back to article US govt straight up accuses Russia of hacking prez election

The Russian government "directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions," the US Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said on Friday, an accusation that gives formal recognition to a claim previously voiced through unnamed sources. In late July, The …

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

          Scalia was 1 of 9, and the last true "Constitutionalist" on SCOTUS

      1. Baldy50

        Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

        I think these games are here to stay and increasingly more so, as the Internet grows so will the threats and the temptation for foreign powers to dabble in the affairs of others just because they can, human nature being what it is and all, especially the types of mindset running some organizations within these governments is only to be expected.

        OK! Going off topic, at least that's not illegal yet.

        'sadly, even though the U.S. Constitution TRIES to make it hard for pests to do much damage, the "stacking" of the U.S. Supreme Court with extremely liberal judges essentially overrides any such attempts by "re-interpreting" it whatever way they 'feel'.'

        Since a third of the supreme court, justices are Jewish and the other two-thirds are Catholic I doubt they'd be very Liberal about abortion for example and any woman made pregnant through a rape wouldn't get much sympathy from them.

        1. Tom Paine

          Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

          Politicising the judiciary /by design/ is just one of many, many ways the US constitution has clearly outlived it's usefulness and is now in the way of any sort of progress away from a slow descent towards a second civil war. Yeah, it might well take several more decades, but it's coming., mark my words.

      2. ITS Retired
        Facepalm

        Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

        May I remind you that it was a conservative leaning Supreme Court that install George Walker Bush and we ended up with wars that are still ongoing. To say nothing about invading the wrong country.

        A Liberal Supreme Court rightfully would have refuse do hear the case that installed Bush and Al Gore would have won.

        Wala! No 9/11. Russia would be much friendlier;er to us, US, and we, the US, would not now be the worlds #1 terrorist nation, supplying both side in many cases.

        1. Tom Paine
          Facepalm

          Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

          I think you meant "voila!"

      3. Efros
        Thumb Down

        Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

        (more howler downvotes, thank you)

        Count yourself lucky we're limited to only one!

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

          "Count yourself lucky we're limited to only one!"

          heh, that's good. nice reply.

          [what multiplication factor should I consider when seeing the totals?]

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

        Indeed Bob.

        "Obamacare" originated in the Senate, yet SCOTUS ruled that it was OK because it was really a tax.

        Sadly, the constitution does not allow tax law to originate in the Senate. Therefore "Obamacare" should have been overthrown on constitutional grounds. Liberal justices have a tendency to piss on the US Constitution - no news there.

    1. RIBrsiq

      @Marketing Hack

      I mostly agree. Except to say that some of the affairs in question are in fact private and thus belong on private servers. Also, government servers and networks are not necessarily any more secure: recall the hack of the Office of Personnel Management systems, a while back.

      What's needed is an emphasise on security across the board. Security should always be a corner stone and never an afterthought, I think. But then again, I might be biased.

      1. Thomas Dial

        Re: @Marketing Hack

        By published reports, the OPM penetration was an inside job, in that it began with use of the credentials from the non-government system of an authorized contractor employed user. That is not an indication that OPM was secure; the fact they were not using two factor authentication for all access is a black mark against them. It does, however, indicate that security is hard and requires attention to an awful lot of detail, and people, especially in large networks like that of OPM.

        The Democratic Party server penetration, on the other hand, appears to have been a straight external exploitation of some combination of built-in and administrator allowed vulnerabilities.

  1. Bloodbeastterror

    Trump to blame... again...

    Isn't it exactly what the baboon explicitly asked the Russians to do - hack the US elections to discover info on Clinton's emails?

  2. tom dial Silver badge

    I hesitated between the downvote and the upvote I finally registered, mainly because the problem is a bit more complex and involves more slackness by the Senate and House of Representatives than the post suggests.

    The President appoints judges and justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, which does not have to approve the nominee. The Senate and House together have passed laws that delivered a lot of power to the executive branch, irrespective of the President who heads it, and the presidents have welcomed it and run with it. The Congress does not have to do that (on paper) but over time have allowed the federal government to take on so many things that their failure to act creates deafening uproar and great indignation that uniformly has caused them to back down. Worse, they have passed laws that delegate to the executive branch legislative powers that, if they were doing their jobs, they would have guarded jealously. They even have allowed, and funded wars, for most of the last 70 years without the constitutionally required declaration of war. As a group they are feckless and spineless.

    The expansive responsibility and power of the federal government does not go unchallenged, and the ensuing litigation dramatically increases the importance of judges at all levels, but most importantly the Supreme Court, and requires increasing politicization of judicial appointments to ensure "correct" decisions. It also explains much about why lefties are so fearful of a President Trump with the capability and presumable willingness to use that power "wrongly" and the Trump supporters are similarly fearful of a Clinton win. The truth is that if either one of them is elected, we are in deep trouble.

    My neighbor has the short version on a yard sign:

    Everybody

    Sucks

    We're Screwed

    2016

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Find Me A Lobbyist To Put In Charge!

    If a nation is going to engage in cyber espionage, then perhaps that nation should secure its own systems first.

    And if a nation is not going to engage in cyber espionage, then perhaps that nation should secure its own systems first.

  4. FuzzyTheBear
    Mushroom

    Rewrite phrase ...

    " could have authorized these activities " in " could have requested these activities to take place in order to interfere with the internal politics of another sovereign nation. "

    I therefore make the observation and propose that WE send them the ball back and hack their servers and publish emails, internal party notes , memos , papers and everything they use the internet for and put it on sites that can be accessed by their population. .. Restart the old shortwave stations , boost power by 100 and broadcast to their population programs where their memos are read live on the air .Give them a notice : stop hacking us or we chop in one foot pieces the cables that links them to the internet from their country and send the pieces back one by one in boxes marked " postage due " to the Kremlin.

    Why play Mr Nice Guy ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why play Mr Nice Guy?

      As the rest of the world now knows thanks to Ms. Manning and Mr. Snowden, you never did.

      You will recover your moral right to berate others other their hacking, spying, and interference in others' internal affairs at approximately the same time these two join Martin Luther King on the Mall as the national heroes they are.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Why play Mr Nice Guy?

        As the rest of the world now knows thanks to Ms. Manning and Mr. Snowden, you never did.

        You will recover your moral right to berate others other their hacking, spying, and interference in others' internal affairs at approximately the same time these two join Martin Luther King on the Mall as the national heroes they are.

        Somewhat apt:

        Redgum: The Drover's Dog

      2. Kurt Meyer

        Re: Why play Mr Nice Guy?

        @ AC

        "... you never did."

        Absolutely right AC, they never did.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Rewrite phrase ...

      You missed when the ball went into their court, what you see is returning the ball.

      The Russian election was (quite clumsily) attempted to be influenced by USA by timing the "leak" of Panama papers to it. The papers were very suspiciously missing any all USA usual suspects while containing the key Russian ones as well as a few others here and there "for veracity". That spoiled the desired effect of the leak by the way, because even the opposition press identified the leak as a likely hatchet job trying to influence the elections.

      What do you expect? That an order was not given to lob this one back in the same currency?

      The overall lesson is - cannot stand the heat - get out of the kitchen. Or to be more exact - do not even try to get in.

      1. Sandtitz Silver badge

        Re: Rewrite phrase ... @Voland's

        The papers were very suspiciously missing any all USA usual suspects while containing the key Russian ones as well as a few others here and there "for veracity".

        Others would argue that it was aimed at the Chinese rulers and so forth.

        Wikipedia lists a few reasons why there are not that many US citizens/companies on the list: the "US-Panama Free Trade Agreement", "Shell companies can be created in the United States", "Major international banks based in America tend to have offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands instead", and "US laws like FATCA and the TIEAs of 2010".

        If you think the Panama Papers have been edited to remove US politicians or add Russian counterparts then show us some evidence of this. The fact that the Russians immediately downplayed the Papers as "Putinophobia" without checking the authenticity of these allegations speaks volumes.

      2. Tom Paine

        Re: Rewrite phrase ...

        There were very few Americans in the Panama leak because Americans don't NEED to go offshore to avoid or evade tax; there are multiple onshore jurisdictions that offer all the same benefits - lack of transparency and reporting requirements, for instance. See for instance:

        http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/12/what_makes_delaware_an_onshore.php

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/05/how-the-u-s-became-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-tax-havens/

        It helps to know what you're talking about before erecting a wild conspiracy theory on foundations of hot air.

    3. Tom Paine

      Re: Rewrite phrase ...

      Go for it, knock yourself out. Speak good Russian, do you?

  5. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Who to believe???

    DHS or Troy Hunt? Is it state actors from Russia, China, etc.. or crooks and kids? I'm thinking someone is blowing smoke because they really haven't a clue.

  6. Schultz
    Facepalm

    Evil Russians doing evil ...

    with plausible deniability, of course. Good thing we have the angelic Americans to protect the world. And be assured, they are willing to do anything to protect you. (Including breaking any law, violate human rights and the Geneva convention, ...)

    Call me cynical, but I am still looking for the good side. Sweden - but what about the Assange weirdness? Switzerland - if they wouldn't play safe harbor to all that criminal money. It's a crooked world out there.

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: Evil Russians doing evil ...

      Iceland looks like the best option given the way the world seems to be going,

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Evil Russians doing evil ...

      "Good thing we have the angelic Americans to protect the world. And be assured, they are willing to do anything to protect you".

      "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre

      What they did for Ben Tre, they would do for you. Believe it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Evil Russians doing evil ...

      "Call me cynical, but I am still looking for the good side. Sweden - but what about the Assange weirdness? Switzerland - if they wouldn't play safe harbor to all that criminal money".

      Have you considered Russia? 8-)

  7. GrapeBunch

    Look at it from their point of view

    Take the name of a candidate, transliterate it to Russian, then back to English: Tramp. It is impossible to pronounce the name of the other candidate in Russian. If you put the stress where it belongs, on the first syllable, that degrades the sound of the unstressed vowel. So CLIN-tan is about as close as you'll get.

    "We watched the Presidential Debates with much mirth. Comrade Ivan Nikolaevich proposed that each time we laughed, the sinner should propose a toast to one of the 50 glorious States. By the time we got to Ouaioming, Ivan Nikolaevich himself was completely plastered. We were finished the 50 States, but the debate was still going. Suddenly, Boris Andreevich said "Puerto Rico!". By the time we were truly finished toasting, there were 257 glorious States, including our beloved Rodina."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Look at it from their point of view

      "It is impossible to pronounce the name of the other candidate in Russian."

      I'm not totally sure of the point here, because after that much little water I doubt any of them could pronounce Russian names in Russian.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Joke

    outragesous. A foreign power seeks to influence who wins the US Presidential Election.

    And won't pay honest American ex-politicians, lobbyists (often the same people) and PR people to do so!

    The audacity. The cheek.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: outragesous. A foreign power seeks to influence who wins the US Presidential Election.

      "The audacity. The cheek".

      Worse still, the parsimony...

  9. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Steven Roper

      It's not so much the Reg, they seem to be as reasonable with their moderation as ever, but there does seem to be a small army of SJWs among the commentards who vigorously downvote any pro-Trump/anti-Clinton commentary, as well as any commentary critical of progressive/liberal/leftist ideology in general. Most of them seemed to turn up around about the time Page and Worstall left, although a few have been here for longer. You'll likely see them all dogpile your post as well as this post with downvotes just for pointing them out.

      Anyway, have an upvote.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        "any pro-Trump/anti-Clinton commentary"

        I think the problem with the two party system is you can't really berate Clinton without appearing to support Trump (and what sane person would?). There's no sod-the-both-of-them third option. As was mentioned above, it's getting to the point where it won't matter which America picks. They'll be screwed either way. Some choice.

        1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          I berate both, Felon more so than Blowhard - do not like either and will vote Libertarian anyway. The problem is many partisans can not stand the truth that their beloved candidate is a POS. With Felon and Blowhard the argument is which smells worse.

        2. Adrian 4 Silver badge

          Not just America. It's been that way in Britain for a decade or two. Maybe Corbyn will break the mould.

      2. GrapeBunch

        Not here, Steven Roper. Yes, I will downvote the rantings of a sloganeering ideologue, but I upvoted thoughtful criticism of Democrat presidents in this very thread.

        One impediment to global discussion is that the word "liberal" (sometimes "Liberal") means different things is different places. Liberal is different in Canada from Australia, the UK, Russia, and especially USA. So when a discussion of a USA topic contains the word "liberal", you kind-of already know that the speaker is a USA-ian, and that he's likely on auto-pilot.

        There are at least two other candidates for President in 2016: Jill Stein of the Green Party, and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. You'd think that the Libertarians would have a big following, because both of the major parties stand for Big Government (as evidenced by their records, in their different ways, and despite what they might say about it). Or that the Greens could occupy a vacuum on the Left side of the spectrum. Some say it can never happen (camel and the proverbial eye), but cursorally in 2016, I'd call those candidates and their campaigns "ineffectual", despite both parties having millions of fans, or at least survey voters. This should not be interpreted in any way as support for either of the major parties, nor for their own candidates.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          One impediment to global discussion is that the word "liberal" (sometimes "Liberal") means different things is [sic] different places. Liberal is different in Canada from Australia, the UK, Russia, and especially USA. So when a discussion of a USA topic contains the word "liberal", you kind-of already know that the speaker is a USA-ian, and that he's likely on auto-pilot.

          Obviously the word "is" means different things in different places too. This oddity doesn't appear to be reflected in either the Oxford English Dictionary, or Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. Or Chambers for that matter. Where would I find this NewSpeak dictionary whereof you squeak?

          1. Mephistro
            Angel

            Congrats, Mr. Git!

            You just caught a typo!!! Well done!

            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: Congrats, Mr. Git!

              You just caught a typo!!! Well done!

              First, it's "Pompous", not "Mister".

              Second, you may not have noticed but I don't play Grammar Policeman around these parts. However, I threw that in for good measure given that the poster appeared to be deprecating some perfectly good definitions in all of the dictionaries I own, not just the three mentioned.

        2. Steven Roper

          "One impediment to global discussion is that the word "liberal" (sometimes "Liberal") means different things is different places."

          It certainly does. I live in Australia, where we differentiate between "small-l liberals" and the Liberal-with-a-capital-L Party (and by extension the Lib/Nat Coalition) who are anything but. This is why I used the rather clumsy contstruction "progressive/liberal/leftist" to describe the group I'm referring to. I generally use the moniker "SJW" since most people now know exactly what mindset that's referring to, but I'd already used it in the post and wanted another way of putting it.

          Of course, SJWs themselves decry and belittle the use of the term, and claim that it's just an accusation used to shut down debate and stifle rational thought, which is ironic because that's exactly what those people do themselves with their incessant use of -ist, -phobic and related buzzwords like intersectional, microaggressive, privilege and so on. These words are simply shorthand for pseudosocial concepts most people are already familiar with and have been disputed ad nauseam - as is the term "SJW" to describe anyone who uses such words to rationalise discrimination and stereotyping against some groups in society while opposing it against others, and hypocritically calling that discrimination "equality."

        3. Kurt Meyer

          @GrapeBunch

          "So when a discussion of a USA topic contains the word "liberal", you kind-of already know that the speaker is a USA-ian, and that he's likely on auto-pilot."

          Here in the US, the words "conservative" and "liberal" are family-friendly, printable synonyms for "You ignorant Motherfucker".

          1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

            @Kurt Meyer - lol and how true.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            What you doing over there, witness protection program? ;)

      3. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
        Holmes

        Reality has a liberal bias

        That's "liberal" in the leftpondian sense, of course.

      4. Tom Paine

        "SJW" seems to mean roughly "not a sex case". In which case, guilty as charged.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And there you go! 8-) Six downvotes already. Where do those people get their "information" about the Flying Reptile, anyway? Most Register readers seem quite well informed about technical matters. Perhaps they are, like the engineers in "Dilbert", too gullible as a result of being used to dealing with people who habitually tell the truth.

    3. Mark 85 Silver badge

      It goes both ways. Slap one candidate and the supporters jump all over you. Slap the other one, even in the same post, and you still get kicked. And usually the kickings come with language I'd expect to see on Facebook, not a tech site.

      I'll be tickled when this election is over and we can go back to beating up MS, Apple, Googe, etc.

  10. Alien Doctor 1.1

    Do the yanks get irony?

    Probably not, they've never involved themselves in the affairs of any other country have they?

  11. a pressbutton
    Big Brother

    Different world views

    The US/EU/UK funds a Russian NGO that may not be fully aligned with the govt in power and that NGO points out that the Russian state could do better in some way.

    In the US/EU/UK this is called politics.

    In Russia this is called something between unwarranted interference in internal affairs and state sponsored terrorism.

    Russia sees the US damage/trash entire countries (panama, cuba, iraq, iran, afghanistan, add your own) to fight the US definition of state sponsored terrorism and no-one really talks about it in a negative manner (in the EU/UK).

    Russia wants some of that.

    Not to condone Russia's actions - or anyone else's

    Just pointing out that they think differently and shouting at them might not solve anything.

    Politely pointing out that deploying poisonous radio-actives in foreign capitals, shooting down passenger jets, annexing foreign countries and attempting to undermine the US election is not nice might get you somewhere in the long term.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Different world views

      Politely pointing out that deploying poisonous radio-actives in foreign capitals, shooting down passenger jets, annexing foreign countries and attempting to undermine the US election is not nice might get you somewhere in the long term.

      Not likely.

      Now, not financing a band of "freedom fighters" which take primary schools, theatres and maternity wards full of hostages in the first place would have worked. Not telling them to f*ck off (as C*ntoleeza did) when they politely asked to stop would have worked even better. As we did not do either trying any polite talk at this stage is not likely to provide the results we want as it, quite rightfully, will be considered insincere.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021