First, hacking is wrong. But let’s not pretend that some entity in this country isn’t hacked almost every day. The results of those efforts have cost American businesses and the American economy tens of billions of dollars through the theft of intellectual property, while the monetary damage to us of having our personal confidential information hacked is almost impossible to calculate. Yet for some reason, those activities are accepted almost as a matter of course, while the hacking of the DNC is a national outrage.
Second, let’s also not pretend that the United States hasn’t influenced or otherwise pressured the selection of numerous national leaders in other countries many times in the last 70 years, if not by hacking then by some other less technological methods. That makes the uproar over this current tit-for-tat seem almost self-righteously hypocritical.
Third, I’ve not heard or read one word that even a single voter changed his mind about their presidential choice as a result of the hack. So what effect did it really have, other than making us look bad and pointing out our cyber vulnerabilities?
Fourth, I’ve also not heard or read one word claiming that a single word in a single document was altered by the hackers before the documents were released. If the contents remain in their original form, and they are damaging or embarrassing to one party or the other, is that a bad thing? While the act of obtaining them may be nefarious, is the resulting information necessarily so as well?
Aside from the legal issues, there is a moral issue as well.
Especially when one recalls Trump asking the Russians to hack his opponents computers.
What the hacking exposed is a good thing. Russian hacking isn't.
by Wabash » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:08 pmNo, he assumed her e-mails had already been hacked (probably by multiple players), and he asked the Russians, who were among the usual suspects, to bring them out in the open for all to see.
...Especially when one recalls Trump asking the Russians to hack his opponents computers.
What was I thinking?
In a word, no. But it's not a black and white issue either. Is such theft justified when we do it, in our national interests? Was Daniel Ellsberg justified? What about Edward Snowden?Wabash wrote:Are you justifying an act of theft?
I'm sure it's only a coincidence that Snowden is in Russia at the same time these cyber attacks were occurring.
Really, the only thing of any substance that was in any of the emails was the one about the debate question. That the machine was working against Bernie was already known and the guy trying (and failing) to get his friend a job was actually in Hillary's favor. All the rest was just politics as usual.Professor Fate wrote:What the hacking exposed is a good thing.
John Q. Public
It's also telling that Russia apparently really wanted one candidate over another. That should make folks sit up and take notice. Why did Russia feel it was so important to invest in the election of Trump? What do they expect to gain from this? What sort of influence do they (or may they) have over Trump?
As for the content of the messages. What disturbs me is that folks are outraged over the content. Do they not understand how politics work?
by John Q. Public » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:40 pmSo it had no effect on the election then?
Really, the only thing of any substance that was in any of the emails was the one about the debate question. That the machine was working against Bernie was already known and the guy trying (and failing) to get his friend a job was actually in Hillary's favor. All the rest was just politics as usual.
It very well could have for some people but I can't speak for them. The Conservative press went nuts over them whether there was anything there or not, so there's no telling how the fence sitters or somebody who really didn't like Hillary but was going to bite the bullet and vote for her anyway might have reacted. From what I saw here it didn't sound like many people spent much time actually reading the emails.Professor Fate wrote:So it had no effect on the election then?
John Q. Public
That's the same article/link/observation I posted on the previous page...the post I began with "Anybody bother to read anymore?"not4u13 wrote:I've read this article a couple of times. It does a reasonably good job of describing what the cyber attacks were and how we know it was the Russians.
So anyway, at least there's a couple of us that actually bother to research the facts...the opinions of those that don't, or won't, don't really matter...
I agree, but it's a significant event with, thus far, no discernible effect.not4u13 wrote:I agree MDDAD that hacking does occur very frequently and that the US has done its own election manipulation in the past. Those things don't change what has occurred and how a seemingly large number of people seem to dismiss it as a yawner. It's a significant event.
Perhaps, but not so much as it marks our awakening to the realities of international manipulations.It marks a change in our elections process.
We can longer pretend that our election process is not vulnerable to outside cyber influence. If we were ever so naive to pretend the process was never vulnerable to influence of any kind, shame on us.We can no longer pretend that our election process is not vulnerable to outside influence.