CIA: Russia influenced election to help Trump win

Intl.Aperture said:

I agree that our intelligence has some credibility to regain. But it's a bit like the weatherman on tv. Bear with me. I think meteorologists are idiots. I remember the 1 time they got it wrong and said it was supposed to be 72 degrees and sunshine but instead it was 56 and raining. I never forget when the screw it up. It's cognitive bias on my part. They are obviously correct more often than they are incorrect. With regards to intelligence we obviously remember the big bungles like Iraq. But it would do us well to notice some of the public triumphs. We did get Bin Laden, after all. And I'd reckon they also get things very right in private, where the public can't see them. All I'm saying is to try and be aware of the areas were cognitive bias may be lurking.

Click to expand...

Dude. Totally get it. But when the people trying to convince me out of one side of their mouth say the agency whose authority they are appealing to as evidence faked the intel for a former president and the current president has a potential conflict of interest in the matter at hand.... They are undermining their own case. I am pointing that out to them. The cognitive dissonance is squarely on their shoulders.

NationalTitles16 said:

Dude. Totally get it. But when the people trying to convince me out of one side of their mouth say the agency whose authority they are appealing to as evidence faked the intel for a former president and the current president has a potential conflict of interest in the matter at hand.... They are undermining their own case. I am pointing that out to them. The cognitive dissonance is squarely on their shoulders.

Click to expand...

As a note, the second of the two Reason columns that you linked late last night presents a rational perspective on the topic...thanks for sharing it.

NationalTitles16 said:

Dude. Totally get it. But when the people trying to convince me out of one side of their mouth say the agency whose authority they are appealing to as evidence faked the intel for a former president and the current president has a potential conflict of interest in the matter at hand.... They are undermining their own case. I am pointing that out to them. The cognitive dissonance is squarely on their shoulders.

Click to expand...

Ah, I did not see your posts, I saw some of the WMD posts from others before you made your statements.

CharminTide said:

The only way this becomes a salient point is if you side with Trump and disbelieve the intelligence conclusion. Do you?

Click to expand...

I'd have to see the NIE.

If the president asks the intelligence community (with a nudge and a wink, so the DNI knows which answer the president wants) if it is true that Democrats are lazy morons, and 9 of the 17 agencies come back and say, "Yes, Democrats are lazy morons," and 8 say that "no, it appears to us that Democrats are decent hardworking intelligent people," then (as long as DNI concurs with the majority) the consensus opinion of the intelligence community is that Democrats are lazy morons (with dissenting opinions at Tab B).

From what I have read open sources, it appears to me that someone (probably in Russia, probably with plausibly deniable connections to the FSB) got into Podesta's email (which was a gmail account john.podesta@gmail.com. Way to go, John, too stupid to encrypt your email? Which party do you work with?) and that Russian person handed the emails to Wikileaks, who released them online.
But I do not have access to the NIE, so that is conjecture.

Tidewater said:

I'd have to see the NIE.

If the president asks the intelligence community if it is true that Democrats are lazy morons, and 9 of the 17 agencies come back and say, "Yes, Democrats are lazy morons," and 8 say that "no, it appears to us that Democrats are decent hardworking intelligent people," then (as long as DNI concurs with the majority) the consensus opinion of the intelligence community is that Democrats are lazy morons (with dissenting opinions at Tab B).

From what I have read open sources, it appears to me that someone (probably in Russia, probably with plausibly deniable connections to the FSB) got into Podesta's email (which was was a gmail account john.podesta@gmail.com. Way to go, John, too stupid to encrypt your gmail? Which party do you work with?) and that Russian person handed the emails to Wikileaks, who released them online.
But I do not have access to the NIE, so that is conjecture.

Click to expand...

A Gmail account? Seriously? Perhaps it was a way to appear above-board in dealings? Maybe he thought it would look shady if he was as difficult to communicate with as Satoshi Nakamoto.

Intl.Aperture said:

A Gmail account? Seriously? Perhaps it was a way to appear above-board in dealings? Maybe he thought it would look shady if he was as difficult to communicate with as Satoshi Nakamoto.

Click to expand...

There seems to be a pervasive reluctance to take cybersecurity seriously. I'd bet the Republicans are not much better.

Tidewater said:

There seems to be a pervasive reluctance to take cybersecurity seriously. I'd bet the Republicans are not much better.

Click to expand...

as someone who sells cyber security, they aren't, no one is until after there is a problem and even then they really aren't unless it becomes public knowledge

Cyber security is pretty much an oxymoron today.

Anything the Russians did or didn't do, had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. Trump would have won anyway. The FBI says it wasn't the Russians.

Ledsteplin said:

Anything the Russians did or didn't do, had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. Trump would have won anyway. The FBI says it wasn't the Russians.

Click to expand...

I think the FBI said they could not know for sure who did it.
Here's something else to bear in mind. Intelligence agencies are loath to reveal sources and methods. And rightfully so, because if the CIA said "We discovered definitively that the Russians broke into the DNC system because they left behind these clues: X, Y, and Z," guess what the Russians won't leave behind next time they do not want to be identified?
The upshot of that is that the intel agencies cannot talk details, which leaves politicians, and crappy news organizations like CNN, free to bloviate, distort, twist and insinuate to their little hearts' desires.

Jon said:

as someone who sells cyber security, they aren't, no one is until after there is a problem and even then they really aren't unless it becomes public knowledge

Click to expand...

I've received three or four notifications from the Army that there has been a breach of security and that sensitive information (SSN, health records, etc.) have been compromised. Other than notifying us, it doesn't appear that much has been done about it because it keeps happening.

CharminTide said:

Read this and prepare for a 15 minute facepalm.

NYT: The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

Click to expand...

They got some brilliant people working at the DNC:

Given how many emails Mr. Podesta received through this personal email account, several aides also had access to it, and one of them noticed the warning email, sending it to a computer technician to make sure it was legitimate before anyone clicked on the “change password” button.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

I've received three or four notifications from the Army that there has been a breach of security and that sensitive information (SSN, health records, etc.) have been compromised. Other than notifying us, it doesn't appear that much has been done about it because it keeps happening.

Click to expand...

what will really bother you the most is that the Army and the other military branches have some of the best security solutions in the world sitting on the shelf waiting to be implemented while they go and buy more to sit on the same shelf. I'm out of PubSec for the most part now though I still get dragged in occasionally but I've seen millions of dollars in unused software, hardware and even services engagements sit till they expire. And for the record I see it in corporate america as well so it's not a "govment is bad m'kay" thing it happens everywhere.

Then you get a customer that locks everything down so well that people create their own holes, like adding unsecured access points or sharing one password or saving their passwords in gmail, etc....

fun business

CharminTide said:

Read this and prepare for a 15 minute facepalm.

NYT: The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

Click to expand...

i have that open in another browser to read later, thanks

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Maybe just revealing the crud being passed between Podesta and Hillary's flying monkeys swayed the election. Just maybe......

tidegrandpa said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Maybe just revealing the crud being passed between Podesta and Hillary's flying monkeys swayed the election. Just maybe......

Click to expand...

From tha article.

McCain questioned an assertion made on Sunday by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, tapped by Trump to be his White House chief of staff, that there were no hacks of computers belonging to Republican organizations. "Actually, because Mr. Priebus said that doesn't mean it's true," said McCain.

Click to expand...

Maverick being Mavericky, I guess.

I listened to Pribus' interview and he said that the FBI investigators the RNC had invited in to check said the RNC had not been hacked. Priebus did not say it, the FBI did. Pribus was casting doubt on the NYT story which had said that the DNC and RNC both had been hacked. Now, that may be true, but it also supports the determination of Russian intent (i.e. trying to embarrass Hillary to help Trump, so I'm not sure why Priebus would win the discredit NYT battle, only to lose the broader war. Priebus being Priebus, I suppose.

Tidewater said:

From tha article.

Maverick being Mavericky, I guess.

I listened to Pribus' interview and he said that the FBI investigators the RNC had invited in to check said the RNC had not been hacked. Priebus did not say it, the FBI did. Pribus was casting doubt on the NYT story which had said that the DNC and RNC both had been hacked. Now, that may be true, but it also supports the determination of Russian intent (i.e. trying to embarrass Hillary to help Trump, so I'm not sure why Priebus would win the discredit NYT battle, only to lose the broader war. Priebus being Priebus, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Assuming for the moment the RNC was not hacked, I wonder if there were hacking attempts.

Tidewater said:

From tha article.

Maverick being Mavericky, I guess.

I listened to Pribus' interview and he said that the FBI investigators the RNC had invited in to check said the RNC had not been hacked. Priebus did not say it, the FBI did. Pribus was casting doubt on the NYT story which had said that the DNC and RNC both had been hacked. Now, that may be true, but it also supports the determination of Russian intent (i.e. trying to embarrass Hillary to help Trump, so I'm not sure why Priebus would win the discredit NYT battle, only to lose the broader war. Priebus being Priebus, I suppose.

Click to expand...

All I read and hear from these article, the one thing common to all, no facts, just speculation and innuendo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tide1986 said:

Assuming for the moment the RNC was not hacked, I wonder if there were hacking attempts.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but Priebus' point, if true, speaks to Russian intent. Hack the DNC but not the RNC? Why and why not?
This is the former head of the RNC when Republicans would go to Obama to enter into tough negotiations on budget or whatever, and the Republicans would start off with a statement, "First of all, we want to get this on the record. Whatever comes out of these negotiations, we lose and you win. Okay? Now, let's talk." So, maybe Priebus' declaration is not all that surprising.