Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 74

Thread: Russian hacking of the US election

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    normalise cyber warfare. justify funding.

  2. #17

    Default

    Do they really need to do either of those things?

    Publicising evidence Russia tampered with the election is obviously harmful to its legitimacy and that of the government so it seems strange that they would do so even (perhaps especially) if it were true.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    Well let's think of something else then. Together we should be able to come up with something.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    One theory doing the rounds is that Trump is the figurehead of a military/naval intelligence takeover

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    That a different branch of the deep state has mounted a kind of coup in which the CIA is the loser

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    6,346

    Default

    Its also strange that the head of the FBI would make an election changing non-announcement 2 weeks before polls open.

    Its almost as if there are competing interests in the political/intelligence/military establishments.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Re: "Russian hacking", one thing I have trouble understanding is why the CIA would want to publicise it.
    If they didn't publicise it, they'd run the risk of someone leaking it (believing it to be in the public interest). If the democrats and the public at large found out that the CIA were sitting on evidence of Russian hacking, which may have influenced the election results, many would see this as evidence of partisanship. This may in turn have consequences for the CIA (funding, firings, etc.).

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Do they really need to do either of those things?

    Publicising evidence Russia tampered with the election is obviously harmful to its legitimacy and that of the government so it seems strange that they would do so even (perhaps especially) if it were true.
    No, it's as Luka said. Don't forget, these are first and foremost bureaucracies where certain key figures fight for power and influence. That's usually best done via money/fundling.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    The question is a kind of Rorschach test, which is why it's a great question.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to luka For This Useful Post:


  11. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Never underestimate the possibility of a cabal going on, too. If there's a security problem somehwere, soenone is responsible, and that certain smeone may be the enemy of somebody else etc. Career driven sniping...

  12. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    One theory doing the rounds is that Trump is the figurehead of a military/naval intelligence takeover
    steve Bannon, former Navy ... there you have it

  13. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,079

    Default

    I know this is hardly the main point here, but has anyone else noticed the quaint language invariably used in news reports on hacking, Wikileaks and so on?

    Kragh also mentions a fake telegram which suggested that former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt might be appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine.
    I mean, surely we're not talking about a literal telegram here? Other favourites include 'wire', 'cable' and the cryptic 'comminiqué'. Are they all just silly journalistic synonyms for 'email', or what?

    It's actually not an entirely superficial point when you consider how hard or otherwise it might be to convincingly fake an official message. A physical letter will need a signature and will presumably be printed on headed paper, and while an email doesn't need any of that, it must have some sort of digital signature for the purposes of verification.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  14. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefinga View Post
    steve Bannon, former Navy ... there you have it
    yep lynchpin of the theory.

  15. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    I know this is hardly the main point here, but has anyone else noticed the quaint language invariably used in news reports on hacking, Wikileaks and so on?

    I mean, surely we're not talking about a literal telegram here?
    Hopefully, we do. Dump twitter, go telegram again!

  16. #30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •