
Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking - econnors
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?_r=0
======
cglouch
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title
calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual
election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen.
Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say
the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who
just read titles are getting the wrong impression.

~~~
concinds
Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about
Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so
frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate.

And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results
(that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the
latest YouGov poll.

The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has.

~~~
noobermin
Here you go[0]... That's not "50% believe." 35% thinking "Probably true"
sounds to me like they believe it's possible. A nearly equal percent think
it's "Probably not true" (32%)

[0] [http://hotair.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg](http://hotair.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg)

~~~
dmix
So around 52% of Democrats bought into the mischaracterization at some level,
lovely. Not to mention a big chunk of Republicans.

I'm annoyed the administration again has decided on wait at least 3 more weeks
before releasing a new proof before announcing punishment. Not to mention what
will amount to about two months of public evidence free speculation happening
in the press (aka strictly citing anonymous Intel officers). And I highly
doubt they will ever be able to prove Wikileaks source was Russia which was
the only primary direct influence on the elections. Even then it

It's just as likely multiple people had access to the servers. Proving Russia
hacked it does not disprove others did. Digital forensics on the boxes can
reveal a lot but not everything if they were good.

There has been word the RNC was hacked by Russia but the data was older and of
less value. Trump famously doesn't use email nor did they hack any of Trumps 3
campaign managers (as fair as we know from anonymous IC leaks). So it may not
even have been a comparable leak even if they (or wikileaks activists) chose
to release it. Especially considering how Trump was very hostile to RNC, he
would have easily dismissed it as Washington elites doing what he said they
do. It might have even helped his 'drain the swamp' marketing angle.

Within this greater context the story of run of the mill nation state hacking
of government officials is a relatively minor concern, given NSA does the
same, but still a real concern. But the idea that this was a partisan hack of
'elections' and that Russians held back damning data on Trump is on very weak
ground.

And let's be honest the Podesta Wikileaks dump was totally underwhelming given
the clever hype by Assange.

------
vessenes
This is an interesting internal play for US politicians as well -- it strikes
me it's probably harder to remove sanctions and reinstate booted intelligence
personnel than it is to choose not to act. I'm curious how the Trump
presidency will approach this.

Also in the news today is more strident messaging from Kerry about Israeli
settlers -- I wonder if we'll have other moves from the Obama administration
before end of term.

~~~
dragonwriter
It's technically no more difficult since they are executive actions dependent
on determinations that the executive is free to make.

It's perhaps politically costly, though, and even if that was equal, only one
of the actors has to worry about maintaining political capital.

------
finid
So 35 Russian diplomats have been given 72 hours to leave the country, and 2
of their properties will be closed - one in DC and the other in San Francisco.

Well, if history is any guide, expect Russia to return the favor.

Question is, how long will they wait before announcing that 35 American
diplomats have 72 hours to leave Russia?

~~~
golergka
Why would americans bother with such big diplomatic presence in Russia to
begin with?

~~~
cmdrfred
They are the 2nd most powerful military in the world by some accounts and have
enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, I think that justifies 35 full
time employees. Do you have something better for them to do?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-
militaries-i...](http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-
in-the-world-2014-4)

~~~
golergka
Oh please. So far Russian military have proved to be marginally better than
Georgia and on par with Ukraine.

Speaking as someone with a lot of friends and acquaintances working in Russian
military industry, it's much more talented in building potemkin villages and
giving an impression of power than doing anything real. Everything, from tech
to mentality of the military is rotten and just painted over.

~~~
dogma1138
Do you really think that Russia has engaged even 1% of its force projection in
Ukraine?

There aren't 2000 Russian tanks parked outside of Kiev if Russia would go to
an all out war with Ukraine there won't be much left after 2 days.

There are reportedly less than 5000 Russian troops in the conflict they mostly
provide limited logistical support.

Look at how many troops the US needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don't underestimate Russia's military they have limited force projection but
in their immediate vicinity they aren't to be taken lightly.

------
UweSchmidt
True or not, the idea that Russia could have hacked the US elections is pretty
wild, and the way this is nonchalantly discussed, and met with the mild
diplomatic gesture of dismissing some diplomats is a little surprising to me.

Is it because I have grown up during the end of the cold war? But what would
Nixon or Reagan have done in this situation?

Messing with a country's political system like that sounds _extremely_ hostile
to me and warrants massive investigations, reorganizations and review of the
entire voting process to restore trust.

Thoughts?

~~~
rqebmm
1) The Obama administration has said that retaliation will be in some part
covert, so there's strong reasons to believe the publicized reaction is only
the tip of the iceberg

2) If Russia hacked US elections in a material way (i.e. stuffing electronic
ballots), we probably wouldn't know anyway. President Trump is much better for
the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

~~~
chipperyman573
What do you mean by the second point? I am confused about

>President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that
Russia can elect whoever they want.

~~~
rqebmm
Let's say Obama has airtight proof that Putin single-handedly elected Trump.
What would be more damaging to the US: publicly admitting that foreign states
have control of our elections (which could very reasonably start a large-scale
revolt), or allowing it to happen while secrectly taking actions to prevent
that from happening again?

~~~
UweSchmidt
But now that everyone talks about it, work should be done on the internal
aspect on this: Investigation on voting mechanisms, coming up with a way to
make this integral part of democracy safe. You could say "No, Russia didn't do
anything, but while we're at it we have noticed some potential weaknesses in
our infrastructure".

------
usaphp
Some interesting articles on 1996 Boris Eltsin election, where Americans
claimed their role in his win:

1 -
[http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris...](http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris-
yeltsin)

2-
[http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,9848...](http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,984833,00.html)

~~~
rqebmm
American political consultants != American intelligence agencies.

When Trump retained a campaign manager with ties to Russian officials[0], it
was a minor scandal, not something requiring over government response.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-
manafort-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-
ukraine-donald-trump.html)

~~~
usaphp
American intelligence agencies were definitely involved in Russian election in
1996.

Also the link you posted shows the campaign manager connection to Yanukovich -
since when is ex-president of Ukraine considered as "Russian officials"? Do
you call ex-president of Canada or France - US Officials too?

------
joshuas
The Russians hacked the election in the same way that the Ashley Madison
hackers hacked all those marriages.

------
dv_dt
The closer we come to the end of the Obama Administration, the more
disappointed I have become (and this after having voted for him twice).

~~~
legohead
Are you upset that he is accusing Russia of cyberattacks, or that he's doing
something about it?

~~~
vetinari
A good start would be to provide some evidence.

For now, it's the same 'trust us, the Iraqis have WMDs' again.

~~~
empath75
That report is due in january.

~~~
vetinari
So keep the accusations private until you can present the evidence together
with the accusations. Otherwise, it is you massaging the public opinion and
the report won't matter anyway.

~~~
rqebmm
There's already public evidence. Circumstantial evidence, but evidence
nonetheless.

------
aplomb
Regardless of political views, it has been disheartening to see so many
organizations and leaders throw tantrums on the public stage - it
deligitimizes authority and erodes trust.

------
swalsh
I hope that some day in the future we learn the truth about this year. Some
people believe that the leaks were a few rogue CIA members, others blame a
dude in eastern Europe, and of course Russia. I have no idea what the truth
is, but I think under the covers there's some interesting drama.

------
cornchips
Guccifer2 is not in the report as an alias?? Hmm...

------
toehead2000
So is this how US politics will be from now on? Every president spends their
lame duck period doing everything possible to sabotage the next guy (if
they're the other party)? I seem to recall GWB having a bit more decorum than
Obama here but maybe I'm wrong. Is the political climate really more poisonous
than ever or does it just seem that way?

~~~
gipp
Taking action in response to foreign aggression is "sabotaging the next guy"
now?

~~~
tomohawk
He's starting something he won't be able to finish. Not very wise. At this
point, the focus should be on an orderly transition of power instead of making
waves and creating problems for the next guy to handle. Whether he likes it or
not, Trump is the next guy, and Trump's going to have to handle it one way or
the other. Trying to cast the die like this is just counterproductive.

~~~
dragonwriter
> He's starting something he won't be able to finish.

Pretty much every Presidency has some things started late that are known to
carry over into the next administration; quite often (especially when there is
a change of parties) this something the incoming President would have handled
differently.

That's sort of inherent in the nature of having a crisp point-in-time transfer
of power.

~~~
tomohawk
It's the point-in-time transfer of power that makes this unwise. He has less
than a month to go and his top priority is what exactly? It should be on the
smooth transition of power. Starting a tit-for-tat with Russia should be left
to the next guy.

------
peter_retief
Unprecedented churlish behaviour from the Dems. I for one look forward to
having them out of power

------
w8rbt
Why does no one cite the original private email server that was poorly secured
and ran by the Clintons as part of this?

~~~
rqebmm
Because it's been covered extensively and is unrelated to the leaked DNC,
DCCC, and Podesta emails that arose at the end of the election season?

~~~
w8rbt
It may have been the origin of all of this. They setup a private email server
that was insecure and poorly managed so that they would not be subject to
FOIA, etc. It contained top-secret emails. No one disputes that.

Why could that not have been the catalyst to hacking the DNC? You've got all
these important DNC folks sending her emails that reside on that server...
right?

------
mattbgates
Democrats and Republicans. Republicans and Democrats. It will never work.

------
vkazanov
So, Clinton was corrupted, and somebody noticed it, and it is Russians who are
to blame?

Huh.

~~~
etchalon
I think that's missing the point.

Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political
party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are
secondary to the attack itself.

The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.

~~~
jsmith0295
I think it's also worth noting that this was not a particularly sophisticated
attack. Podesta fell for a simple phishing attack. A lot of media attention
around this has made it sound like something out of an action movie, but the
attack itself was actually quite simple. People who have access to so much
important information need more training about this sort of thing so they
don't just give their password away. It might've been the Russians this time,
but it could've been just about anyone, and unless the underlying problem is
resolved, it'll continue to happen.

~~~
etchalon
It wasn't even a sophisticated phishing attack. If you believe the reporting,
the whole thing would have been avoided were it not for a typo.

