Russian hacking is the real scandal

[EvilCat Breath]

Someone exposed what the Democrats were doing. How dare they. It has to be the Russians. Democrats intended to lie as long as it kept them in power.

 

[Divine Wind]

The US government's war on the American intellect rages on.

Your personal war on Americans continues to rage on. My guess is you will eventually lose. Probably by your own hand, but possibly as Suicide-by-Cop.

 

[Divine Wind]

Someone exposed what the Democrats were doing. How dare they. It has to be the Russians. Democrats intended to lie as long as it kept them in power.

Agreed about the Democrats, but cyberwarfare is a reality. One I'm certain President Trump will have to address.

 

[Divine Wind]

Look up Operation Mockingbird.

Understand that the US government is pushing for Mockingbird 2.0 right now; HB5181.

1) Our government changed dramatically following both Vietnam and Watergate. It's far from perfect, but there's definitely a "before" and "after".

2) Why do you object to the United States defending itself against foreign aggression? Do you support a foreign power? Are you working for a foreign power? Of what nation are you a citizen and in what nation do you reside?

US Congress HB5181 | 2015-2016 | 114th Congress
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 This bill expresses the sense of Congress that: foreign governments, including the governments of the Russian Federation and China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners; the U.S. government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative; and an important element of this strategy should be to promote an independent press in countries that are vulnerable to foreign disinformation. The Department of State shall establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response to: lead and coordinate the collection and analysis of information on foreign government information warfare efforts; establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy; and develop and synchronize government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against U.S. national security interests and advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests. When selecting participants for U.S. educational and cultural exchange programs, special consideration shall be given to students and community leaders from populations and countries deemed vulnerable to foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns.

 

[Bleipriester]

The strongest nation in the world fears some hackers that probably don´t exist.

 

[Divine Wind]

The strongest nation in the world fears some hackers that probably don´t exist.

Because into world of dictator ass-sucking stooges, the only nation that is being attacked is Syria. Thanks, got it.

 

[Bleipriester]

The strongest nation in the world fears some hackers that probably don´t exist.

Because into world of dictator ass-sucking stooges, the only nation that is being attacked is Syria. Thanks, got it.

Well, if you are attacked with cyber you´re getting some of your own medicine, I guess. But of course its true! Russian hackers caused that road holes, the Obamacare website´s malfunction and of course they elected Trump!

My advice to Trump: Remember your words and be friendly to anyone. Make sure nobody is dragging your country into conflicts and focus on restoring America.

Wouldn´t it be great when your country would be seen as a friendly nation?

 

[Tehon]

The US government's war on the American intellect rages on.

Your personal war on Americans continues to rage on. My guess is you will eventually lose. Probably by your own hand, but possibly as Suicide-by-Cop.

I'm not the fear monger here, that would be you. This is your crusade, I'm here to talk you off the ledge.

 

[EverCurious]

I have issues with the government feeding the American public misinformation. If you cannot see how they've been doing that then you're blind. It's an abuse of power and an insult to everyone's freedom when they start black listing sites and trying to push their version of "truth" -- which I'm pretty sure every person in the world is now witness to with the BS from the MSM during this election. The MSM has destroyed this country's unity and completely trashed an innocent man, under direct orders from a political party. That's something everyone in this country should be worried about.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm not the fear monger here, that would be you. This is your crusade, I'm here to talk you off the ledge.

Dude, you hate the US. You've been very clear about it. Am I wrong to say you'd be pleased to see it collapse?

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, if you are attacked with cyber you´re getting some of your own medicine, I guess. But of course its true! Russian hackers caused that road holes, the Obamacare website´s malfunction and of course they elected Trump!

My advice to Trump: Remember your words and be friendly to anyone. Make sure nobody is dragging your country into conflicts and focus on restoring America.

Wouldn´t it be great when your country would be seen as a friendly nation?

You're standard bullshit aside, it's true all major nations have explored their cyber options.

2012: Cyberwar Is Already Upon Us
In the nearly 20 years since David Ronfeldt and I introduced our concept of cyberwar, this new mode of conflict has become a reality. Cyberwar is here, and it is here to stay, despite what Thomas Rid and other skeptics think.

Back then, we emphasized the growing importance of battlefield information systems and the profound impact their disruption would have in wars large and small. It took just a few years to see how vulnerable the U.S. military had become to this threat. Although most information on cyberwar’s repercussions — most notably the 1997 Eligible Receiver exercise — remains classified, suffice it to say that their effect on U.S. forces would be crippling.

Cyberwar waged against one of America’s allies has already proved devastating. When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia in 2008, their advance was greatly eased by cyberattacks on Tbilisi’s command, control, and communications systems, which were swiftly and nearly completely disrupted. This was the very sort of online assault Ronfeldt and I had envisioned, with blitzkrieg-style operations on the ground augmented by a virtual "bitskrieg."

In some respects, the Russo-Georgian conflict illuminates the potential of cyberwar in a manner not unlike the way the Spanish Civil War foreshadowed the rising dominance of air power 75 years ago, offering a preview of World War II’s deadly aerial bombings. Like air warfare, cyberwar will only become more destructive over time. For that reason, the Pentagon was right last year to formally designate cyberspace as a "warfighting domain."

These developments align closely with our own predictions two decades ago. But another notion arose alongside ours — that cyberwar is less a way to achieve a winning advantage in battle than a means of covertly attacking the enemy’s homeland infrastructure without first having to defeat its land, sea, and air forces in conventional military engagements.......


http://www.economist.com/node/16481504
THROUGHOUT history new technologies have revolutionised warfare, sometimes abruptly, sometimes only gradually: think of the chariot, gunpowder, aircraft, radar and nuclear fission. So it has been with information technology. Computers and the internet have transformed economies and given Western armies great advantages, such as the ability to send remotely piloted aircraft across the world to gather intelligence and attack targets. But the spread of digital technology comes at a cost: it exposes armies and societies to digital attack.

The threat is complex, multifaceted and potentially very dangerous. Modern societies are ever more reliant on computer systems linked to the internet, giving enemies more avenues of attack. If power stations, refineries, banks and air-traffic-control systems were brought down, people would lose their lives. Yet there are few, if any, rules in cyberspace of the kind that govern behaviour, even warfare, in other domains. As with nuclear- and conventional-arms control, big countries should start talking about how to reduce the threat from cyberwar, the aim being to restrict attacks before it is too late.

• Cyberwar: War in the fifth domainJul 1st 2010

Cyberspace has become the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and space (see article). Some scenarios imagine the almost instantaneous failure of the systems that keep the modern world turning. As computer networks collapse, factories and chemical plants explode, satellites spin out of control and the financial and power grids fail.

That seems alarmist to many experts. Yet most agree that infiltrating networks is pretty easy for those who have the will, means and the time to spare. Governments know this because they are such enthusiastic hackers themselves. Spies frequently break into computer systems to steal information by the warehouse load, whether it is from Google or defence contractors. Penetrating networks to damage them is not much harder. And, if you take enough care, nobody can prove you did it.

The cyber-attacks on Estonia in 2007 and on Georgia in 2008 (the latter strangely happened to coincide with the advance of Russian troops across the Caucasus) are widely assumed to have been directed by the Kremlin, but they could be traced only to Russian cyber-criminals. Many of the computers used in the attack belonged to innocent Americans whose PCs had been hijacked. Companies suspect China of organising mini-raids to ransack Western know-how: but it could just have easily been Western criminals, computer-hackers showing off or disillusioned former employees. One reason why Western governments have until recently been reticent about cyber-espionage is surely because they are dab hands at it, too.

As with nuclear bombs, the existence of cyber-weapons does not in itself mean they are about to be used. Moreover, an attacker cannot be sure what effect an assault will have on another country, making their deployment highly risky. That is a drawback for sophisticated military machines, but not necessarily for terrorists or the armies of rogue states. And it leaves the dangers of online crime and espionage.

All this makes for dangerous instability. Cyber-weapons are being developed secretly, without discussion of how and when they might be used. Nobody knows their true power, so countries must prepare for the worst. Anonymity adds to the risk that mistakes, misattribution and miscalculation will lead to military escalation—with conventional weapons or cyberarms. The speed with which electronic attacks could be launched gives little time for cool-headed reflection and favours early, even pre-emptive, attack. Even as computerised weapons systems and wired infantry have blown away some of the fog of war from the battlefield, they have covered cyberspace in a thick, menacing blanket of uncertainty.

One response to this growing threat has been military. Iran claims to have the world's second-largest cyber-army. Russia, Israel and North Korea boast efforts of their own. America has set up its new Cyber Command both to defend its networks and devise attacks on its enemies. NATO is debating the extent to which it should count cyberwar as a form of “armed attack” that would oblige its members to come to the aid of an ally.

But the world needs cyberarms-control as well as cyber- deterrence. America has until recently resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace for fear that they could lead to rigid global regulation of the internet, undermining the dominance of American internet companies, stifling innovation and restricting the openness that underpins the net. Perhaps America also fears that its own cyberwar effort has the most to lose if its well-regarded cyberspies and cyber-warriors are reined in.

Such thinking at last shows signs of changing, and a good thing too. America, as the country most reliant on computers, is probably most vulnerable to cyber-attack. Its conventional military power means that foes will look for asymmetric lines of attack. And the wholesale loss of secrets through espionage risks eroding its economic and military lead......

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-us-stacks-up-against-its-digital-adversaries
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea routinely launch cyberattacks on civilian areas, hacking private companies or undermining foreign militaries, using online tools to manipulate information or digital propaganda to shape others' opinions, and employing digital mercenaries to do the work.

The Chinese military stole U.S. plans to the technically sophisticated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, allowing Beijing to create the copycat J-31. Hackers with connections to the Iranian government were charged earlier this year for attacks on U.S. banks and a dam in New York. North Korean operatives released a trove of damaging emails from Sony as the entertainment company planned to release a comedy with an unflattering portrayal of the country's leader. And Russia is widely suspected in a hack of the Democratic National Committee that could amount to a bid to undermine the integrity of the upcoming U.S. election.

The U.S., as of right now, is not fully prepared to match incidents like these.

In Georgia and now in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated its ability to integrate full-scale cyberwar into its military maneuvers, further threatening U.S. allies along its border. But shortcomings with such 21st-century tactics plague America's military, which emerged from the Cold War, dedicated 15 years to fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and now faces the potential for a different kind of combat against potential foes who time and time again have tested its cyber capabilities.

 

[Bleipriester]

Well, if you are attacked with cyber you´re getting some of your own medicine, I guess. But of course its true! Russian hackers caused that road holes, the Obamacare website´s malfunction and of course they elected Trump!

My advice to Trump: Remember your words and be friendly to anyone. Make sure nobody is dragging your country into conflicts and focus on restoring America.

Wouldn´t it be great when your country would be seen as a friendly nation?

You're standard bullshit aside, it's true all major nations have explored their cyber options.

2012: Cyberwar Is Already Upon Us
In the nearly 20 years since David Ronfeldt and I introduced our concept of cyberwar, this new mode of conflict has become a reality. Cyberwar is here, and it is here to stay, despite what Thomas Rid and other skeptics think.

Back then, we emphasized the growing importance of battlefield information systems and the profound impact their disruption would have in wars large and small. It took just a few years to see how vulnerable the U.S. military had become to this threat. Although most information on cyberwar’s repercussions — most notably the 1997 Eligible Receiver exercise — remains classified, suffice it to say that their effect on U.S. forces would be crippling.

Cyberwar waged against one of America’s allies has already proved devastating. When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia in 2008, their advance was greatly eased by cyberattacks on Tbilisi’s command, control, and communications systems, which were swiftly and nearly completely disrupted. This was the very sort of online assault Ronfeldt and I had envisioned, with blitzkrieg-style operations on the ground augmented by a virtual "bitskrieg."

In some respects, the Russo-Georgian conflict illuminates the potential of cyberwar in a manner not unlike the way the Spanish Civil War foreshadowed the rising dominance of air power 75 years ago, offering a preview of World War II’s deadly aerial bombings. Like air warfare, cyberwar will only become more destructive over time. For that reason, the Pentagon was right last year to formally designate cyberspace as a "warfighting domain."

These developments align closely with our own predictions two decades ago. But another notion arose alongside ours — that cyberwar is less a way to achieve a winning advantage in battle than a means of covertly attacking the enemy’s homeland infrastructure without first having to defeat its land, sea, and air forces in conventional military engagements.......


http://www.economist.com/node/16481504
THROUGHOUT history new technologies have revolutionised warfare, sometimes abruptly, sometimes only gradually: think of the chariot, gunpowder, aircraft, radar and nuclear fission. So it has been with information technology. Computers and the internet have transformed economies and given Western armies great advantages, such as the ability to send remotely piloted aircraft across the world to gather intelligence and attack targets. But the spread of digital technology comes at a cost: it exposes armies and societies to digital attack.

The threat is complex, multifaceted and potentially very dangerous. Modern societies are ever more reliant on computer systems linked to the internet, giving enemies more avenues of attack. If power stations, refineries, banks and air-traffic-control systems were brought down, people would lose their lives. Yet there are few, if any, rules in cyberspace of the kind that govern behaviour, even warfare, in other domains. As with nuclear- and conventional-arms control, big countries should start talking about how to reduce the threat from cyberwar, the aim being to restrict attacks before it is too late.

• Cyberwar: War in the fifth domainJul 1st 2010

Cyberspace has become the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and space (see article). Some scenarios imagine the almost instantaneous failure of the systems that keep the modern world turning. As computer networks collapse, factories and chemical plants explode, satellites spin out of control and the financial and power grids fail.

That seems alarmist to many experts. Yet most agree that infiltrating networks is pretty easy for those who have the will, means and the time to spare. Governments know this because they are such enthusiastic hackers themselves. Spies frequently break into computer systems to steal information by the warehouse load, whether it is from Google or defence contractors. Penetrating networks to damage them is not much harder. And, if you take enough care, nobody can prove you did it.

The cyber-attacks on Estonia in 2007 and on Georgia in 2008 (the latter strangely happened to coincide with the advance of Russian troops across the Caucasus) are widely assumed to have been directed by the Kremlin, but they could be traced only to Russian cyber-criminals. Many of the computers used in the attack belonged to innocent Americans whose PCs had been hijacked. Companies suspect China of organising mini-raids to ransack Western know-how: but it could just have easily been Western criminals, computer-hackers showing off or disillusioned former employees. One reason why Western governments have until recently been reticent about cyber-espionage is surely because they are dab hands at it, too.

As with nuclear bombs, the existence of cyber-weapons does not in itself mean they are about to be used. Moreover, an attacker cannot be sure what effect an assault will have on another country, making their deployment highly risky. That is a drawback for sophisticated military machines, but not necessarily for terrorists or the armies of rogue states. And it leaves the dangers of online crime and espionage.

All this makes for dangerous instability. Cyber-weapons are being developed secretly, without discussion of how and when they might be used. Nobody knows their true power, so countries must prepare for the worst. Anonymity adds to the risk that mistakes, misattribution and miscalculation will lead to military escalation—with conventional weapons or cyberarms. The speed with which electronic attacks could be launched gives little time for cool-headed reflection and favours early, even pre-emptive, attack. Even as computerised weapons systems and wired infantry have blown away some of the fog of war from the battlefield, they have covered cyberspace in a thick, menacing blanket of uncertainty.

One response to this growing threat has been military. Iran claims to have the world's second-largest cyber-army. Russia, Israel and North Korea boast efforts of their own. America has set up its new Cyber Command both to defend its networks and devise attacks on its enemies. NATO is debating the extent to which it should count cyberwar as a form of “armed attack” that would oblige its members to come to the aid of an ally.

But the world needs cyberarms-control as well as cyber- deterrence. America has until recently resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace for fear that they could lead to rigid global regulation of the internet, undermining the dominance of American internet companies, stifling innovation and restricting the openness that underpins the net. Perhaps America also fears that its own cyberwar effort has the most to lose if its well-regarded cyberspies and cyber-warriors are reined in.

Such thinking at last shows signs of changing, and a good thing too. America, as the country most reliant on computers, is probably most vulnerable to cyber-attack. Its conventional military power means that foes will look for asymmetric lines of attack. And the wholesale loss of secrets through espionage risks eroding its economic and military lead......

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-us-stacks-up-against-its-digital-adversaries
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea routinely launch cyberattacks on civilian areas, hacking private companies or undermining foreign militaries, using online tools to manipulate information or digital propaganda to shape others' opinions, and employing digital mercenaries to do the work.

The Chinese military stole U.S. plans to the technically sophisticated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, allowing Beijing to create the copycat J-31. Hackers with connections to the Iranian government were charged earlier this year for attacks on U.S. banks and a dam in New York. North Korean operatives released a trove of damaging emails from Sony as the entertainment company planned to release a comedy with an unflattering portrayal of the country's leader. And Russia is widely suspected in a hack of the Democratic National Committee that could amount to a bid to undermine the integrity of the upcoming U.S. election.

The U.S., as of right now, is not fully prepared to match incidents like these.

In Georgia and now in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated its ability to integrate full-scale cyberwar into its military maneuvers, further threatening U.S. allies along its border. But shortcomings with such 21st-century tactics plague America's military, which emerged from the Cold War, dedicated 15 years to fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and now faces the potential for a different kind of combat against potential foes who time and time again have tested its cyber capabilities.

That the US is behind in cyber warfare doesn´t mean they ain´t the No 1 in hacking. Again, you are blaming others of what your own government is master in.

One in four US hackers 'is an FBI informer'
The US government might be the biggest hacker in the world

 

[Tehon]

I'm not the fear monger here, that would be you. This is your crusade, I'm here to talk you off the ledge.

Dude, you hate the US. You've been very clear about it. Am I wrong to say you'd be pleased to see it collapse?

My pleasure would be to see the US start promoting a foreign policy that fostered cooperation among the world's nation states. And for you to stop fear mongering.

 

[Baron]

There is not any proof of hacking, only accusations of lying presstitutes and so-called 'experts'

 

[WillowTree]

Russian hacking. You know what I think about? All the times the liberals in congress and on these forums poo pooed the idea that Clinton putting an unsecured server in her basement was a national security risk? Now that the DNC has been hacked it is a different tune we sing entirely. I wonder if the Russians thanked Hillary personally?

 

[Divine Wind]

My pleasure would be to see the US start promoting a foreign policy that fostered cooperation among the world's nation states. And for you to stop fear mongering.

Your racism and false accusations aside, if you knew any history, you'd know who started the League of Nations and the United Nations. You'd learn that, despite its faults, the US has been a more solid proponent of peace, cooperation and universal prosperity than any other nation.

Since you hate the US so much, which nation do you think is the best and would you like me to start a crown-fund to send you there?

 

[Divine Wind]

Russian hacking. You know what I think about? All the times the liberals in congress and on these forums poo pooed the idea that Clinton putting an unsecured server in her basement was a national security risk? Now that the DNC has been hacked it is a different tune we sing entirely. I wonder if the Russians thanked Hillary personally?

I have no doubt Hillary's server was hacked. She'd be an excellent target for it as Secretary of State. Proving it, however, will be difficult.

In the CIA, we often hear of their failures, but rarely of their successes until decades later....and sometimes not even then. Why? Because revealing a success allows the enemy to know they've been penetrated and will motivate them to prevent it from happening again.

 

[Tehon]

Russian hacking. You know what I think about? All the times the liberals in congress and on these forums poo pooed the idea that Clinton putting an unsecured server in her basement was a national security risk? Now that the DNC has been hacked it is a different tune we sing entirely. I wonder if the Russians thanked Hillary personally?

I have no doubt Hillary's server was hacked. She'd be an excellent target for it as Secretary of State. Proving it, however, will be difficult.

In the CIA, we often hear of their failures, but rarely of their successes until decades later....and sometimes not even then. Why? Because revealing a success allows the enemy to know they've been penetrated and will motivate them to prevent it from happening again.

Wait, are you saying you are CIA? Because that would totally explain your complete lack of objectivity here in this thread.

 

[Divine Wind]

Russian hacking. You know what I think about? All the times the liberals in congress and on these forums poo pooed the idea that Clinton putting an unsecured server in her basement was a national security risk? Now that the DNC has been hacked it is a different tune we sing entirely. I wonder if the Russians thanked Hillary personally?

I have no doubt Hillary's server was hacked. She'd be an excellent target for it as Secretary of State. Proving it, however, will be difficult.

In the CIA, we often hear of their failures, but rarely of their successes until decades later....and sometimes not even then. Why? Because revealing a success allows the enemy to know they've been penetrated and will motivate them to prevent it from happening again.

Wait, are you saying you are CIA? Because that would totally explain your complete lack of objectivity here in this thread.

And your lack of objectivity is due to hating America?

 

[Tehon]

Russian hacking. You know what I think about? All the times the liberals in congress and on these forums poo pooed the idea that Clinton putting an unsecured server in her basement was a national security risk? Now that the DNC has been hacked it is a different tune we sing entirely. I wonder if the Russians thanked Hillary personally?

I have no doubt Hillary's server was hacked. She'd be an excellent target for it as Secretary of State. Proving it, however, will be difficult.

In the CIA, we often hear of their failures, but rarely of their successes until decades later....and sometimes not even then. Why? Because revealing a success allows the enemy to know they've been penetrated and will motivate them to prevent it from happening again.

Wait, are you saying you are CIA? Because that would totally explain your complete lack of objectivity here in this thread.

And your lack of objectivity is due to hating America?

I believe that waiting until evidence is presented and facts are known before coming to conclusions is being objective. I understand our history well enough not to accept "trust us" as evidence of anything.