Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Go back to Danmark.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Because the "hacking" is fabricating document, disrupting communication or anything like that, it's leaking actual information like a normal whistle blower would do (and probably did).

Oh come on, we both know that's not what hacking is. Hacking certainly includes disrupting communication, but fabricating a document isn't. Here's what is hacking (technically cracking) - gaining access to secure documents, whether on a computer or "in transit", without having the password (or permission; is it okay to break into your own house?).

So yes, if someone cracked a system and leaked the secure info within, they hacked.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

communist, left wing, anti-war and ecologist groups have routinely been funded by the USSR

Not sure if attacking ecologists

or just making a weird point

[Vilanat]

Let's assume for discussion sake DA RUSSIANS did hack the DNC and leaked those emails, so what?

Obviously the U.S should ramp up their cyber security protocols and this is an almost free wake up call and obviously the U.S should counter the Russian aggression on all fronts and this is an almost free wake up call. So if this entire hack resulted in exposing information to the public, exposing Russian aggression and exposing U.S weak spots then the Russians had done good service to the U.S since these hacks didn't determine the result of the election.

[LoSboccacc]

Let's assume for discussion sake DA RUSSIANS did hack the DNC and leaked those emails, so what?

I don't think this all refers to the DNC emails. They repeated multiple times the content was inconsequential, that nothing of value was there and that they had not any impact of the public opinion. So it needs to be some other hack, right?

[Vilanat]

So Hillary's and Podesta mails, same thing basically. the bottom line is that their Hacks didn't involve actual, direct, vote tampering.

Edit - typo

[Rockphed]

Also amusingly, in the voting recount led by Jill Stein in an effort to win crucial states, Trump increased his votecount as it was revealed officials accidentally gave Clinton 22,748 more votes than she actually got.

That isn't what that link says.  That link says that the final tally had Trump ahead by 22000 and change, not that 22000 and change votes were declared invalid.

communist, left wing, anti-war and ecologist groups have routinely been funded by the USSR

Not sure if attacking ecologists

or just making a weird point

Which is weird since communist countries have a really, really bad track record for environmental issues.

[smjjames]

Yeah, there's no proof that they actually changed the results (machine malfunctions are FAR more likely) and while the leaks did have some effect, the way the Dems did the entire thing, from the pre-crowning to ignoring the facts on the ground and the way that they ran the campaign did a lot more to hurt Clinton than the Russian meddling in general.

Heck, Bill Clinton kept warning them to not ignore the working class people in the rural and suburban areas.

The Russian meddling was just one wrench among many in the works.

So Hillary's and Podesta mails, same thing basically. the bottom line is that their Hacks didn't involve actual, direct, vote tempering.

You mean tAmpering.

[smjjames]

As for the hack itself, yeah the podesta emails were inconsequential, aside from opening a window into normally hidden campaign clockwork, but the main thing they did was keep the whole email server thing dripping.

[LoSboccacc]

"attributing what happened to a particular government can be difficult, not always provable in court, even tough our intelligence communities can make an assessment"

"I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern"

I guess meming hard is now leet haxor skillz

[Shadowlord]

"I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern"

This means "hacking voting machines or tabulation machines to tamper with the results"

[Rockphed]

Do you really want to discuss stupid? Because we can discuss the number of people who think Obama caused the 2008 housing crisis and Bush found WMDs.

From that conservative shill-piece, the New York Times: chemical weapons were found in Iraq.  I spent most of my energy finding that finding a source you would even possibly consider reliable.

[LoSboccacc]

"I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern"

This means "hacking voting machines or tabulation machines to tamper with the results"

ikr?

[smjjames]

Since when is the NYT a conservative shill-piece?

Also, the WMDs that bush was going on about were nukes, not chemical and biological weapons. We already knew Saddam had chemical weapons.

[Lord Shonus]

It was the claim of active efforts to construct and stockpile chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons that was the justification for the war, and no such program was discovered.

Abandoned weapons (disposed of badly to complete stockpile destruction) of that sort weren't the goal, and weren't even much a secret. If those were a violation of the international ban on chemical weapons, most nations -including the United States- would be in violation because most nations still have chemical weapons stockpiled awaiting destruction.

@smjjames
It is obvious that Rockphed used "conservative shill-piece" in an ironic or sarcastic fashion.