hacking
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
hacking
Ignoring the FBI assessment, going solely with the CIA's: Russia was naughty, tapped into data bases it shouldn't have, released -- by way of Wikileaks -- a whole whack of information embarrassing to Democrats, the Democrat Party, and the Clintons.
The focus (in the American press) is largely on the hack and not the information. Talking heads are outraged that Russia would attempt to sway the election.
Now, as no one on the Left has denied the accuracy of the released information, I wonder: if the American press had done its job and released the information, would folks be claiming journalists were skewing the election, or would folks just applaud the press for doin' its job?
It's irksome: I get better reporting from hostile nations and organizations than I do the native press.
The focus (in the American press) is largely on the hack and not the information. Talking heads are outraged that Russia would attempt to sway the election.
Now, as no one on the Left has denied the accuracy of the released information, I wonder: if the American press had done its job and released the information, would folks be claiming journalists were skewing the election, or would folks just applaud the press for doin' its job?
It's irksome: I get better reporting from hostile nations and organizations than I do the native press.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: hacking
Any idea what the information was?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
The high points that I recall...
*The Democrat National Convention, instead of acting as the the neutral facilitator of the Democrat nomination process, actively (and covertly) worked against Saunders and for Clinton. The DNC (as the formal aspect of the party) claims to be the conduit for the 'will of the people' (a will in favor, mostly, for Saunders)...well and fine till the 'will of the people' conflicted with the 'will of the powers that be' in the party (mostly in favor of Clinton).
*The American press, actively cooperated with the Democrats to hobble Republican candidates, going as far as to craft debate questions (and overall election coverage) with the assistance and guidance of Democrat movers and shakers. Like the DNC, which is chartered to be neutral (but isn't), the American press is a hypocritical affair, tossing publically held ethics out the window in favor of ideological bent.
*Clinton (both) ethics are shown to be so situational, so shifty (in business, politics, and in how the two spheres were mixed), as to be nonexistent.
As I say, the high points that come to mind.
*The Democrat National Convention, instead of acting as the the neutral facilitator of the Democrat nomination process, actively (and covertly) worked against Saunders and for Clinton. The DNC (as the formal aspect of the party) claims to be the conduit for the 'will of the people' (a will in favor, mostly, for Saunders)...well and fine till the 'will of the people' conflicted with the 'will of the powers that be' in the party (mostly in favor of Clinton).
*The American press, actively cooperated with the Democrats to hobble Republican candidates, going as far as to craft debate questions (and overall election coverage) with the assistance and guidance of Democrat movers and shakers. Like the DNC, which is chartered to be neutral (but isn't), the American press is a hypocritical affair, tossing publically held ethics out the window in favor of ideological bent.
*Clinton (both) ethics are shown to be so situational, so shifty (in business, politics, and in how the two spheres were mixed), as to be nonexistent.
As I say, the high points that come to mind.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: hacking
Oh dear lord. Fancy anyone interfering in US politics. I mean, the US would never do such a thing to another country.
And I doubt if the 'revelations' affected the outcome. The Trump tape was worse, and I think if anything it made him more popular.
And I doubt if the 'revelations' affected the outcome. The Trump tape was worse, and I think if anything it made him more popular.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re:
Thanks--I'd hope they'd have details that support those claims empirically rather than just making the claims, though.henry quirk wrote:The high points that I recall...
*The Democrat National Convention, instead of acting as the the neutral facilitator of the Democrat nomination process, actively (and covertly) worked against Saunders and for Clinton. The DNC (as the formal aspect of the party) claims to be the conduit for the 'will of the people' (a will in favor, mostly, for Saunders)...well and fine till the 'will of the people' conflicted with the 'will of the powers that be' in the party (mostly in favor of Clinton).
*The American press, actively cooperated with the Democrats to hobble Republican candidates, going as far as to craft debate questions (and overall election coverage) with the assistance and guidance of Democrat movers and shakers. Like the DNC, which is chartered to be neutral (but isn't), the American press is a hypocritical affair, tossing publically held ethics out the window in favor of ideological bent.
*Clinton (both) ethics are shown to be so situational, so shifty (in business, politics, and in how the two spheres were mixed), as to be nonexistent.
As I say, the high points that come to mind.
At any rate, some of that has more fundamental problems. For example, I don't believe that a lack of bias/a lack of ideological bents is possible. Of course, a lot of folks believe that it is possible and they pay lip service to that, but in my view it's really not possible, so the fact that something was biased/ideological isn't damning information, it's unavoidable. What can be controlled to some extent, though, is the exact manner in which something is biased/ideological.
Re: hacking
Honestly, what does it matter that the naughty Ruskies hacked an already overly rigged system? In the past many decades dead voters has voted, many voters will vote multiple times at different voting areas, the voting machines are notoriously hacked when they select 1 candidate it jumps down to another ..the custodes says it's a matter of calibrating the machines after just 4 votes.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: hacking
Sounds like some kind of snack food I'm not familiar with. Like saying, "Don't blame me--I voted for Cheetos""TSBU wrote:Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: hacking
Everyone should learn and use PGP in this day and age, if they want to protect their data and communications. And if it's not important, who cares what shit they gather on me. It's not illegal, anyways.