Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Politics

Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say (nymag.com) 285

Posted by msmash from the Russia's-growing-interest dept.
A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report: The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say More

Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say

Comments Filter:

  • Seriously: wouldn't ever happen to Republicans (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:18AM (#52683873)

    This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because they're so old. They'd get competent sysadmins to run the servers, proficient clerks to print out their emails each morning, and they'd dictate their replies to a transcriptionist who can remember her fucking password.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )
      Applause for changing the subject away from the very damaging contents of these emails. There are persuasion courses that charge top dollar to teach these things. The Democratic Party in America is not what everyone thought it was. They are racist, elitist, election-fixing, democracy-shitting-on assholes. People all over the world have been shocked by just how evil they were revealed to be. But on stories like this, change the subject as often as possible, that's a solid move. Get people talking about
      • Those emails aren't damaging. Nothing sticks to these people. They just want to manufacture controversy so that both sides' pawns have something they need their king for. The world ruling class is not what everyone thinks it is.
      • Hear, hear. For some reason, the people in this country can't possibly imagine that the democrats are racist, elitist election fixing democracy-shitting-on-assholes. It just goes to show you that W. C. Fields was right.

      • The Democratic Party in America is not what everyone thought it was. They are racist, elitist, election-fixing, democracy-shitting-on assholes.

        No, that's more or less what I considered them to be. The racism is deeper and more widespread than I expected, though tbh.

  • There used to be a time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jothar hillpeople ( 1789504 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:20AM (#52683883)
    There used to be a time when the press acted as investigative journalists, and worked with whistleblowers to expose political corruption and hold politicians accountable for their actions (think Watergate). This was lauded as necessary for the function of the country. Now, this function has been outsourced to the FSB, and the corruption they reveal is denigrated as "interfering with the sanctity of the electoral process". How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?

      Good luck with that. Ever since Journalism schools started teaching students that it's a-okay to write in "order to change the world" instead of "present a view as neutrally as possible and let the reader decide." It's been a problem, one can't forget either that academia has a huge left-wing problem, and that in turn has created an entire echo chamber which believes that it's perfectly okay to do whatever they want in order to win. It's so bad in the soft sciences [cambridge.org] that people are sending out the warning [heterodoxacademy.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually, the news doesn't have a huge left wing problem. If it did, Bernie Sanders would have been flooding the news last election and they would have frozen out someone else.

        We have a huge establishment media problem. And the establishment is mostly right wing which is what our media is overall compared to most other nations.

        The main times I see left wing stuff brought up it is typically some protest on police violence or something to drive a divide. Outside of those wedge issues, the media is pretty firm

      • Re:There used to be a time... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @10:05AM (#52684151)
        Odd, because if anything, I see the exact opposite. From my experience, the (big/mainstream) media seems very keen on trying to achieve false balance, even to the point of ridiculousness, by giving "both sides" the opportunity to say whatever their position is, even if one of those is grossly factually incorrect. They get lambasted by both sides for it, albeit usually at different times.

        And if anything, the push to replace fact-based media with opinion-based hasn't come from journalism schools, it's come from the rise of explicitly partisan media, first on the right, and then followed by the left. The cry of "biased mainstream media" has been a largely self-serving one, both from politicians whose interest it was to push back on evidence-based yet unfavorable stories, never-mind from the purveyors of alternate media who have it in their direct interest to attack their competition. And it's not going away, either - the internet enables everyone to access any number of sources, right or wrong, evidence or opinion based.

        Ultimately, it's not possible anymore to simply rely on someone else to do your critical thinking for you. You, the reader, have to assess things like the bias of the source, their past record, the evidence presented, et cetera. Don't trust it just because website X or news commentator Y said so. This goes for everyone, not just right or left or center.

      • and? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @11:15AM (#52684591)

        I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?

        The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.

        Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.

        When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.

      • Is the press bias to the left or ideologically neutral to a fault? You can't really be both, ya know? They're polar opposites.

        Anyway here the reality: the press is left on social issues (guns, abortion) and right on economic ones (e.g. the ones that actually matter). Outside of Mother Jones you won't find anyone seriously investigating income inequality or the massive wealth grab that happened post 2008. My favorite are a bunch of stories I keep reading about why the middle class' spending isn't going up

      • Until AIs write the news, it's natural for media sources to be biased. But the reason that we of the dark side get our news from the Internet is that at least it offers a diversity of bias.

    • Because they don't want to suddenly feel the urge to commit suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head?

    • Re:There used to be a time... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @10:27AM (#52684327)

      IMHO, the "Democrats with bylines" label has become a real problem, even to the point now where journalists have invented a debate where they ask with Trump if they even have to bother with the kabuki theater of neutral journalism. My sense is that this is a symptom of collective bias infused with personal rage. They're so disgusted with him on an ideological level that they can't even maintain a level of professional neutrality.

      I'm no Trump supporter, but the media and especially the print media seems to massively misquote and misinterpret him. On too many occasions I've seen him speak in video clips and the stories that wind up in print about the same sound bites that appeared in the videos seem as if the reporters are paranoid schizophrenics. Maybe Trump has a manner of speaking that doesn't translate to print, or maybe reporters are willfully twisting his words, or some other reasonable explanation, but so often the media coverage of him seems entirely disconnected from reality, giving the appearance of extreme bias.

      The bias was more subtle against Sanders in favor of Clinton, but the media's unquestioning support and lack of criticism of her seems extremely apparent to me.

      • Re:There used to be a time... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Cow Ward ( 4161549 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @02:30PM (#52686087)
        I have to agree - I dislike Trump on both a personal and ideological level, but so much of what is said about him is bafflingly untrue. And that just makes his supporters more rabid, because now they have evidence that what he's saying - the media is a collusion, they're covering things up, he's an outsider who will change things - is true. And the more that, in their heads, he's right about one thing, the more likely they think he is to be right about other things.

        He gets more support from independents that way too; they don't like him to start with, but if they find out that they've been lied to, the urge to cast a protest vote becomes stronger, and the desire to support the establishment candidate dwindles.

        • Re:There used to be a time... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @02:56PM (#52686277)

          I have to agree - I dislike Trump on both a personal and ideological level, but so much of what is said about him is bafflingly untrue. And that just makes his supporters more rabid, because now they have evidence that what he's saying - the media is a collusion, they're covering things up, he's an outsider who will change things - is true. And the more that, in their heads, he's right about one thing, the more likely they think he is to be right about other things.

          Part of me thinks I should really dislike him on so many levels, but I've just seen so many instances where the media just wildly misquotes or misinterprets what he says in the most negative way possible that it gets hard to trust why I don't like him, without feeling like I'm falling for a propaganda technique.

  • "A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic.." (Score:5, Informative)

    by colin_faber ( 1083673 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:25AM (#52683919)

    Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.

    The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.

    I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.

    • Re:"A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:39AM (#52684001)

      Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I find it strangely ironic though that hackers have broken all of the major news stories this election cycle and it's the reports trying to cover them all up. Fucked up world we're in these days.

      • I wonder how deeply concerned the media would be with the source of the hacks as opposed to what they exposed if the target had been the RNC instead of the DNC?

    • Re:"A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:48AM (#52684055) Journal

      I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.

      It's almost as if their primary goal is propaganda instead of the reporting of facts...

    • Re:"A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @10:14AM (#52684239)
      "Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same." -- Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Principle_
    • I'm more apt to believe that the IT guy Killed in early July that WikiLeaks has a reward for his killers was actually the source of the leaks. What IT guy wouldn't have had motive given the DNC's position on H1B, who was also in a key position in IT to get ALL the emails, and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen? I hear ghosts of the 90's coming back which was my main issue with Clinton back in 08.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen?

        Or just a botched robbery. Guy get's held up, resists/makes noise, robber shoots him then runs off before people call the cops or come outside and see him. Or the robber shoots him then runs off before he can take anything because a car is coming down the street. Hell, could even have just been a random killing like what's going on in Phoenix or a target of opportunity for some guy trying to look tough/join a gang. All of these scenarios are at least as plausible as a Clinton/DNC hit.

    • That phenomenon is called the "echo chamber", where you have 30 or so outlets quoting and referencing each other in a cyclical fashion rather than the other 29 outlets checking original sources. The result is like the rumor game; eventually what is said is so wildly distorted it's unrecognizable. The problem is that by outlets doing this, is you have so many people saying the same thing it lends an aura of credibility to something with very little actual fact behind it. The root cause is the 24 news cycl

  • As usual, the stories in the press are disappointingly sparse in detail. A few things that would be interesting to know:

    1. Were these "100 party officials and groups" all using the same private email provider? Which one?
    2. What is the convincing evidence that Russia was the source of the cracks?
    3. When Comey discussed HRC's private email server, he said it was likely to have been penetrated by Russia, but they were too skilled to leave evidence of the crack so the FBI couldn't be sure. So the Russians were too skil

  • The idea, that Russians are behind this is a red herring. Put out by anonymous sources it serves only to change the topic — from the contents of the e-mails and the negligence of the Democratic officials (including their Presidential nominee).

    According to Assange, for example, Wikileaks got their data from DNC-sources including the misteriously murdered Seth Conrad Rich [thegatewaypundit.com].

    Maybe, Russians were involved too, maybe not. But the facts remain: DNC officials (including Hillary Clinton herself) are incompetent in computer security and dishonest.

  • That the "Russian Breach" story is still being pursued actively (this is by the same FBI that refused to prosecute the Secretary of State for gross secrecy and public-information violations) when it's growing clearer that the recently-murdered DNC staffer was likely the source of the leaks.

    Willful ignorance, anyone?

  • Presuming the Russians want to damage her campaign, if she does get elected then we'll have elected her despite having seen all her dirty laundry. She'll be the most transparently elected President in history.

  • Karma's a bitch (Score:3)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @10:40AM (#52684411)

    The majority of legislators and politicians in the US seem hell-bent on destroying everyone's privacy in the name of "national security". Now the Dems are experiencing the result of Russia's attempts to further its own national agenda by invading US politicians' privacy. There's at least a little poetic justice in that, methinks...

    • It's always fun when lawmakers are caught in their own trap. When their own privacy is violated by the surveillance programs they authorize...when they are caught violating some silly law they passed...when they have to personally pay some outrageous tax they imposed on the rest of us...it just feels good. Now if we can just get Congress to have to get the same kind of retirement plan and health insurance the rest of us get....sigh...that would be a bridge too far.

  • Putin is on Trump's payroll. I don't know who said it, but I hear people say that. Could be true. (Said exactly as trump would say about crazy crap)

  • Having lived near Fort Meade, I have always believed that if NSA was out to get me, I couldn't stop it. Something they would do would get around my security. The one thing I could count on is that NSA was highly unlikely to actually take an interest in me. So I will take reasonable measures, but I don't walk around covered in tin foil.

    Yet so many of those that have good reason to think that they would be a target of highly competent infiltrators appear to rely on the same hope of obscurity. And so do their

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close