That's one thing that bothers me about security in general, that it's so super political and it's a bit hard to just be interested in the technical aspects of it without being sucked into political bickering to some degree (can't follow Twitter accounts of most security people for that reason). Of course, I understand that it comes with the field since many adversaries simply have political motives. Still annoying though.
I don't think much has changed, it's just that we see a lot more diversity than 30 years ago. Having grown up in East Germany, if I hadn't lived close enough to the Western border I could only have viewed East German TV and read East German newspapers. In the US you were (for the most part) not exposed to anything from Russia, and vice versa. Now more people get to see that the world is quite a bit more colorful, for both better and worse.
I don't think it matters all that much, because apart from passive news consumption, what would you actually do (that is impacted by the information)?
Meaning: it’s not all propaganda, with each side being equally bad and the truth to be found by triangulation.
Who cares about Russia.
The bad actions of the US and their allies does not excuse the same actions of Russia (or China, or any other country).
>“Once you own the router, you own all the traffic, to include the chance to harvest credentials and passwords,” said Howard Marshall, deputy assistant director of the cyber division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “It is a tremendous weapon in the hands of an adversary.”
if this were true, more effort needs to be done to encrypt traffic fully, not enabling it to be broken with trusted certificates but disabling the ability in the first place (application) from being decrypted.
It's debatable. Stalin's tactics of "scorched earth" and fighting with human waves may shift the toll.
we can have a separate conversation about that separate issue which I agree needs to be addressed, but not in this thread..
if you need help understanding what whatboutism is here is a great john oliver explanation  that will help why this is bad and that pointing out hypocrisy does not create a moral equivalency.
please try to focus on the conversation, and open up a new thread on the issue you would like to discuss, not here.
 skip to 6 minutes if you would like to get to that point, I think the entire video is worth a look.
Yes, citizens knowing what their democratically elected government is doing is a terrible idea.
And those who aren't caring aren't paying attention
Edit: I know this is not a permanent solution. But it could be effective if combined with efforts to study the propagation of attacks and with efforts to educate the public about properly securing their routers.
So it's a war, of sorts. Russia says that USA sponsors all these groups it determines to be anti-Russian and interferes in Russian elections, so it returns the favors with fake news /Trump election.
But in the end, Russia is bound to lose--again. Money talks and Russia doesn't have much, the richer world wants /needs to stay in good graces with the Western world. So we have sanctions, choose between Russians or USA+EU plus most of the world. This oligarch thing is kinda smart...if they hurt, they might try to take on Putin. There's a limit on how much a billionaire criminal who can't buy a villa in Spain anymore can take. But then, if they miss with the only bullet...
Of course it could go south and the blows become real (like in wrestling), but by the moment is mostly an useful show for both sides. NATO keeps the archenemy and the show business running. People in Russia see Putin as Peter the Great reborn, making Russia punch way above its weight internationally, recovering the pride lost in the 90s.
Edit a couple typos.