Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans United States Privacy Security Politics

Hackers Have Targeted Both the Trump Organization And Democrat Election Data (arstechnica.com) 232

Posted by EditorDavid from the investigations-everywhere dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Two recent news stories give new prominence to politically-motivated data breaches. Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that last year Guccifer 2.0 sent 2.5 gigabytes of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee election data to a Republican operative in Florida, including their critical voter turnout projections. At the same time ABC News is reporting that the FBI is investigating "an attempted overseas cyberattack against the Trump Organization," adding that such an attack would make his network a high priority for government monitoring.

"In the course of its investigation," they add, "the FBI could get access to the Trump Organization's computer network, meaning FBI agents could possibly find records connected to other investigations." A senior FBI official (now retired) concedes to ABC that "There could be stuff in there that they [the Trump organization] do not want to become part of a separate criminal investigation."
It seems like everyone's talking about the privacy of their communications. Tonight the Washington Post writes that Trump's son-in-law/senior advisor Jared Kushner "discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports." And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers Have Targeted Both the Trump Organization And Democrat Election Data More

Hackers Have Targeted Both the Trump Organization And Democrat Election Data

Comments Filter:

  • So I was right... how about an apology? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, 2017 @02:15AM (#54496391)

    So I was right that Donald Trump, Jared Kushners, and others are traitors who colluded with Russia's hack of our presidential campaign.

    Will any of you dumbfucks apologize, or are you just going to keep pretending you don't notice the obvious treason taking place in front of your eyes?

    I accept your apology, morons.

    • I still believe Trump is just an unwilling puppet as opposed to being Putin's Cock Holster. Not sure about Jared and the rest.

      • Trump only cares about Trump. This makes him easily manipulated all you need to do is stole his ego and he'll be your best friend. He personally may not be knowingly involved in the russians but he guilty of a crime of omission by not taking into conserned about the people in his circle.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Yeah, well el Presidente Tweetie's sprog mentioned in the 2000's that their Ma and Pa Kettle organization wasn't worried about money because they had plenty of Russian money. Putin owns el Presidente Tweetie's ass.

          • Putin owns el Presidente Tweetie's ass.

            And it seems to be paying off for them big time so far.

            I'm starting to think that the golden shower video is going to show up any day. So much of what was denied has turned out to be true so far.

      • I still believe Trump is just an unwilling puppet as opposed to being Putin's Cock Holster. Not sure about Jared and the rest.

        So we're already in Ronald Reagan/Iran-Contra mode? Just between us chachalacas, this treasonous activity is getting harder and harder to excuse without actually supporting it. The amazing thing is they apparently thought they could get away with it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      They were kind of acting like traitors whether Russia was involved or not. Wasn't there something about putting a wrecking ball through America?

    • Lalala I can't hear you! MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!

      (/s in case that wasn't obvious)

    • Re:So I was right... how about an apology? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @04:13AM (#54496569)

      Will any of you dumbfucks apologize, or are you just going to keep pretending you don't notice the obvious treason taking place in front of your eyes?

      You should read carefully the article. It makes two very important points:
      1) "It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials."
      2) "Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks."
      In fact it is understandable the mistrust with American intelligence agencies right now, because, as Bloomberg put it, "the U.S. intelligence ship is too leaky to sail" [bloomberg.com]. Besides that, this Kushner-Flynn affair has ostensibly nothing to do with the alleged (and very unlikely IMO) Russian hack of the Democratic party, but it is related to the Syrian war, where American intelligence agencies have been playing dirty since the start and not in the interest of the American people (unless arming al-Qaeda is in the interest of the American people [theguardian.com]).

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This. Standard procedure when clicking any cnn/wapo/nyt "BREAKING NEWS BOMBSHELL TRUMP'S A TRAITOR ZOMG IMPEACH!!!" story is to immediately scroll to the very end of the article, find the inevitable "Everything that we just spent 50 paragraphs violently implying is high treason (because hate and paranoia [washingtontimes.com] get us way more clicks than straight news) is actually completely normal and legal and there's still zero evidence Trump's a Soviet sleeper agent" caveat, and then close the tab.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey. And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia? One could argue their conspiracy theorist bullshit got the better of them. I would argue they would do anything to win and selling America out to Russia was okay, just as long as they won.

        • Re:So I was right... how about an apology? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @09:46AM (#54497447)

          And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia?

          Because Trump doesn't trust the official channels. The CIA has leaked damaging information about him, and it is clear that there are people in the "deep state" that don't like Trump and want to see him fail.

          I want to see him fail too. But engineering presidential failure is not the job of the CIA. Our intelligence agencies should not be partisan organizations.

        • Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey.

          There's a lot of corruption right now in the top levels of the military. Fat Leonard [wikipedia.org] is one example. Flynn is more likely a symptom of that problem. Becoming an agent of Turkey seems like a problem (and I agree) but it's small compared to what else has been going on. This is the kind of thing that gets lost in the noise when people start spouting wild conspiracy theories and forget about the truth. I'll bet you didn't even hear about Fat Leonard.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ScentCone ( 795499 )

          Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia

          You mean like when the Clinton family (NOT their money laundering foundation) collected half a million dollars in cash from a Russian bank immediately following then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ushering through of a huge uranium deal that greatly benefited Putin and his industry cronies? That sort of "paid" is what you're talking about, right? Because that's a matter of record, as opposed to the complete lack of any evidence of Trump being in any sort of analogous relationship. To the point where

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Nyder ( 754090 )

            This was some of the "fake news" that was spread around. Hillary was an a committee that oversaw the uranium deal, but had no power to approve or deny it.

            I got made at this first, then found out I and other was being played with the news story. It was fake news targeted at people who hated Hiliary. I fell for it, you fell for it. We got played.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by ScentCone ( 795499 )
              Nope, Bill DID collect the huge "speaking fee" and the deal DID go down on Hillary Clinton's watch as the nation's top diplomat. Without approval from the State Department, deals like that do NOT go down. She was running the State Department. And she and her husband collected the cash.

      • Re:So I was right... how about an apology? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @07:49AM (#54496971) Journal

        1) "It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials."

        Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?

        Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.

        • Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?

          Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.

          I'm sorry, but that's the point of such secret meetings. They're supposed to be kept secret, not public domain stuff that you (American or not) can read about on newspapers, wikileaks, internet blogs and the likes. When your officials cannot be trusted to keep their secrets, you can see these shady behaviours: senior advisers that prefer foreign communication equipment or a secretary of state that uses her personal email server, instead of the federal one. The goal is the same.

          Moreover, there is another o

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Right. Using communication operated by the Russian SVR. That isn't normal, that's TREASON.

          Did you know, during the cold war, the US president had a communication line that connected directly to his USSR counterpart? And do you know who ran half that service? That's right, the KGB. And do you know why it wasn't treason? Because talking to foreign operatives isn't treason, it's communication. I mean, FFS, I'm no fan of Trump, but these kinds of rabid accusations really just add fuel to the alt-right fire.

          Let me put it another way: using a Russian-run communication line is generally a bad thing bec

          • The president has a line, and you can also be damned sure there is records of its use and what was discussed, even if it's classified. This attempt at a secret back channel appears have to been made deliberately to keep its existence and what might be said away from any kind of oversight.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ly4 ( 2353328 )

        Kushner didn't disclose the meeting on his security clearance form.
        That's not normal. It's also illegal.

    • So I was right that Donald Trump, Jared Kushners, and others are traitors who colluded with Russia's hack of our presidential campaign.

      Nope. The story had nothing to do with that, and even top level Democrats admit Trump had nothing to do with Russia hacking the DNC.

      Important to remember that the "hack" of the campaign was simply to reveal emails that Democrats, and especially Hillary, did not want the public to see. That's not a hack - that's a leak. Just like the ones Trump is going through right now.

  • Regression (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by thegreatbob ( 693104 )
    If we'd have done the right thing, and voted Regressive, we wouldn't be having these kinds of issues.
    http://thebestpageintheunivers... [thebestpag...iverse.net]

  • Only complete idiots are surprised by this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, 2017 @04:13AM (#54496567)

    Russia is no friend to Trump and his administration. They only care about exploiting the Trump administration to achieve their goals. Governor Romney was right in 2012 when he said Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the United States. The left was wrong to laugh at him, but the right is even dumber to ignore Romney's warning now that evidence shows he was right.

    The problem is that the right seems to have taken a favorable view of Russia now. Perhaps it's because the right wing "Christians" love that Putin has cracked down on homosexuality in Russia. I kid you not, I've heard Christians praise Putin for this. Russia was all too happy to look the other way as gays were rounded up and tortured in Chechnya. All too many Christians objected to Trump during the primaries and were all too happy to fall in line and vote for him once he got the nomination, all because the Republican party platform claims to be pro-life. Never mind, of course, all the other evils that Trump supports, and the fact that the Republicans will never ban abortion because it would take away the one reason people vote for them. If there is a God, a lot of Christians will be burning in hell for what they've supported in the name of Jesus.

    Putin cannot be trusted. He is no friend to democracy and free society, nor will he ever be. Putin is an evil man, but the right wingers seem to have developed a love for him. They're too stupid to realize that, despite helping to get Trump elected, that love is not mutual and Putin is only interested in exploiting far right political leaders for his own benefit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Governor Romney was right in 2012 when he said Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the United States. The left was wrong to laugh at him

      The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong. What other choice was there? China, who want to sell us so much and don't want to kill the golden goose?

      • Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this (Score:4, Interesting)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @10:03AM (#54497533) Journal

        The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong.

        Nah, in this case, they really were mocking him for being wrong (or more accurately, because they were partisans looking to mock). There are many examples still around. Here is one example [nytimes.com]. The NYT editorial page wrote, "His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics." That's a clear statement that they thought he was wrong (or maybe their article is just craven politics).

        What other choice was there?

        The NYT article gave examples of the "real" threats: "Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses."

        I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat, and they could become a strong ally if we had a president with any diplomacy skill (Bush Sr did well in that regard. Clinton was decent).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbIII ( 701233 )
          Fair enough, but there very plenty of other reasons to laugh at Romney other than that.

          I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat

          It appears that thinking wasn't involved before stating that :( You've got to toe the party line I suppose and show that you are a good party member by denying reality.

  • Is Russia the right focus? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Soft ( 266615 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @05:56AM (#54496725)

    I've read an interesting opinion piece by a Russian opponent: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/ [nybooks.com].

    Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.

    Second, the media frenzy about this is being played up because it's seemingly the only scandal that riles people enough that the Republican majority in Congress might have to take notice, instead of looking the other way as they did with all the other documented lies. So Trump opponents are playing this specific card.

    But, third, there's probably nothing concrete enough there to warrant a successful impeachment. And this is beginning to border on speculation and conspiracy-theory thinking, in other words using some of Trump's foul tactics against him in the unlikely hope of getting rid of him. Bad precedent.

    So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.

    • So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.

      That's probably the most serious point. The thing is that the people voted for all of this and they are going to get it. It's a bit like that recent and shocking discovery by a large portion of the Republican voting citizenry that: ((the ACA = ObamaCare) ^ (I'm on ACA)) -> Repealing Obamacare affects me!!! The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because,

      • The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the ins

        • "It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors)" -- somewhat misleading, Phama companies are big donors to both sides but Republicans generally received more than the Dems. From the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H4300), "Pharmaceutical companies, which develop both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, have been among the biggest political spenders for years. They've traditionally supported Republican candidates, as they have received 6

          • The reason why you think that this is "misleading" is because you don't understand how Democrats corrupt markets and think in a simplistic "good for greedy corporations" and "bad for greedy corporations" dichotomy. If Democrats were generically anti-business, they would get no contributions from business.

            But what Democrats are actually doing is interfere in markets in order to favor businesses that donate to them and hurt businesses that don't. That's why you see this split in donations between the Republic

    • So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare

      Obama already did a great job dismantling healthcare in the US and setting it on a path to self-destruction. Trump and the GOP don't look like they are going to fix it, but they can't make it much worse.

      crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies

      Hard as that may for you to believe, that's what Trump and Republicans are elected for. Unfortunately, they are not doin

    • I've read an interesting opinion piece by a Russian opponent:
      http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/ [nybooks.com].

      Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.

      There are a few differences this time:
      1) Russia seems to have had significant influence with several people in the crackpot's administration, and that influence seems to have been translated into proposed policy.

      2) Several members of the crackpot's campaign were having unusual communications with the Russians, and may have been colluding in Russian interference.

      3) Russia may have significant leverage over the main crackpot himself.

      None of these may be true, but there's more than enough evidence to warrant i

  • get real (Score:3)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @07:02AM (#54496833)

    "In the course of its investigation," they add, "the FBI could get access to the Trump Organization's computer network, meaning FBI agents could possibly find records connected to other investigations." A senior FBI official (now retired) concedes to ABC that "There could be stuff in there that they [the Trump organization] do not want to become part of a separate criminal investigation."

    The idea that there is this secret stash of documents that is finally going to reveal Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil and is going to doom his presidency is wishful thinking. Trump's computers and people around Trump were under surveillance for months under the Obama administration, and Trump has many people in his administration, among Republicans, and in his organization who hate him; if there had been anything substantive, it would have come out by now, either in leaks or in official investigations.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil

      It's not exactly secret what Trump is which is why the situation is so ridiculous and potentially tragic. Just one of many connections - his former top advisor was very publicly running a fucking PR campaign for Russian rebels in Ukraine FFS and getting paid directly (not under the counter) by Russian spooks. He was fucking proud of doing promotional work for the shits who shot down a Malaysian airliner with US citizens aboard. Then there's the Russian bank loans to Tru

      • It's not exactly secret what Trump is which is why the situation is so ridiculous and potentially tragic. Just one of many connections

        "Connections" are not illegal. Furthermore, since it "is not exactly a secret", voters took it into account when voting for Trump.

        A lot has come out, just not details. Even Watergate took a few years, as did Iran-contra. The CIA Church commission stuff took years as well.

        Yeah, Russia may have hired trolls to attack Hillary on social media, and maybe had a hand in leaking Hill

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbIII ( 701233 )
          Don't play dumb. Watergate was the example of how long it takes for an investigation and not some suggestion that Trump asked people to break into a hotel room.
          I really don't get why you are still cheering for the Manchurian Canditate when he's really got it in for immigrants and is going to get "tough" on gays at some point to get the hard right of the Republicans to do some things for him.

          • Don't play dumb.

            That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done. Having "connections" with foreign governments is not illegal, and neither is having the support of foreign governments. If it were, both Obama and Hillary would be in prison. So far, I have not heard anybody articulate anything actually illegal that Trump is supposed to have done.

            I really don't get why you are still cheering for [Trump]

            Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dbIII ( 701233 )

              That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done

              Indeed - instead it's directly addressing the question that you actually asked instead of a new one that you didn't ask.
              I'm utterly baffled by you "alt-right" people. It's as if you grew up in a box and somehow missed seeing more than a tiny slice of life. Trump is not going to be grateful for your cheerleading and will turn on you the second he can get some advantage out of it.

              • Trump is not going to be grateful for your cheerleading and will turn on you the second he can get some advantage out of it.

                Which part of Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost. did you not understand?

                I'm utterly baffled by you "alt-right" people.

                But I'm not baffled by you at all: you're the typical Alinsky/Goebbels/Soviet-style totalitarian propagandist, with y

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dbIII ( 701233 )

                  Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump

                  Keep on telling yourself that, but dozens upon dozens of your posts indicate stridently that you were cheering for him all the way (and still seem to be doing so from time to time for some incredibly strange reason).

                  • Keep on telling yourself that,

                    I'm telling you, you just persist in misrepresenting me.

                    Of course, your conduct comes out of the propagandistic playbook of totalitarians and statists: you're despicable.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dbIII ( 701233 )
                      Ah yes - I remember your rather odd "statist" insult from much earlier - thanks for reminding me that you are an anarchist that has been cheering Trump on because you hope he will destroy government in the USA.
                      You really should try doing some growing up before you end up learning from experience that you will be utterly fucked if you get the stupid shit you are asking for.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dbIII ( 701233 )
                      Oh really? Examples please.
                      What's wrong with liking the idea of having a country instead of anarchy anyway? "Statist" has got to be one of the strangest insults I have heard in a very long term and it reflects extremely poorly on the person that employs it.

                      Why should I let a very loud Trump cheerleader pretend that they never were?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @09:21AM (#54497351)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Putinbots abound (Score:5, Interesting)

      by anyaristow ( 1448609 ) on Saturday May 27, 2017 @10:20AM (#54497619)

      The following anonymous coward putinbot posts are mine. I don't normally bother signing in to slashdot because it isn't worth the trouble:

      WaPo, CIA conflict of interest rag
      Guccifer 2.0 is a fraud
      TL;DR

      I'm a Democrat, not a Republican or a Trump fan or a putin bot. I resist propaganda because propaganda is more dangerous than Trump. I resist propaganda because it is a symptom of a system that is so stacked against ordinary citizens that it may be too late to ever wrest control of our government back from the oligarchs, deep state and military industrial complex.

      But since you mention bots, I'll mention paid trolls (not claiming you are one): Correct the Record, ShareBlue. Paid trolls working for Hillary, according to sources I think you'll agree aren't Putin-friendly:

      How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign [washingtonpost.com]
      David Brock's Army of "Nerd Virgins" Has Hillary's Back [motherjones.com]
      Clinton SuperPac Admits to Paying Internet Trolls [dailykos.com]
      The making of a Hillary Clinton echo chamber [washingtonpost.com]

    • > Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards"

      You should trust ACs exactly as much as everyone else here, which is to say, not at all. Judge the reasoning on its merits and its factual basis (if any), and not on the name attached to it.

      Also, please reserve the same skepticism for all the news citing anonymous sources. Top Obama administration advisors have told me that many of the claims are made up whole cloth to support a point or tell a story.

    • So we are to mistrust AC's yet give credence to the Anonymous sources the WaPo, CNN and NYT all love to cite non-stop in their flailing and failing anti-trump campaign?

      There are many valid reasons to post AC. And disregarding AC posts just because they are AC is foolish.

  • >> "And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

    Yeah keep telling yourself that Hillary. I mean your own obvious corruption had absolutely nothing to do with it right?

  • And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

    What, exactly, does her OPINION prove?

  • That's the most fitting part of this entire news post.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close