Is there any truth of Russia hacking?

[sovietchild]

Is there any truth of Russia hacking the USA? Can the government just make it up just for the media?

 

[Augustus]

Yes of course, cyberwarfare has been a very active part of Russian policy since at least the 2007 attacks on Estonia.

They are not the only country to be using these techniques though, one of the more famous examples was the US-Israeli stuxnet attack on Iran.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The British security at Cheltenham say that Russia was involved, so I am sure they were.

 

[buddhist]

I would be extremely surprised if it can be proven that there are governments who do not involve themselves in hacking.

 

[YmirGF]

Is there any truth of Russia hacking the USA? Can the government just make it up just for the media?

It's been common knowledge in tech circles for decades that all countries are actively hacking into places they should not be. Hehehe... As recently as the 80's even the Pentagon was practically wide open on the internet. No one had given much thought to hacking back then.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its totally nuts. Take all that military stuff and put it back on paper and microfiche. Make elections secure, and for goodness sakes somebody stop making our usb ports programmable. I can't believe its legal to sell computers that allow their usb ports to be re-purposed by every passing virus. Crazy!

 

[Neo Deist]

People are getting the wrong impression when the media reports that Russia hacked the election. Russia did not alter votes, change the electoral college, or falsify any ballots. Russia was not responsible for Hillary's loss.

What was initially reported was that Russia hacked the DNC and released information to Wikileaks about the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and how the debates were rigged/favored for Hillary. Wikileaks denies that Russia is the source. The information that was provided was actually stuff that the American public SHOULD have been made aware of so that they could vote accordingly. In other words, candidates need to have complete transparency, as does the debate/election process, and Wikileaks helped provide that transparency with regard to Hillary and the DNC.

If it is true that Russia hacked the DNC, then all they did was help air out the dirty laundry.

Supposedly, the Wikileaks source was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, who was conveniently murdered (shot in the back) in Washington, D.C.

 

[suncowiam]

Common, it's probably some fat kid on a bed doing all the hacking. Because anyone can do it. Use some logic.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes the whole thing was made up by miserable looses, who just cannot except their loss.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes the whole thing was made up by miserable looses, who just cannot except their loss.

You claiming it was made up is as valid as those claiming it was real without further evidence. This isn't about just losing an election.

All the folks worried about the result of the election, stop worrying. It's over, the president has been decided.

 

[suncowiam]

People are getting the wrong impression when the media reports that Russia hacked the election. Russia did not alter votes, change the electoral college, or falsify any ballots. Russia was not responsible for Hillary's loss.

What was initially reported was that Russia hacked the DNC and released information to Wikileaks about the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and how the debates were rigged/favored for Hillary. Wikileaks denies that Russia is the source. The information that was provided was actually stuff that the American public SHOULD have been made aware of so that they could vote accordingly. In other words, candidates need to have complete transparency, as does the debate/election process, and Wikileaks helped provide that transparency with regard to Hillary and the DNC.

If it is true that Russia hacked the DNC, then all they did was help air out the dirty laundry.

Supposedly, the Wikileaks source was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, who was conveniently murdered (shot in the back) in Washington, D.C.

Your argument is valid but we should have known everything else pertinent to Trump, the GOP and the Russians for everyone to make a FAIR decision. Half truths are not the same as the WHOLE truth. So if some entity wants to release information to fix corruption, I'm fine with that. But please don't fool yourselves that that was where the corruption stopped at.

 

[Augustus]

Supposedly, the Wikileaks source was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, who was conveniently murdered (shot in the back) in Washington, D.C.

For the sake of balance, it would also be very convenient to pin it on a dead person if you wanted to obscure the true source of the information. Doubly so if it made said person's death fit the narrative of the right wing conspiracy theorists out there.

And I can't possibly think of any possible reason the alleged rapist Assange could potentially hold a grudge against anyone who is part of the American political establishment. It's also not like he has anything to gain personally from a new regime in Washington that views him in a more favourable light.

If I was looking for a bastion of moral probity and dispassionate honesty, then an alleged rapist, with a personal grudge, zero accountability and a massive personal interest including his very freedom for the rest of his life at stake would probably be one of the very few people who were further down my list than politicians.

 

[psychoslice]

You claiming it was made up is as valid as those claiming it was real without further evidence. This isn't about just losing an election.

All the folks worried about the result of the election, stop worrying. It's over, the president has been decided.

Well why are you carrying on, are you one of those sore loses ?.

 

[suncowiam]

Well why are you carrying on, are you one of those sore loses ?.

What are you talking about? It's like you didn't read the comment. Your assertion had no basis. You have no clue who hacked the DNC. Plus you didn't link any sources to help your theory.

Plus, I could respect your opinions about US politics if you had an actual objective concern. As opposed to the racial slur against Obama being a Muslim when he's not. Then theres the comparison of Muslims to warmongers when they are not as a whole. You have no basis discussing anything outside of discrimination and hate.

Concerning the election, it is what it is. It's done with. Just because I care about who hacked America does not imply that I'm trying to link it back to the elections. Seems like most people can't understand that the hacking is more about national security than it is about bipartisan politics.

 

[psychoslice]

What are you talking about? It's like you didn't read the comment. Your assertion had no basis. You have no clue who hacked the DNC. Plus you didn't link any sources to help your theory.

Plus, I could respect your opinions about US politics if you had an actual objective concern. As opposed to the racial slur against Obama being a Muslim when he's not. Then theres the comparison of Muslims to warmongers when they are not as a whole. You have no basis discussing anything outside of discrimination and hate.

Concerning the election, it is what it is. It's done with. Just because I care about who hacked America does not imply that I'm trying to link it back to the elections. Seems like most people can't understand that the hacking is more about national security than it is about bipartisan politics.

I don't agree with all you said, but then its all depends where we get our information from, and even then we don't really know the truth, and yes Trump won, so lets let him get on with his job............and throw that Obama out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How can the election be hacked?