satirical...

[AresKrieger]

11 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Why would I trust either at all?

Well you don't have to, but in order to form an opinion on the subject either you must assume one is lying as their statements are mutually exclusive, either the Russians released info that wikileaks spread to the world or they didn't, either the CIA is lying or wikileaks is. I guess you could simply ignore the question and bash both sides as an alternative but that is essentially choosing to not engage the discussion.

[SurvivorNVL]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

First off, initial access was through spear phishing that downloaded malware. Social engineering is a valid form of hacking since you're hacking people (Kevin Metnick is a hacker famous for his social engineering skills) plus actual systems were hacked as well after the initial access.

 

You don't ignore one wrong just because another wrong took place. 

 

Also, please tell me that avatar is satirical...

Far from satire.  I'd use Duterte, but he's yet to have a proper uniform or suit on.  As for hacking - they often just make it sound like they hacked vote totals, which didn't happen, and they make it sound like they actually interfered in the election, in which, if they did, then they revealed incredible corruption.  Where-as the U.S. interfering abroad - mainly put our own guy in, and cause mass-death in the process.  I'm pretty happy with 2016.  Got everything I wanted.

[typographie]

53 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

You're right.
If there was actual election hacking by Russia then we should look into it, but we should understand that this "hacking" isn't like Russia changed the votes in the election results; it was a leak of information that exposed how the DNC primaries were rigged and brought to the public eye how corrupt Hillary and many of those on the Left are, which influenced the minds of voters.
It's kinda like if i were to get evidence that Jared, from Subway, touched little kids and i gave it to the police, so i "influenced the minds of the police" by giving them evidence that Jared, from Subway, is a child sexual predator.
Just so we're all in the clear here on exactly what this situation really is.

It was a leak of e-mail correspondence that the Republican party was able to turn into attack ads. They may have been politically awkward because they showed a bit about how the sausage is made, but there was no wrongdoing expressed in any of them. That, to you, those messages are comparable to evidence against a convicted child molester—and therefore imply that the ever-benevolent Russian government may have actually done us a favor—does a lot to justify my fears about where our country and world are heading right now.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Well you don't have to, but in order to form an opinion on the subject either you must assume one is lying as their statements are mutually exclusive, either the Russians released info that wikileaks spread to the world or they didn't, either the CIA is lying or wikileaks is. I guess you could simply ignore the question an bash both sides as an alternative but that is essentially choosing to not engage the discussion.

Err, no you don't have to choose either of those. There are other sources on the attack and I'm pretty sure the Wikileaks documents are separate from the Guccifer 2.0 documents. I'll take SecureWorks approach (there is evidence giving probability but nothing conclusive).

[SurvivorNVL]

2 minutes ago, typographie said:

It was a leak of e-mail correspondence that the Republican party was able to turn into attack ads. They may have been politically awkward because they showed a bit about how the sausage is made, but there was no wrongdoing expressed in any of them. That, to you, those messages are comparable to evidence against a convicted child molester—and imply that the Russians may have actually done us a favor—does a lot to justify my fears about where our country and world are heading right now.

I'd rather us be friends with Russia, and not enter in to WW3 with them, in honesty.  They've done us a massive favor, and saved the U.S. from our own Merkel.  Now we have four years and more referendums to rid the world of both the UN, EU, and NATO.  

[SansVarnic]

1 hour ago, Ion4545 said:

Even if they did hack it. DIdn't they make a recount because Hillary wanted one. (correct me if I'm wrong i ju8st googled this) And didn't she lose the recount soooo

Hillary didn't order a recount, Jill Stein with 1% of the vote did. Hillary conceded the election on voting day.