Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll.
The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am...
That is a scary example of what we can look forward to. Now that people don't believe in "mainstream" journalism, they'll latch on to wild speculations with no actual research or journalistic ethics. That is net loss for the truth, no matter how much one dislikes the New York Times and other old media.
"On the other hand, nearly half of Trump supporters give at least some credence to the Pizzagate rumors. In contrast, 57% of Clinton voters say that is definitely not true (some, however, answered that it could be true),"
Putting aside the fact that this is shortly after "Pizzagate" was first widely reported and therefore a topic of broad discussion (of whatever quality) at the time...
... the contrast is that "nearly half" of Trump supporters give "at least some credence", as opposed to 43% of Clinton supporters. At most, that a whopping 6 percentage point difference. This is news?
It's a 30 percentage point difference.
Here are the numbers from the poll.
Definitely True: 4% Clinton Voters, 11% Trump voters, 5% other voters
Probably True: 13%/35%/29%
Probably Not True: 25%/40%/35%
Definitely Not True: 57%/13%/31%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/docume...
Which is often what "mainstream journalism" offers. So how do we get back to Ethics in Journalism when what we have is driven by number of visitors?
I'm annoyed the administration again has decided on wait at least 3 more weeks before releasing a new proof before announcing punishment. Not to mention what will amount to about two months of public evidence free speculation happening in the press (aka strictly citing anonymous Intel officers). And I highly doubt they will ever be able to prove Wikileaks source was Russia which was the only primary direct influence on the elections. Even then it
It's just as likely multiple people had access to the servers. Proving Russia hacked it does not disprove others did. Digital forensics on the boxes can reveal a lot but not everything if they were good.
There has been word the RNC was hacked by Russia but the data was older and of less value. Trump famously doesn't use email nor did they hack any of Trumps 3 campaign managers (as fair as we know from anonymous IC leaks). So it may not even have been a comparable leak even if they (or wikileaks activists) chose to release it. Especially considering how Trump was very hostile to RNC, he would have easily dismissed it as Washington elites doing what he said they do. It might have even helped his 'drain the swamp' marketing angle.
Within this greater context the story of run of the mill nation state hacking of government officials is a relatively minor concern, given NSA does the same, but still a real concern. But the idea that this was a partisan hack of 'elections' and that Russians held back damning data on Trump is on very weak ground.
And let's be honest the Podesta Wikileaks dump was totally underwhelming given the clever hype by Assange.
For the record, for others reading, the question was: "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President".
"Definitely true" + "probably true" add up to 52%. Much worse: it adds up to 37% when you include all Americans. That's a catastrophic media failure.
Second, it's alarming to watch people on YCombinator not acknowledge that almost always, the best way to hack a system is social engineering.
And if you combine actual hacking of people at the top of a political party, with social engineering, it's really not a stretch to call that "election hacking."
Sure, it's a little bit sensationalist, but when the DHS and FBI themselves refer to "malicious cyber activity" "by the Russian civilian and military intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election", it's really not a bad short summary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am...
52% of Trump voters believe Obama was born in Kenya?
9% of Trump voters believe Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Trump elected?
31% of Trump voters think vaccines cause autism?
That's a radical shift from the 6% of Americans who thought so according to a Gallup survey:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/gallup-poll-vaccine...
> That's a radical shift from the 6% of Americans who thought so according to a Gallup survey
The Gallup poll was filing people into three categories on that question (yes/no/uncertain). The YouGov survey filed them into four categories (definitely yes/probably yes/probably no/definitely no). If we assume that the two "probably" categories in the latter correspond to the "uncertain" category in the former, the results of the two surveys are fairly close.
In this case I don't blame the media entirely because the word has been used like this for years. Is it really any surprise that altering the outcomes of an election is now "election hacking"?
They've been at this forever. It's just that the truth is leaking through alternative and social media so a lot more people aren't as fooled anymore.
I'm not American or old enough to really remember what it was like when the US started the Iraq war but from what I've read, the way the media spreads propaganda now sounds a lot like the way it spread propaganda then.
I'm sure the US isn't heading into a war with Russia or anything but it's still concerning.
FTFY.
I'm not the biggest Chomsky fan, but I feel a lot of his opinion about NYT [0] are probably right on.
[0]: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti...
Anything that comes after such a phrase needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.
I think that's exactly what NYT is trying to do, after blasting Trump for the whole year, they need to at least make it look like he won illegally.
No, it's hacking with the purpose and manifest effect of causing the end result of the election to be more in the direction that the actor favors than it would otherwise be, so "election hacking" is concise and entirely accurate.
> I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression
People who just read titles will always get incomplete information that they will fill in with assumptions that will often be incorrect. Were that not the case, there'd be no point to having an actual article behind the title.
I'm really lost as to how this all-out hatred of "mainstream" media started. But even more so I'm left wondering what kind of media these critics would appreciate? Infowars and Breitbart? <somename>.blogspot.com? Does anybody honestly believe they'd be better informed in a world without professional journalism? I'm not just talking about Trump vs. Clinton, but also "the town council's plans for xxx".
I mean, you see these comments glorifying "the press used to be", or saying the NYT "lost all credibility when they endorsed HC" which just leaves me wondering if they're just repeating their side's talking points or if public education has completely failed, possibly beyond the point of no return.
Also don't get me wrong, I am sure people are deliberately framing events according to their own biases, but it is hardly a surprise in post-truth world, isn't it?
Calling it "election hacking" could very well fit into some definitions of "fake news". Will Facebook ban this article now?
This is a good example of why "banning fake news" is a terrible idea, because we don't know whose definition of "fake news" will be implemented. It's also very difficult to pinpoint exactly what fake news is or what is the "optimum percentage" of falseness in an article before it deserves a ban...and so on and so forth.
Also in the news today is more strident messaging from Kerry about Israeli settlers -- I wonder if we'll have other moves from the Obama administration before end of term.
It's perhaps politically costly, though, and even if that was equal, only one of the actors has to worry about maintaining political capital.
Well, if history is any guide, expect Russia to return the favor.
Question is, how long will they wait before announcing that 35 American diplomats have 72 hours to leave Russia?
>In addition, the State Department announced the closing of two “recreational facilities” — one in New York, another in Maryland
There is no doubt that this adequate and mirror response will make the US side feel very uncomfortable as well
Wait and see...
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-i...
Speaking as someone with a lot of friends and acquaintances working in Russian military industry, it's much more talented in building potemkin villages and giving an impression of power than doing anything real. Everything, from tech to mentality of the military is rotten and just painted over.
There aren't 2000 Russian tanks parked outside of Kiev if Russia would go to an all out war with Ukraine there won't be much left after 2 days.
There are reportedly less than 5000 Russian troops in the conflict they mostly provide limited logistical support.
Look at how many troops the US needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Don't underestimate Russia's military they have limited force projection but in their immediate vicinity they aren't to be taken lightly.
"Marginally better than Georgia"?
Is that why the recent Russian skirmish with that country was over in a flash?
And Ukraine! Ukraine!!
Obama once called Russia a regional power. After a few weeks of Russia blasting the daylights out of the terrorists we're using in Syria, he changed his mind.
But don't bother to change your mind.
And even if there are no grounds on cooperation, such a situation does not obviate the benefit of good communication. Be it businesses in competition or states with rivalries, such relationships can be modeled by a game of competitive strategy. You still want the diplomatic contact to make things clear to your rival when you have committed to something, and also know when your rival has committed to something. And on many issues, a less noisy channel (good diplomatic communication) actually benefits the more powerful entity.
I've read somewhere that it will happen on Dec 30.
Is it because I have grown up during the end of the cold war? But what would Nixon or Reagan have done in this situation?
Messing with a country's political system like that sounds extremely hostile to me and warrants massive investigations, reorganizations and review of the entire voting process to restore trust.
Thoughts?
2) If Russia hacked US elections in a material way (i.e. stuffing electronic ballots), we probably wouldn't know anyway. President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.
>President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.
1 - http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris...
2- http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,9848...
When Trump retained a campaign manager with ties to Russian officials[0], it was a minor scandal, not something requiring over government response.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-...
Also the link you posted shows the campaign manager connection to Yanukovich - since when is ex-president of Ukraine considered as "Russian officials"? Do you call ex-president of Canada or France - US Officials too?
This is a very common thing to do this is what the diplomatic and intelligence services of most nations do all the time.
For now, it's the same 'trust us, the Iraqis have WMDs' again.
Nothing publicly. There was a public reaction to this issue because when "some elites of his own party got egg on their face" it was front page news for months that potentially effected the integrity of our election process. The OPM hacks were a disaster in terms of information security, but disappeared in a few news cycles because it didn't effect everyday citizens and had nothing to do with the fundamentals of our democracy.
If you have some evidence that Obama did something then present it. If not, just wishful thinking.
Yes. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our democracy. It absolutely has to do with the fundamentals of our government, but how we elect that government is not directly effected.
>If you have some evidence that Obama did something then present it. If not, just wishful thinking.
I obviously have no evidence, but I think it's more educated guess than wishful thinking considering that high level government officials have publicly said that's the M.O.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/biden-hints-at...
Remember this?
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12
"The GAO concluded that ''damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.'' The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ''clearly were intentional,'' and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though."
Besides, this sort of thing will only be relevant a few times in the President's career and the odds are pretty good that if it were to happen it would happen in their "lame duck" phase. So what?
Pretty much every Presidency has some things started late that are known to carry over into the next administration; quite often (especially when there is a change of parties) this something the incoming President would have handled differently.
That's sort of inherent in the nature of having a crisp point-in-time transfer of power.
Abstractly speaking, and not suggesting any particular tie to the current situation (in this comment, at least): when the next guy is an agent of the foriegn aggressor, yes, it quite naturally would be.
"Barack Obama announces more sanctions against Russia, citing alleged Russian hacking during US election. However though the sanctions will annoy the Russians, they will not seriously affect them. Their true purpose is to create further embarrassment for Donald Trump by insinuating that he owes the Russians the Presidency."
Anyway, did you read the article? He's kicking out a bunch of ambassadors and closing down diplomatic outposts in a way that will be hard to undo.
Zero ambassadors have been expelled.
Why could that not have been the catalyst to hacking the DNC? You've got all these important DNC folks sending her emails that reside on that server... right?
Huh.
Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself.
The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.
The repeating argument in NSA revelations was that intelligence agencies are here to gather intelligence outside the country and on their own citizens. Well then it follows, outside the country it would be pretty weird if Russia spied on US citizens, but not political parties. This goes both ways of course.
Once you see that having an intelligence agency necessarily means you're going to snoop on internals of another government, it would be even more weird if you don't meddle with it when you have the chance. I mean why not? Nation states are out for themselves. In particular if the stakes are high such as when the nation happens to have a good portion of the world's nuclear arsenal, why not take a shot?
One could argue that the documented effort to override public opinion in the primary election is quite interesting by itself. I suppose you could also claim that it's uninteresting, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to.
Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
She stepped down early, and was replaced with DB, an even bigger Clinton fan.
By July 22nd, the entire party was in unity mode, and Sanders was actively being courted for his endorsement. DWS resigned as a sacrifice play.
As for the email question, it wasn't making an excuse for it, so much as it was pointing out it had no effect on the proceedings.
Either way, I believe this thread shows how little the DNC hack revealed.
Here's one example to start...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
>"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.
Is there any evidence that the hacks came from Russia?
From what I've seen, the Russians have just been the scapegoats. Just because something is repeated a lot on the news, doesn't make it true. If there's evidence the hacks were orchestrated by the Russian government (or even involved Russia at all), let's see the evidence. Without the evidence, the claims are baseless.
Let's imagine you're the President and you discover the leaks came from US citizens with ties to the DNC (e.g. DNC employees with access to emails). Would you have anything to gain from pointing the finger at foreign political actors interfering in US politics?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-reall...
With that out of the way, let's return to the earlier question, in the situation I described previously, what would be gained by blaming a foreign group for the leaks?
2) I can't help but notice all your posts sympathize with Russia. You literally don't comment otherwise.
2) That's probably because I am an ethnic Russian on a mostly American site.
The Obama (big D) administration doesn't like the outcome, or interference, so are stepping in now that they have some evidence of the origins of said attacks.
Of course they didn't step in when it was one of several large corporations which have heavy economic ties with the US... Boeing, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc... but hey, they messed with their political party and the elections this time.
I'm a bit cynical about the whole thing to be honest. If the news media had done their job instead of pumping Trump's visibility we wouldn't have had to worry about Hillary or Trump being their respective party's nominees in the first place.