Russia Says in Talks With US To Create Cyber Security Working Group (reuters.com) 158
An anonymous reader shares a brief report on Reuters: Moscow and Washington are in talks to create a joint cyber security working group, RIA news agency reported on Thursday, citing Russia's special envoy on cyber security Andrey Krutskikh. Further reading: CBS News.
At least they're honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump says:
Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded..
To which I can only say, at least he's being honest. He wants to guard the election hacking and many other negative things. He's not saying that he wants to guard against election hacking, but he wants to guard the election hacking to prevent American law enforcement from interfering and allowing fair elections.
Seriously, though, we need to get this guy out of office. Just yesterday, he admitted that he wouldn't have appointed Sessions to Attorney General if he'd known that Sessions wasn't going to help cover up his campaign's collusion with the Russian government. Even if Putin weren't involved, Trump's involvement already means that this wouldn't should not be trusted with the security of our elections.
Re:At least they're honest (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the US has decided to outsource all henhouse guarding in the country to We Are Foxes, Inc. Proponents claim this will save the country eleventy kajillion dollars per year.
Re: At least they're honest (Score:1)
Yoy have jusy won the idiot of the day competition
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Yoy have jusy won the idiot of the day competition
Try having less to drink at lunch. You'll be amazed at what you can accomplish.
Well, Ivan and Boris do like a nip of Vodka with all their meals.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please. Robert Mueller investigation into Trump is staffed with people whom have had direct campaigning with the Clintons.
In a country with for all practical purposes only two parties, you sided with one or the other, no getting around it.
But does it matter? If they find bonafide "wrong-doing", it bonafide "wrong-doing" no matter who discovers it. And, a biased Libertard Snowflake Demobrat is more likely to uncover the dirt both because they are more motivated to find something, and it has been established that Trump's supporters at the high level of Dirt Investigators are predisposed to miraculously find nothing at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There's enough dirt to go around
Whatever, Trump is dirtier than socks. So obviously, that he is a national embarrassment. Doesn't matter how much other dirt is around, he is the skidmark on the national underwear, and gets top priority on laundry day.
Re: (Score:1)
You're a special kind of sucker. The kind that is used against the rare honest politician. Your attitude is actually part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please. Robert Mueller investigation into Trump is staffed with people whom have had direct campaigning with the Clintons.
So first, I've heard about this accusation, and then heard disputes, claiming that some people had been somewhat involved with campaigning for Clinton, while others were Republicans. I haven't investigated that myself, but it seemed worth mentioning.
And honestly, beside all of that, these people are respected independent investigators. And even if they were biased against Trump, it's not entirely a conflict of interest for an investigator to be biased against the people they're investigating. If a poli
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:At least they're honest (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump didn't collude with Russia. If he did, there would already be articles of impeachment and Pence would be the acting POTUS. Period.
First, the investigation isn't done. You don't really want to start a trial before you've gathered all the evidence you think you need. Second, impeachment is a political process, not a law enforcement process, and so it's entirely dependent on the majority of Congress deciding they want to bring charges. I think we've already seen that the Republicans want to cover this up.
As for the accusations, they're true. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/ [cnn.com]... [cnn.com]
Umm... let's look at this article. First sentence:
Three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats
So *three* members. Three out of five. Three of them have given political donations "almost exclusively" to Democrats. From the use of the word "almost", we can conclude that they didn't give money exclusively to Democrats. It says later in the article that one of the three donated to Jason Chaffetz and George Allen, both Republicans.
And that's just political donations, not active campaigning. It's not terribly uncommon for people to donate some money to a political party. So what do you want? You want to disqualify anyone who ever donated money to a Democratic campaign from working on the investigation? That'd be absurd.
As for Robert Mueller himself has close ties to Comey. While is in of itself isn't a problem per se, it's highly biased.
You mean biased toward ethics and fair enforcement of the law? I'll take that bias. And if Mueller is so terrible, why was he being considered for the head of the FBI? Why was he appointed by the Deputy Attorney General. Why is it that of all the major Republican figures, only Trump has anything bad to say about Mueller?
I mean, exercise a little judgement. Think for yourself, at least a little bit.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice all the others that smell opportunity after a Trump victory?
You forgot: workplace sex pigs, real estate money launderers, and just about every con artist in the world. To them, the election was a declaration that it is open season.
Really, just the encouragement the Trump victory provides to the worst assholes humanity has to offer represents a huge amount of damage to society.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You won. Get over it.
You apparently have admitted that the administration is sleazeballs, and are now trying to justify them by claiming that it could be worse. More people now disapprove of Trump than ever disapproved of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Busy, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, so it's unclear how it's supposed to be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you don't get it. Most people don't. And no, you're not a smart as you think you are.
Geeze. What, are you 15 years old?
The fact is the GOP Establishment (Washington DC) is in alignment with Democrats with mutual (but differing in other areas) interests. In effect, it's Trump vs. the World at the political and geo-political level.
And Trump is such a rebel against the Republican Establishment that he's just been turning to the Republican party and saying, "Let's do whatever you want. Give me bills, and I'll sign them. I don't really care what they do." He's so against globalism that he recently moved to expand a program to bring in unskilled immigrant labor.
The truth is, you've been played. Worse, the guy who played you is only barely trying to hide it. It's like you're watching a magician who
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Hah. Joke's on you. I'm also a small "L" libertarian, too... sort of. That is to say I don't think the government should be involved in things it shouldn't need to, except I'm not of the opinion that the government shouldn't need to be involved in anything. That is, I'm a libertarian, not an anarcho-capitalist.
And also, I think you got your order backwards. Trump is in the process of destroying the GOP right now, and next you'll need to figure out how to deal with Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he continues to have approval ratings like he does now, and the Democrats can find a relatively decent candidate, I see little likelihood of a second term for Trump. As to impeachment, that all depends on what comes out of the investigations. Right now, with a large portion of the Republican base still behind Trump, Congressional Republicans are in a politically difficult spot; to move openly against him is to basically declare war on your voters. But if his approval ratings continue to fall, and the bas
Re:At least they're honest (Score:4, Interesting)
GOP is locked in a civil war of its own between Trump being the titular head (though they despise him for that being the POTUS and all), and blue blooded establishment types.
I think that's a misunderstanding of what's going on. There isn't one big unified "establishment" that doesn't like Trump. There are bunch of factions within the Republican party. Most of them don't like Trump. Like... loads and loads of people on all sides of things don't like Trump. It's not because he's disturbing their comfortable status quo, it's because he's a dangerous moron. He's a narcissist and a con man, but he doesn't even understand how things work well enough to fool anyone except people who are even bigger morons.
But he seems to have reached a deal with the Republican leadership that amounts to this: Republicans will support Trump publicly and try to protect him from his scandals, and Trump will do whatever they say. If Republicans can pass a healthcare bill, he'll sign it, even if it violates all of his campaign promises. Meanwhile, Republicans will try to defend his lining his own pockets and abusing power. It's been an uneasy detente, but Trump is specifically *not* upsetting the comfortable status quo for "the Establishment". He's hurting poor people and minorities, and not the rich and powerful.
However, even that's starting to break down. Republicans haven't been able to get much done, so while Trump will sign anything that gets put on his desk, that's not very valuable if they can't get a bill to his desk. Meanwhile, his scandals have gone from, "Trump is profiting off of the presidency in ways that are unethical and probably illegal," to "Trump conspired with the Russians to fix the election," so he's becoming harder and harder to defend.
Of course he tries to make it sound like people are out to get him. It's just like the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was out to get Bill Clinton. You know the saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you"? Well, just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you aren't guilty. Trump may have plenty of political enemies, but even the facts that he's willing to concede show a pretty clear pattern of coordinating with Russia, and undermining our national security in order to serve Putin's interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ask your Dad how many years it took for Nixon to resign after Watergate hit the papers, then add a few more on to get how long it would take for impeachment even if Republicans didn't control congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please. Robert Mueller investigation into Trump is staffed with people whom have had direct campaigning with the Clintons.
And this means anything, given that neither Clinton currently holds public office nor has announced plans to run?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what news source did you read this? Considering there's been nothing about what you speak of in the news (and let's be honest: if there was any kernel of truth to this, it would be all over considering how Russia is the hot topic lately), I think you either made that up or read some sensational story someone else made up.
The usual claims seems to be about Hillary giving a huge chunk of Uranium in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations. That theory falls apart when you realize Hillary did not have veto power over the decision (only Obama did), nor was she a participant in the decision. Second, the uranium was not (and cannot be) transported out of the US. It remains under control of the US subsidiaries.
That and the donations people were up in arms about occurred when GWB was president, and it came from the non-Russian fou
Re: (Score:2)
By accusing someone else for the very actions she's been involved in
Oooh. A meta-Rovian-flip. The absurdity has started to eat its own tail.
Then: ... after that, what are you going to say? ... I love golf, but after speaking about golf for a couple minutes, it’s tough.”"
"I love my grandchildren so much, but if I talk about them for more than nine or 10 seconds
Now:
"I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck are you still pushing this shit? Hillary lost. She's irrelevant, so making up all kinds of stupid shit about here to try to fool readers here does nothing other than demonstrate your contempt for us all whether R, D or none of the above.
Re: (Score:1)
That's right. When is the last time a Democrat recused themselves. I don't ever recall it happening. Going back 50 years. He's disappointed in him because it showed he's weak.
Obama on the other hand knew it was happening and criticized Trump for indicating it was even a possibility. He even made a speech on it right here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] space to 17:50. Understand while he's saying this, he knows very well exactly what he is saying can't happen is in fact happening.
We finally have a rea
What? Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
The US and Russia have adversarial interests quite frequently. You can list every country in eastern Europe and the Middle East, and most of them have been a source of contention between the US and Russia in the last 20 years.
Given that frequency of conflict, why on earth would the US share sensitive technical information? What is Russia offering that Israel, Germany, and the UK aren't?
The US has a few arrangements already, and those include nations which are both technologically astute and far more friendly than Russia.
I don't care what Trump says; he knows jack about cyber security. What do the real experts think the US will gain? I.e., private sector and NSA/CIA security analysts.
Re: What? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump doesn't want to listen to the experts because then he would essentially be 'admitting' that they are correct about what Russia did to our election (I'm not talking about collusion, just the Russian meddling/attack).
That admission would hurt his fragile ego and in his mind would put the legitimacy of his presidency in question.
He is literally making decisions that make him look 'good', at least in his mind.
I'm still completely lost on how he is hanging on to the support of his 'base'. I mean I get the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
TPP was dead before he was sworn in. Now I'd agree his campaign rhetoric may have helped it die, but it died before he could kill it. I'd also agree there is something financial that is going to be found. Maybe Russia has been propping up his real estate. I disagree he knows what he is doing. You do not tell the cop "Don't look in the trunk, there are no drugs there", just like you don't tell mueller, "Don't look into my finances".
Re: (Score:2)
Many very large donors to both R and D like the idea a great deal.
Re: (Score:2)
He's been doing idiotic tweets for as long as Twitter existed. Trump is not a deep person, he doesn't have a subtle bone in his body, and he's certainly not following a secret long term strategy. Occam's Razor applies here and the the simplest solution is that he's exactly what he appears to be: shallow and ego driven. The inscrutable tweet at 3am is merely an impulse he has after listening to some conspiracy oriented radio show. The tweets are stream of consciousness ramblings. He has so many contradict
Re: (Score:2)
Let's also not forget that he does indeed appear to be an idiot. This is not a man of deep thoughts, or much thought at all. He has virtually no impulse control (something his eldest son has inherited), and I've come to believe that it isn't that he doesn't want to understand the world, it's that he is incapable of it. What the US has done has elected Chauncey Gardner's mean-spirited brother.
Re: (Score:1)
There was no Russian hacking. There was however extensive DNC vote rigging and sactuary city illegal voting. Now get back to work.
Step up your game Ivan. Most people are numb to your deflection by now, so ya gotta amp it up to 11. Threaten to tell everyone about everyone's midget shemale scat porn addiction if they don't toe the line or you'll never collect those rubles.
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. I think there is a much bigger base than people thought who are just opposed to it all. Where "it" means everything, but especially anything to do with politics. They have been flipping their finger at the world for a long time, and now that there's a leader of the flip-the-finger movement they vote for him. They're anti-elite but at the same time for this guy who's the biggest elitist of them all. But Trump manages to give the impression of not being elite, they see him as not smart with e
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Trump has every seriously cared about the legitimacy of anything he has for most of his life. For example, it was enough for "Trump University" to have that title but none of the trappings of a real University.
I think he just cares about having something, whether it was gained by fair means or foul doesn't seem to matter to him.
Re:What? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
[Trump] wants to work with Russia specifically
I have to say, at first when all this news about Russia started coming out, I thought that most likely, we'd find that Trump wasn't involved with the Russia hacking. Putin probably got him elected because he knew Trump was a moron, he wanted to sow chaos into the American political system, and putting Trump into the presidency was a convenient way of damaging the US.
But as time has gone on, it's become evident that can't be the case. First, because of Trumps repeated attempts at obstructing the investiga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What? Why? (Score:2)
Do you really think a second rate nation like Russia, with a huge indefensible border and ringed by hostile NATO bases, would be starting shit if they weren't backed into a corner? Discard your outdated Cold War propaganda and look at the situation with fresh eyes. America hasn't treated Russia kindly for the past quarter century.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Foreign adventurism is an old Russian technique for distracting Russians from what their leaders are doing.
Re:What? Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
What is Russia offering that Israel, Germany, and the UK aren't?
The dirt and espionage on Americans. Which as has already been admitted and is proven in an email trail, is what this administration believes is something anyone would want to participate in.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent post - you've earned your rubles there, comrade.
Boris has indeed served the motherland well, comrades. We shall see that he gets an extra ration of Vodka, and maybe a pair of shoes for his children.
Don't forget what we know about you Boris, you wouldn't want that to get out.......
Re: (Score:1)
Your ads are more dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records (I mean, just look at your replies throughout time), you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact thei
Filed Under "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" (Score:2)
Moscow and Washington are in talks to create a joint cyber security working group...
Does this need further analysis?
I think not.
MAHA! (Score:2)
"The fox is building a beautiful hen house to protect American hens! Believe me, the fox knows protection better than the wealthiest lock-smith. And the cows will pay for it! Make hen-houses secure again!"
Can I get a "HELL, NO!" from y'all? (Score:2, Redundant)
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's have the fox guard the henhouse!
LOLOLOL, no.
The only possible way you could convince me this is even remotely a good idea, would be if it's under the 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer' philosophy. But even then I'd still say "HELL, NO!".
US cutting cyber relations in State department (Score:1)
Interesting timing, considering that the coordinator for cyber issues at the State department is leaving, and Tillerson is considering closing the cyber office or merging it with another department. [politico.com]
Cede the international leadership to Russia. That's great.
wtf is an impenetrable Cyber Security unit?? (Score:2)
First up, nothing is impenetrable. Especially something with computers and people.
But if they could be impenetrable, that would be nice. But shouldn't their job be to make other units impenetrable?
AKA backdoor/channel to Russia (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course if that happens all the other countries will also be knocked down a peg or twenty.
The thing with Globalization, is with the big nations, trying to hurt the nation will only hurt yourself.
You are better off trying to get your country to be better itself then trying to bring the others down a peg.
You do not need to run your country like Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you want some known nations off the board? China is imperialistic and would be happy to have the balance of power in the Pac Rim belong to them, just because old hatreds run deeply, and they would love to visit some retribution versus the California-sized island that terrorized them in the past century. Iran and Saudi Arabia wouldn't be fun either. Daesh is scurrying around in the shadows looking for a power vacuum and has the best propaganda artists in the world, preying on the despairing and desp