Another hack - Do we as a country need to accept that Hillary's email server was hacked?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Aug 13, 2016.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    Looks like the DNCC was hacked:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/guccifer-2-0-hacker-dnc-dccc/index.html

    (I used a link from CNN because if I had used one from Foxnews it would have been trashed an FauxNews even though the story was accurate.)

    So is the country ready to accept that Hillary's email server was probably hacked? If not, what is holding you back? This is 2 major hacks and a handful of smaller ones targeting both Dems and some GOP individuals. Is Guccifer 2.0 really a Russian government front? I have no proof, but it does seem to be pointing that direction.

    So if they have been able to hack the DNC and DNCC, why would they not have been able to hack Hillary's server which had less security than a gmail account?

    I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction:

    Docs from her personal email server will be released sometime during the last 2 weeks of October. They will include some of the 30,000 deleted emails and unredacted copies of previously released emails.

    I will also predict that her supporters will not care that her carelessness allowed the Russians to gain access to our secrets and she will win anyway.
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Where is the evidence that her server was hacked?

    If it was hacked, why hasn't someone released her emails as we've seen with the DNC?

    Normally, I hold back accepting something to be true until I see the evidence that indicates that it's likely true.
     
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3


    It is certainly possible that the same people who hacked the DNC were able to successfully penetrate the private server maintained at Secretary Clinton's house. Possible, but not certain.

    To begin with, from an IT security standpoint, the private Clinton server was a much more challenging target, far less susceptible to the sort of spear-fishing assaults that penetrated the DNC. The very existence of Clinton's private server was known to very few individuals, and the number of people with access to it was minuscule: Most probably only the IT consultant who set it up and Mrs. Clinton and a couple of her immediate circle. Spear-fishing attacks generally rely on attacking a large number of clients and hoping that one out of a hundred is the idiot who clicks on the link.

    There is also the "purloined letter" aspect to the whole thing. In very simple terms, the resources of hostile intelligence services are finite. And they are most likely to concentrate their efforts on domains that they would believe to hold a large amount of actionable intelligence. If you were running the Chinese; Russian; or North Korean cyber warfare efforts - you'd concentrate on breaking into the CIA; NSA; or DoD. In order to target Secretary Clinton's private server, you'd first have to know it existed, and then that it might contain useful intelligence. The existence of the server might, possibly, have come to the attention of a foreign intelligence service. But whether or not they would have passed that information on to subcontracted hackers is somewhat doubtful. Intelligence services are notoriously jealous of their sources. It would be taking a huge risk to hazard blowing a valuable source in order to exploit a server that - as far they knew - might contain nothing more interesting than photos from Chelsea Clinton's baby shower.

    At this point, circumstances would suggest that they had not successfully penetrated the private server. If for no other reason than the fact that the most profitable time for them to release evidence of their successful penetration has passed. If the Russians had gotten classified information from Hillary's server, the best time to release proof of that was during the protracted Congressional and FBI criminal probes into the matter. Damning proof that Hillary's e-mail had gotten into the hands of the Russians or Chinese would have added greatly to the pressure to indict or otherwise disqualify her from running for the Presidency. That doesn't mean that the Russians or Chinese aren't still holding onto that proof, but if they do, they've been remarkably reluctant to use it.
     
  4. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    Any candidate is stronger than Hillary Clinton. She is the weakest Democratic candidate to ever run. If somebody has the emails then the best time to release them is very close to the election, thus ensuring that the Democrats have insufficient time to field a stronger candidate.

    Release them beforehand, the Dems will field Biden and would most definitely win.

    I do find it funny that everybody is jumping on the Russian boogeyman bandwagon. When Sony was hacked, the FBI presented evidence to that effect. The FBI has thus far presented zero evidence of Russian Government intrusion.
     
  5. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #5
    If they knew the Secretary of State was using a home brew server you can pretty much bet it was hacked. Dumb luck would be the only reason it wouldn't be.
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    Who else would have the means, the patience, and the desire to do it?

    The list of potential hackers is almost infinite. I'm quite sure, for instance, that Britain's GCHQ probably could have done it, if for no better reason than to know what their allies might have been saying about them behind their back. But such a breach, on the part of an ally, would have had potential blowback costs far out of proportion to any possible benefit. And the Brits are smart enough to know that, if detected, a breach would ultimately be traced back to its source. Maybe not enough to secure a court conviction - but enough to sour relations for a generation.

    I simply don't see a non-state actor such as ISIL doing it. They lack the sort of organizational structure that would combine the functions of analysis and covert operations to do so. They aren't interested in devoting resources to a long-term project like that. Four or five years ago, when Clinton's server was actually in operation, ISIL was more interested in putting out snuff videos than undermining the 2016 US Presidential election.

    The Chinese, the North Koreans? Maybe. But that's a huge maybe. Again, such a breach would require both covert intelligence gathering (i.e. figuring out that Secretary Clinton's e-mails were stored on a server in her house) with analysis: knowing that this could be a still more useful source. That simply isn't the way their intelligence operations are structured. Their operations tend to have much shorter-term goals: Sony Pictures puts out a movie that insults the North Korean leader - put together a team to hack them.

    Only the Russians are culturally and organizationally equipped to set up what would have to be a long-term intelligence operation like that. Russian spies were recruiting British and European university students in the early 1930s, hoping that some of them would ultimately rise to positions of trust and influence in their respective governments.

    The Nazis never did that. The Japanese never did that. Only the Russians.
     
  7. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #7
    Hence my prediction for any release to be in the last 2 weeks of October when it will cause the most damage.

    You have a good point, and if the goal was to disqualify her from the nomination, then yes it would have been a good time. But what if the goal was to make sure Trump won the election? If any information was released before the convention, they could have nominated Bernie, who has always led Trump in the polls. But at that point in time it was clear Hillary was going to be the nominee, so why not hold it until it can really do damage to her in the general?
    --- Post Merged, Aug 13, 2016 ---
    Why would it need to be know it was in her house? She used this email address for 3 main things: 1) SOS business, 2) personal business and 3) Foundation business. It is #3 that creates the biggest chance for it to be known. As we all know, once an email gets sent, the recipient can do whatever they want with it, including forwarding it. So say she sent an email to someone about a Foundation donation and they forward it on to someone else who forwards it and so on. It would be very conceivable that it could have ended up in an inbox of a foreign diplomat or spy. The Foundation does have lots of foreign donors, so a quick "Thank you for your donation" email from her could have ended up somewhere she didn't want it to be.

    Once the domain is known, it matters not if it is in her basement (actually a very physically secure location), or a server farm or the bathroom of a tech company.
     
  8. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #8
    Anyone but Trump that is
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9


    I think the betting markets would have said differently.

    And I think the experience of the last couple of weeks argues against that. The Russians, via Wikileaks, have put out their most damaging stuff. Which so far consists of fiendish plots to bring up Bernie Sanders' religion, which somehow didn't get acted on.

    Leaked material has a definite "sell-by" date. It also relies on the intended audience actually paying attention to it. And that is where any material hacked from Clinton's server really starts to run into problems.

    The vast majority (call it 39,500 out of 40,000) of Clinton's State Dept. e-mails have already been made public. There is no secret here. A subset of those have been made public, but with details redacted. In order to prove that they were stolen by hostile operators, copies of those e-mails with the (previously) redacted information revealed would have to be leaked.

    Who would understand, and act on, that information most effectively? Answer: Congressional Republicans and the FBI. And yet the Russians didn't - or, more probably, couldn't - help them out?
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    I'm not fond of predictions. I've found that most of the time they're wrong.

    Best of luck with yours though.
     
  11. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
  12. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #12
    As is Trump's mouth. And far less secure.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Thank god she's not campaigning to run the IT Department, eh?
     
  14. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #14
    Hillary's lack of security has resulted in deaths. Beyond unqualified. Except perhaps as a minister of disinformation. Or trading for vigs extraordinaire.
     
  15. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    What secrets does America have left, thanks to Snowjob?
     
  16. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #16
    Please provide proof.
     

Share This Page