
Russian Hack of Elections System Was Far-Reaching, Report Finds - kediz
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hack-of-elections-system-was-far-reaching-report-finds.html
======
40acres
I don't understand Mitch McConnell's reluctance to passing an election
security measure, I would've that assumed that a voter suppression strategy
that utilized the new law would be finalized by now.

~~~
ericras
You would have to know more about the proposals he blocked to have an informed
opinion. This is such a surface level strife of McConnell that it’s close to
“why won’t he think of the children?” The article should have linked to a
previous story specifically about that proposed legislation.

~~~
johnsolo1701
> Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also asked for consent to pass legislation
> that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members
> to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments.

> McConnell also objected to that bill.

Make up your own mind.

~~~
m0zg
100% chance it wasn't the only thing in that bill. It also opens up any
candidate, democratic or republican, to FISA surveillance down the line, which
is something that I can guarantee will be abused at some point. In fact it
already _was_ abused against Trump. FISA warrants to spy on his campaign were
obtained by misleading the FISA court with what we now know was fake evidence.
There's also a strong possibility that McConell wants voter ID, which is
something the Democrats are strangely reluctant to introduce even though it's
quite a popular thing to require: Mexico, for instance, does have voter ID.

I'm hypothesizing here, I haven't read the bill, but then neither have you, so
you're "making up your own mind" based on a shallow regurgitation of democrat
talking points and without any critical thinking.

~~~
belltaco
>In fact it already _was_ abused against Trump. FISA warrants to spy on his
campaign were obtained by misleading the FISA court with what we now know was
fake evidence.

Source? Carter Page had a FISA warrant against him after he left the Trump
campaign. And none of it was based on fake evidence. Sounds like you're just
regurgitating Republican and Fox News talking points without any critical
thinking.

>There's also a strong possibility that McConell wants voter ID, which is
something the Democrats are strangely reluctant to introduce even though it's
quite a popular thing to require

Republicans are strangely against giving voting IDs or state IDs for free to
low income people. They also restrict early voting to make poor people choose
between losing pay and voting, and are also against making election day a
national holiday. They are also on record stating that the voter ID laws will
help them win.

~~~
18pfsmt
>Republicans are strangely against giving voting IDs or state IDs for free to
low income people. They also restrict early voting to make poor people choose
between losing pay and voting, and are also against making election day a
national holiday. They are also on record stating that the voter ID laws will
help them win.

In the United States, we have 50 sovereign states that are responsible for
election systems/laws. Distributing power was a key feature in the founding of
the USA, and shitting on the design in order meet a goal (I personally happen
to appreciate) does not justify the means.

Mis-characterizing your opponent's argument is not helpful.

------
acqq
However, from the coverage by Think Progress:

"The heavily redacted, 67-page report _found no evidence that Russia was able
to alter vote counts in 2016_ , when Russia carried out what Mueller’s final
report called a “sweeping and systematic” hacking and disinformation
campaign."

~~~
johnsolo1701
Isn't the whole point of the disinformation campaign to make people vote a
certain way? With this in mind, altering votes _directly_ by hacking voting
machines isn't necessarily the problem people are worried about. It's
indirectly changing votes due to the foreign assistance/misinformation, which
is illegal under our system. I think it's a reasonable concern and we
shouldn't ignore it, just because votes weren't changed directly by hacking. A
law that requires campaigns to disclose to authorities if they receive illegal
offers of assistance is sensible IMHO.

~~~
marcusverus
The title of the article seems taylor-made to suggest that Russia hacked
voting machines. That’s what prompted the top level response. The headline is
misleading.

Nobody suggested that Russian disinformation is unimportant.

------
cwkoss
Are technical details on what they actually did publicly available?

Was this just a portscan and someone logging into an unsecured database? Did
they use a zero day or was a system unpatched with a known vulnerability?

~~~
ericras
This has been my problem with the Russia story. We never get enough detail to
make our own judgement of the severity of this. The media and the Democrats
lump everything together under the umbrella of “Russia hacked our
election/democracy”. Aside from the nonsensical nature of that statement, it
has been a catch-all term for everything from Facebook ads to hacking some
state commission’s Wordpress site that contained no secure data.... to
possibly real hacks of important systems which are still classified. I really
don’t care about the former but the later would be a big deal.

~~~
zelon88
Lets ignore the nomenclature for a minute. Russians used American social media
to manipulate public opinion to help implement a Russian sympathizing
Administration. Ignore the verbiage. Start with that.

~~~
jessaustin
That sounds like a great thing to raise as an issue in an election. Lots of
voters might care about that. However, we have a First Amendment, so it's not
against the law for anyone to talk to anyone else. That's the case whether
it's some weird social media thing like those pictures of Bernie with big
muscles or an actual true fact like that the DNC staff sent emails to each
other discussing how they had screwed over Bernie. That is strictly legal,
whether it is done by Russians or by the _Citizens United_ dudes or by the
actual Wikipedia source.

~~~
FuckButtons
The first amendment does not protect the right of foreign nations to dispense
propaganda. Indeed there are in fact provisions prohibiting foreign nations
involving themselves in the election process in the US constitution.

~~~
jessaustin
Try again, greenbean. The text is literally this:

 _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances._

I don't see the words "foreign nations" in there anywhere? Why are you posting
this falsehood under a new account?

~~~
dang
Please see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20538796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20538796).

------
kediz
If this far-reaching hack succeed, it might be the end of Democracy as we know
it: Now the elected official has a vested-interest not to deter foreign
hacking and the vicious cycle might go on.

~~~
Fej
That's not just a hypothetical. From the article:

> It also landed hours after Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader,
> personally stepped forward to block consideration of a package of election
> security bills.

The Republicans are rejecting election security bills precisely because Russia
has intervened to their benefit, and will probably continue to do so.
President Trump has also openly asked for interference from Russia, if memory
serves.

These attacks are acts of war and we need to start treating them as such. That
won't happen as long as those attacks benefit those in power.

~~~
youareostriches
It would seem that the first step would be to delegitimize those election
results and any ensuing laws or orders from those officials.

~~~
rabidrat
The problem is that if/when the Democrats win, the Republicans will use the
same tactics and delegitimize those election results. We are effectively
living in two forked realities with no way to rejoin them.

~~~
tareqak
In some other countries, foreign election monitors are routinely invited to
monitor elections. They aren't all-seeing or all-knowing, but they can at
least highlight irregularities in the voting process.

~~~
marcusverus
What type of issue would you expect these monitors to prevent or uncover?

Election monitors make sense in third-world countries, where elections are
administrated by corrupt government officials and literal ballot-box-stuffing
is a possibility. But in the US, civilian volunteers with known party
affiliations administer elections, and many states cast ballots
electronically.

If you’re really concerned about the integrity of our elections at a ballot-
box level, the best thing you could do would be to volunteer to administer
elections in your local precinct.

~~~
tareqak
It's an extra check on the whole system with a known cost. People could
voluntarily go on exchange trips to other countries when they have their
elections. If foreign election monitors state that some places didn't have
enough ballot boxes, then it will be more difficult to ignore that sort of
problem as business as usual.

------
jessaustin
NYT yesterday: "Mueller Hearings Present Make-or-Break Moment"

NYT today: TFA. We wondered what they were going to do in response to the dud
that the hearings turned out to be. That confused old man learned more about
his report than we did! MFW it seems possible they might actually talk about
real problems rather than fairy tales...

People of good faith have been warning of the flaws in election infrastructure
since long before Obama made his "of course the elections can't be rigged"
comments [0]. There are lots of flaws with voting machines: closed source, no
tangible verifiable records, confusing for voters, etc. There are lots of
flaws with voting in general: voters removed for specious reasons, greater
inconvenience for poor voters, one-party-two-heads, etc.

Actually now that I hear it again, what Obama had to say makes a lot of sense
to me... how do the anonymous-yet-somehow-official sources account for this?
Sure, someone could cheat in a small number of precincts, but if they try to
affect a national election using a small number of precincts they're
definitely going to inspire recounts. It's too bad that Congress won't pass
Tulsi's bill that would require recountable paper records...

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcjaO2953os](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcjaO2953os)

