|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 07 2017 11:31 Incognoto wrote:What a strange document. There's a lot of stuff in there which has nothing to do with hacking Clinton's email server. RT? Fracking? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's just an anti-Russia document. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan since there's bad shit regarding him but I don't get the anti-Russian sentiment.
The RT and fracking info is meant to establish that RT is a propaganda outlet, and everything they did in the election, including sympathetic Trump coverage and negative Clinton coverage, serves Russian interests. So the disparity of coverage on the candidates is the most relevant part to the election, but fracking helps establish that RT is a state run propaganda outlet.
|
On January 08 2017 01:09 mustaju wrote:
I think they are legitimately victims of a malicious act that preyed upon older people not having the cyber-security competency of our generation. You are deflecting from something that's considered a crime by blaming the victim for it.
They are victims of the incompetence of an organization that did not properly address the very real threat of cyber threats in an era where they are increasingly important.
Old people don't understand it? Educate them. Teach them not to click on malicious links in their emails. Have IT people stage phishing attacks to catch people who fall for them. Require better authentication credentials. These things were not done, so the result is stupidity. That much is on them; I don't blame hackers for taking what was freely given through incompetence.
On January 08 2017 01:09 mustaju wrote:
Considering the hack was a result of a long reported attempt to destabilize western political systems as a whole which was the wide context of the report you clearly are aware of, I question your impartial judgement.
That's an assertion, one that has no more backing in the document than in your one-sentence statement here. I return the criticism of biased judgment.
|
One, blaming the victim says a lot about you.
Two, didn't the GOP get hacked too? Didn't Assange or Wikileaks announce they had GOP info, but decided not to release it?
|
On January 08 2017 01:34 Saryph wrote:
One, blaming the victim says a lot about you.
Two, didn't the GOP get hacked too? Didn't Assange or Wikileaks announce they had GOP info, but decided not to release it?
Assange claimed to have some GOP leaks from Trump, but the content was not more controversial than every second word out of Trump's mouth or twitter. For what it's worth, that's easily believable.
|
On January 08 2017 01:34 Saryph wrote:
One, blaming the victim says a lot about you.
Poor, poor DNC, victims of the Russian war machine that made it impossible for them to hide collusion in the primaries?
People who get hacked due to their own incompetence are not victims in my eyes. They're just morons.
On January 08 2017 01:34 Saryph wrote:
Two, didn't the GOP get hacked too? Didn't Assange or Wikileaks announce they had GOP info, but decided not to release it?
Fuck if I know. All I can say for sure is that the CIA earlier alleged that the RNC was also hacked but that such a conclusion did not appear in the recent report.
|
On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:They are victims of the incompetence of an organization that did not properly address the very real threat of cyber threats in an era where they are increasingly important.
Old people don't understand it? Educate them. Teach them not to click on malicious links in their emails. Have IT people stage phishing attacks to catch people who fall for them. Require better authentication credentials. These things were not done, so the result is stupidity. That much is on them; I don't blame hackers for taking what was freely given through incompetence.
You are still blaming the victim. Let's use another common case where this happens: rape. There's lots of irrelevant factors as far as the crime is concerned. If we use your logic, then the rape victim is the victim of the family who did not instill them with values and judgement to avoid the circumstances where the rape was committed. Someone was raped? Make them take more self-defence lessons, make their movement restricted to places where rape is far less likely, maybe a kitchen? Hire bodyguards? None of these steps was undertaken to Legallord's analogical replacements satisfaction, hence let us blame the victim, and conveniently not talk about the perpetrator of the crime. I mean, as long as we don't like the person who it is done to, it's fine.
On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:
That's an assertion, one that has no more backing in the document than in your one-sentence statement here. I return the criticism of biased judgment.
You are conveniently ignoring the context of the document, and the context the document provided. And now you are deflecting.
|
On January 08 2017 01:45 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:They are victims of the incompetence of an organization that did not properly address the very real threat of cyber threats in an era where they are increasingly important.
Old people don't understand it? Educate them. Teach them not to click on malicious links in their emails. Have IT people stage phishing attacks to catch people who fall for them. Require better authentication credentials. These things were not done, so the result is stupidity. That much is on them; I don't blame hackers for taking what was freely given through incompetence. You are still blaming the victim. Let's use another common case where this happens: rape. There's lots of irrelevant factors as far as the crime is concerned. If we use your logic, then the rape victim is the victim of the family who did not instill them with values and judgement to avoid the circumstances where the rape was committed. Someone was raped? Make them take more self-defence lessons, make their movement restricted to places where rape is far less likely, maybe a kitchen? Hire bodyguards? None of these steps was undertaken to Legallord's analogical replacements satisfaction, hence let us blame the victim, and conveniently not talk about the perpetrator of the crime. I mean, as long as we don't like the person who it is done to, it's fine. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:
That's an assertion, one that has no more backing in the document than in your one-sentence statement here. I return the criticism of biased judgment. You are conveniently ignoring the context of the document, and the context the document provided. And now you are deflecting.
I now see that this is going nowhere and that it's probably better to just agree to disagree.
EDIT: and it's funny that both you and Saryph apparently independently came up with rape as an analogy to try to say indirectly that the DNC was raped by Russian hackers for dressing provocatively.
|
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above.
|
Your point is well taken, mustaju, and I'm sure what you're getting at is not lost on the majority of people who read this thread.
Anyways, here's a nice recap of what we know on the Fort Lauderdale shooting.
Authorities are gathering information about the deadly shooting rampage that killed at least five people and injured six others Friday at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
The incident sparked chaos as terrified passengers ran through the airport before police apprehended the suspect without incident.
Here's what we know:
What happened?
The melee erupted around 1 p.m. ET, when a gunman opened fire on passengers at a baggage claim in Terminal 2. Witnesses, who described the shooter as a slender, 5-foot-7 male with a blue T-shirt, said the suspect did not say a word during the incident and emptied several magazines of bullets during the attack. The suspect then dropped to the floor spread-eagled to await arrest.
Broward County Commissioner Chip LaMarca said the shooter's gun was in his checked bag. After retrieving the bag, the alleged shooter went to the bathroom, loaded the firearm and then started shooting, LaMarca tweeted.
George Piro, FBI special agent in charge of the agency's Miami division, said authorities interviewed 175 witnesses and collected photos, video and other physical evidence.
Who is the suspect?
Law enforcement officials identified Esteban Santiago, 26, a former Army veteran, as the suspect behind the heinous attack. Santiago was taken into custody without incident by a Broward County sheriff's deputy, Sheriff Scott Israel said on Friday. He has been booked at a Broward county Jail on a murder charge, the sheriff's office said.
Piro said he will be charged federally later Saturday. it appears, he said, the suspect came here to carry out the attack and acted alone.
"Indications are that he came here to carry out this horrific attack. We have not identified any triggers that would've caused this attack," Piro said. "We are continuing to look at the terrorism angle as a potential motivation. At this point, it appears he acted alone."
Born in New Jersey, Santiago served in both the Puerto Rico National Guard and the Alaska Army National Guard, according to Lt. Col. Candis A. Olmstead, director of public affairs for the Alaska National Guard. A federal official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case, told USA TODAY that Santiago arrived in Fort Lauderdale early Friday aboard a Delta flight that originated Thursday in Anchorage and passed through Minneapolis.
In November, Santiago appeared unannounced in the FBI offices in Anchorage, complaining that the Islamic State had gained control of his mind and was urging him to fight on its behalf.
The FBI conducted a background check, learning of his military record, which included service in Iraq, but found no connection to terror groups. Determining that the man apparently needed psychiatric care, the FBI alerted local law enforcement and turned him over to their custody for a medical referral. It is not clear whether Santiago received treatment following that incident.
"We have not ruled out terrorism," FBI special agent George Piro in a press conference late Friday night. "We're not ruling out anything."
Source
|
On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:
EDIT: and it's funny that both you and Saryph apparently independently came up with rape as an analogy to try to say indirectly that the DNC was raped by Russian hackers for dressing provocatively.
What are you suggesting? I came up with the analogy because rape is common and is commonly defended that way. Including related to people near and dear to me. Joking about it only shows your moral character.
|
On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above.
This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior.
|
When you think of victims being blamed for a crime, you think of rape first, or at least most people do. It is common sense, but hey, keep trying to change the subject when it is inconvenient for you.
And Nevuk, the hacks weren't done because of unethical behavior by the DNC, they were done to effect the election or the public's opinion.
|
On January 08 2017 01:57 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:30 LegalLord wrote:
EDIT: and it's funny that both you and Saryph apparently independently came up with rape as an analogy to try to say indirectly that the DNC was raped by Russian hackers for dressing provocatively. What are you suggesting? I came up with the analogy because rape is common and is commonly defended that way. Including related to people near and dear to me. Joking about it only shows your moral character.
No, all it shows is the absurdity of trying to create an analogy between the DNC allegedly being one of the thousands of organization targeted in a phishing campaign (a very common and pedestrian "hack" btw) who managed to get hit, and a woman being raped for dressing provocatively. It's a really fucking stupid comparison.
|
Legal, you're blaming the victim of a phishing attack, and rape victims are commonly blamed for being raped. I don't know how you fail to understand how two instances of victim blaming being compared to each other makes sense.
|
On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior.
while the analogy is imperfect, it is sufficient to the purpose. you're also incorrect, in that hacks can cause damage even if there is no improper behavior.
consider legal's statement:
"People who get hacked due to their own incompetence are not victims in my eyes. They're just morons."
replaced hacked with any other crime, and ask yourself, should they be considered victims of a crime?
and note that, regardless of your opinion, legally they are the victims of a crime.
|
On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior.
How dare the DNC share recipes, order pizza, and talk about their personal feelings. Much corruption those emails showed.
|
On January 08 2017 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior. How dare the DNC share recipes, order pizza, and talk about their personal feelings. Much corruption those emails showed.
That's a strawman and you know it. People cared about the GS speech transcripts, the "Bernie Sanders is Jewish" discussion, the "let's push this narrative about Bernie" talk, the general willingness to speak freely about how they don't like Bernie, the "let's give the Bernie people something they can claim they won that won't hurt us" talk, and the conspiracy stuff and general second-hand stuff being of decidedly secondary interest.
On January 08 2017 02:04 Saryph wrote:
Legal, you're blaming the victim of a phishing attack, and rape victims are commonly blamed for being raped. I don't know how you fail to understand how two instances of victim blaming being compared to each other makes sense.
If you do not agree that it is an absurd analogy then there is really little more to talk about. I do not think I will convince you or mustaju otherwise.
|
On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior.
That analogy was established to say that blaming victims for the crimes that were committed against them is unethical. Discussing the victims own deeds is another topic all-together.
The claim that the release of the hack was damaging only because of the contents is also untrue. Any contents will be hugely amplified.
First, it was done to the party of a candidate who had previously been part of 11 hearings regarding cyber-security.
Second, it was pre-empted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign, reminiscent of what Russian media did in relation to Ukraine in 2014. They threw a lot of theories at the wall to see what sticks and then pushed that narrative super hard. With Hillary, the topics that came up were lying and having something to hide.
Third, it came in a context were previous leaks had been established as virtuous acts. Snowden revealed the nefariousness of the NSA, the Panama papers showed illegitimate activity of many world leaders, hence anything released by Wikileaks is automatically associated with a fight against oppression.
As far as the negative content of the leaks is concerned, that didn't help either. But it's only part of why it hurt.
|
On January 07 2017 18:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War. If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties.
Of course Trump isn't a conservative, but he still won the election as a Republican and that was the point. In direct elections mass opinion can swing widely and there exist very few real ideological beliefs in the voting base. If some guy comes along and says that Russia is great most people will believe that Russia is great as long as he is leading the team you're a fan of, that's apparently all it takes.
|
Something to cheer up those who are looking for a hard line on Russia:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday said he wanted retired Sen. Dan Coats to be national intelligence director, describing the former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee as the right person to lead the new administration's "ceaseless vigilance against those who seek to do us harm."
Trump's announcement came one day after release of a declassified government report on Russian efforts to influence the presidential election. The report predicts Russia isn't done intruding in U.S. politics and policymaking.
Trump wants to improve relations with Russia and repeatedly has denounced intelligence agencies' assessment that the Kremlin interfered in the election, when he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. But the report released Friday explicitly ties Russian President Vladimir Putin to the meddling and says Russia had a "clear preference" for Trump over Clinton.
Coats, an Indiana Republican, will await Senate confirmation to head the office, which was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to improve coordination among U.S. spy and law enforcement agencies. Coats now finds himself in line to be at the center of an intelligence apparatus that the president-elect has publicly challenged.
Trump said in an early morning statement that Coats "has clearly demonstrated the deep subject matter expertise and sound judgment required to lead our intelligence community." He said Coats "will provide unwavering leadership that the entire intelligence community can respect, and will spearhead my administration's ceaseless vigilance against those who seek to do us harm."
Coats, in a statement released by Trump's transition team, said: "There is no higher priority than keeping America safe, and I will utilize every tool at my disposal to make that happen."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
