Why Obama can't do anythin g about the Russian hacking.

[Okrahoma]

@adaher

Cnn reported in April that it looks like Podesta was the moron in question. Although he got a big assist from an IT staff that apparently didn’t know the most basic security procedures

Not only did Podesta stupidly click on the phishing email, he also

1. Lost an unsecured smart phone
2. Set his password to (ROTFLMAO) “p@ssw0rd”
3. Sent his name and password to others in email in clear text
4. Used the same password (p@ssw0rd) on his twitter account and didn’t change it after the google account was compromised, thus opening it to a further “hacking”.

Podesta’s email was not “hacked”. Hacking requires some skill and sophistication. Podesta’s email was compromised because he is a moron.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Not only did Podesta stupidly click on the phishing email, he also

1. Lost an unsecured smart phone
2. Set his password to (ROTFLMAO) “p@ssw0rd”
3. Sent his name and password to others in email in clear text
4. Used the same password (p@ssw0rd) on his twitter account and didn’t change it after the google account was compromised, thus opening it to a further “hacking”.

Podesta’s email was not “hacked”. Hacking requires some skill and sophistication. Podesta’s email was compromised because he is a moron.

And your cite for all this would be…?

[Okrahoma]

Lost phone

p@ssw0rd and the clear text email

Leaving “p@ssw0rd” as his Twitter password - and as his Apple account password as well

[Gatopescado]

@leftfield6

It’s in the top 2 or 3, right? Vietnam, Iraq, ??? What else would you put above it?

“New” Coke.

[Ravenman]

I see, the consvative definition of hacking is now closing in on the conservative definition of sexual assault: it isn’t all that wrong if she was asking for it.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Lost phone

p@ssw0rd and the clear text email

Leaving “p@ssw0rd” as his Twitter password - and as his Apple account password as well

Got any mainstream news sources?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Got any mainstream news sources?

The first two are straight out of Wikileaks’ released emails.

The last one is from DailyKos but confirmed by CNN

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

The first two are straight out of Wikileaks’ released emails.

The last one is from DailyKos but confirmed by CNN

Wikileaks is not a trustworthy source. Can you prove they didn’t alter the released emails?

And there’s no mention in the CNN article about the points you listed.

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Wikileaks is not a trustworthy source. Can you prove they didn’t alter the released emails?

Can you show that they did? Did anyone whose emails were exposed claim they were altered?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Can you show that they did? Did anyone whose emails were exposed claim they were altered?

And if they claimed they were altered, they would have no way to prove it, either.
Neither side will believe that the other side did not alter the emails.

However, if Wikileaks released Podesta’s password, they did it to do damage as there was no newsworthy reason to release it.
That means they were taking sides. Specifically the side of the candidate endorsed by the Russians.

Wikileaks is no longer a neutral source of information they think shouldn’t remain hidden. (Which is a problem in itself) They’ve shown they can either be bought or bullied/forced/coerced.

[sleestak]

@Ravenman

I see, the consvative definition of hacking is now closing in on the conservative definition of sexual assault: it isn’t all that wrong if she was asking for it.

No. Conservatives realize that there are peoole out there trying to steal data and that doing things like setting your password to P@ssw0rd or setting up your own insecure email server make it much, much simpler to steal that data.Liberals, of course, have no understanding of security becuse they were out singing ‘We are the world’ instead of going to security training.

Wow, this whole making up stupid generalizations thing is fun!

Slee

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

And if they claimed they were altered, they would have no way to prove it, either.

WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails - the emails that Wikileaks has released were cryptograpically verified to be authentic. As in “This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key”.

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

Wikileaks is not a trustworthy source. Can you prove they didn’t alter the released emails?

I don’t know about “prove” to your satisfaction, but there was certainly significant evidence that that’s the case.

Are the Clinton WikiLeaks emails doctored?

Well-known hacker Robert Graham verified the email’s digital signature, a tool email providers use to confirm that an email actually came from the provider’s server without alteration.

These digital signatures are embedded in the raw sources available on the WikiLeaks website and can be used to “concretely prove that many of the emails in the Wikileaks dump are undoctored,” said cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait.

If you can prove one or more was altered, you can win yourself some money.

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t know about “prove” to your satisfaction, but there was certainly significant evidence that that’s the case.

PolitiFact | Are the Clinton WikiLeaks emails doctored, or are they authentic?

You missed this part.

It’s possible to verify the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the emails, cybersecurity experts said. So we can’t definitively say none of the thousands of leaked emails, which came from campaign chair John Podesta’s account, have been doctored.

A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled “Pay to Play.”

In massive document dumps like the Podesta email leak, the risk of encountering altered documents is heightened because it’s easy to slip them in among thousands of genuine documents, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and former lawyer for the National Security Agency.

“It is possible the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails includes forged or altered documents,” Hennessey said. “With any large leak, it is wise to proceed with caution and skepticism and verify the authenticity of documents before reporting.”

These digital signatures are embedded in the raw sources available on the WikiLeaks website and can be used to “concretely prove that many of the emails in the Wikileaks dump are undoctored,” said cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait.

However, some of the emails in the WikiLeaks dump — especially among emails sent to Podesta — don’t have these signatures and can’t be technically verified. And digital signature verification wouldn’t detect tampering by omission, like if the hackers were to withhold certain emails.

What happened to you and not accepting unnamed sources? Wikileaks where or from who they obtain these documents.

[Ravenman]

@sleestak

No. Conservatives realize that there are peoole out there trying to steal data and that doing things like setting your password to P@ssw0rd or setting up your own insecure email server make it much, much simpler to steal that data.Liberals, of course, have no understanding of security becuse they were out singing ‘We are the world’ instead of going to security training.

I’m not clear what you’re disputing, because folks often hear that it is a dangerous world and if a young woman drinks at a party, well, what did you expect to happen?

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

You missed this part.

I didn’t miss it. That’s why I called it " significant evidence that that’s the case" and not something like “absolute certainty” (which is practically never available in reality). If there’s a particular email you’d like to call into question, we can discuss specifically if it can be authenticated or not. Most of them can, perhaps a few of them cannot.

As far as “unnamed sources”, I never said that I don’t accept them. I treat them with the skepticism they deserve. In this case, there happens to be a technical way to independently authenticate (most of) the emails, so there’s no need to trust the source. I can verify it myself, and so can you.

[adaher]

Bob Gates: russia did it because Obama is weak:

Gates: Russia took advantage of Obama's weak leadership

I know it’s the Examiner, but he’s on video. Obama’s own DefSec criticized his weak leadership.

[PastTense]

Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish Russia for Putin’s Election Assault

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

[asahi]

@adaher

Bob Gates: russia did it because Obama is weak:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gates-russia-took-advantage-of-obamas-weak-leadership/article/2609940

I know it’s the Examiner, but he’s on video. Obama’s own DefSec criticized his weak leadership.

This is a tough one. Gates does have a point – Obama’s management of the political/military apparatus could be seen as indecisive, and thus ‘weak’. However, as much as I respect Gates and his assessment - and I do - I’d point out 2 things:

1. Bush was equally confounded by Putin’s maneuvers in South Ossetia and his increasingly belligerent diplomacy. It can also be argued that Bush’s foreign policy, in which Gates played no small part, actually escalated tensions with Russia from about 2002 onward.

2. Obama campaigned as a domestic president. He also campaigned on redefining America’s image and role in the world from being that of a global cop to being more of a strategic leader / partner. There’s certainly room for fair debate and criticism but Obama’s policies were, to a large degree, endorsed by an electorate that largely viewed his predecessor’s policies as a failure.

As I’ve said before, there are probably a lot of people in both administrations who can be blamed.

[asahi]

@PastTense

Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish Russia for Putin’s Election Assault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/

Yeah, but I’d have to agree with the critics on this one. Obama didn’t manage the Russia situation well. Even with the ‘reset’, it’s clear that he demonstrated the same lack of understanding in dealing with one of America’s most enduring and complex nemeses. I’ve not seen a lot of evidence to convince me that his heir apparent would have figured it out either, and she might have made it much, much worse given her track record in North Africa.