The U.S. mostly uses its cyber capabilities to monitor the cyber capabilities of other countries not to change their governments. Rest assured if that were the objective, it would be happening on a regular basis.
Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The U.S. mostly uses its cyber capabilities to monitor the cyber capabilities of other countries not to change their governments. Rest assured if that were the objective, it would be happening on a regular basis.
Maybe the US is more focused on Terrorism, Middle East etc...which leaves Russia time and space to focus on the US.
Cyber in US is well advanced and that's why wiring money takes days to reach its destination and in U.K. takes seconds.
Let alone conduct official business on a private email server like some other middle aged wonders.
That happens all the time. People who aren't in the office routinely communicate via their yahoo or gmail accounts out of convenience. In this case he seemed to prefer it as his primary way of communicating and even worse, he saved every single email he ever wrote.
/thread.
Sorry, but that's terrible and no excuse. I occasionally use my private email to let my boss know I won't be in but that's only if I've forgotten my password for the Good app. Otherwise, out of office communication occurs via Citrix or VPN. Any other means leaves a gaping hole in an organization's cyber security and is unforgivable in this day and age.
You probably work for a more tech savvy organization than the Hillary campaign. Political campaigns are by their very nature temporary and by the seat of their pants often don't have the tech infrastructure and IT staff to put staffers, who by the way come and go from the campaign on a regular as needed basis, through any sort of rigorous IT or OPSEC training. When you add to that the fact that many of these people are not tech savvy at all then you get the sort of carelessness for convenience type approaches to work email like Hillary and Podesta. The Russians found a way to exploit it and did so for the same of promoting their preferred candidate by attacking his opponent.
Last edited:
I do but still feel that in this day and age cyber security should be the first thing on everyone's mind, at least at the organizational level, even for something temporary like a political campaign. You'd think that maintaining as much secrecy as possible would be high on their priority list.
I wired money on Friday in the morning to my account and is not there so a bit pissed when the bank tells me the computers will not work over the weekend, anyway the west is exposed to hacking because the general use of the technology and the fact very few companies have any policy towards the employees using personal emails or surfing to websites not related to work, most of the hacking are made from inside and not from outside. A solution would be using dummy terminals connected to a server, also having besides the IT normal stuff they should have a cyber security personnel. Another issue is the outsourcing leaving the servers open to outside companies and a lot of time located in other countries.
They dont really care at the moment. If the US decides to put economic sanctions on China like they do with Russia, I don't think they will play nice any more.
US - China is mutually beneficial at the moment. No need to stir shit up.
It is but when you look at the sort of personalities that were on the Hillary campaign, they were mostly older people who probably thought emailing someone meant the conversation was private between them and whoever they emailed. People who have zero tech background are generally easy to prey on in this regard.
Yeah, that's true. I'd suggest there's a bit of arrogance mixed in with the ignorance, though. Possibly underlings who don't want to tell them that they're clueless and need to take an hour or two to learn the basics.
Not read all the posts but has anyone mentioned Stuxnet yet ?
Yes, I brought it up a couple of pages back.
Yes, just read that but nobody seems to have taken you up on it. Just started reading about a documentary titled " Zero Days" made by someone called Alex Gibney.Seems the US, and I imagine the "5 eyes" nations + Israel, are well into cyberattacks. Such a dodgy realm that American firms need to protect themselves from unintentional cyber attacks by thier own government's system !
I don't believe it. 
Impossible.
Labour MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...obable-referendum-hacking-putin-a7472706.html
Labour MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...obable-referendum-hacking-putin-a7472706.html
@Raoul is that sarcasm?
Its sheer astonishment.
"A Downing Street spokesman said he had not seen any evidence of Russian interference in the EU referendum."
Wow, Downing Street spokesman. It's "probable", you don't evidence for "probable".
Wow, Downing Street spokesman. It's "probable", you don't evidence for "probable".
Haha. "You know all this stuff that goes against a globalist agenda that you THOUGHT you'd voted for...?
Nah, it was Russia. Let us undo that for you."
Nah, it was Russia. Let us undo that for you."
At the end of the day, they didn't hack our votes.
Obama will be under a lot of pressure to retaliate before he leaves office, since there's a snow balls chance in hell Trump will once he gets in, since he was a direct beneficiary of Putin's work.
So interfering in foreign elections is totally not cool then?
Quick, someone pass the memo to the CIA!
Quick, someone pass the memo to the CIA!
So interfering in foreign elections is totally not cool then?
Quick, someone pass the memo to the CIA!
Ahh the old two wrongs make a right argument.
Basically it makes everything okay since there probably are not any new wrongs somebody could commit. Oh you robbed a bank, that's okay other people have done that also. Oh you are a serial killer, well so was Arthur Shawcross no big deal. Oh you invaded another country, well it's okay history is full of that stuff. and on and on we could go.
I think part of the point here is that a country with a big history of doing the same is the one most actively pointing the finger, it is the equivalent of Ronnie Biggs telling you not to rob trains.
the problem is that when you go through thread after thread in the CE section that is about the only argument some posters put forward for anything. You just get to the point then where you have to excuse everything every nation does because nations have been doing them since, well since there were nations (and even when there were just tribes probably). If something is wrong, does it really matter if others have done those wrong also? Can't something just be wrong in and of itself?
I actually didn't read the start of the thread and thought this was about interference in Syria, turns out it is about elections.
And yes, something can just be wrong, no matter who has done it before. But you must also understand that for a large part of the world that has either had their affairs meddled in by the US, or have witnessed the US meddle, this all feels a bit hollow.
I think the reason for all the attention Russia gets for it as compared to the US is that you've mostly done it in the third world, while Russia takes on the West and the biggest industrialized nations like the US \ Germany and probably also France.
Good point.
Oh come on, it's not like he actually said it's ok. It's a valid observation though, it's not like others haven't done the same in the past.
Yes it can. And yes it should be pointed out.
However, unless there's something I've missed, Kaos' post doesn't make any excuses. I fail to see what's wrong in pointing out others doing the same thing and having done it in the past. It's not like Russia suddenly invented interfering in politics to suit themselves.
If it were a one off it would be different, but if you read through enough CE threads it happens too often with the ones who do it rarely if ever being willing to just say "This is wrong regardless of whoever the party doing it is." It is always offered up as some sort of excuse or some sort of effort to through around the word hypocrisy in order to move the conversation off topic.
That's not a particularly satisfying argument since it just obfuscates from the central topic by claiming others have previously done the same. Does that somehow make it ok ?
Let anarchy reign, nothing will be judged to be wrong anymore as long as you can point to some other entity (person or group) who has done it before. It will also be the counter point to any discussion about any subject. If tomorrow the Switzerland invades Canada, well no big deal after all history (recent and otherwise) is full of nations that have done the same, so no discussion can take place, it's all fine. After all the US did it, the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, Egypt, Libya, Israel, Persia, the Romans, the Carthaginians, and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Wow. Seriously, well done guys, you've clearly got this discussion locked down.
I'll leave you to it
Well, there's a collection of posters that cannot make any argument for a country or leader other than 'Well what about the US?' That doesn't further the discussion any because it's not a valid argument.
There's actually a name for it: whataboutism. It's when you cannot debate a point other than saying 'well what about this?' It was coined in reference to Soviet media; take from that what you will...
This makes more sense. I was unaware of that, my apologies to all involved for not knowing the ins and outs of every discussion in here.
I just didn't get why what Kaos said was so bad. Silly me!
Its also at the heart of a Tu quoque fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
An appeal to hypocrisy to slither out of answering the central topic.
From my perspective, this isn't being used to say "man how nasty are Russia, interfering with the election!", it's more the worry that they'd be going to such lengths to back Trump in the first place and what that means for the world in the next few years.
Like, just think about the "America did it first" counter and what the implications of that are. What were America trying to achieve with their meddling? A stake of control over those regimes.
Like, just think about the "America did it first" counter and what the implications of that are. What were America trying to achieve with their meddling? A stake of control over those regimes.
Wow. Seriously, well done guys, you've clearly got this discussion locked down.
I'll leave you to it
So you see how frustrating the attitude can be.
@Organic Potatoes spells it out nicely.