US Response 'Hasn't Changed The Calculus' Of Russian Interference, NSA Chief Says (npr.org) 126
An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The admiral in charge of both the nation's top electronic spying agency and the Pentagon's cybersecurity operations would seem a logical point man for countering Russia's digital intrusions in U.S. election campaigns. But National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command chief Adm. Michael Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday there is only so much he can do. That is because, according to Rogers, President Trump has not ordered him to go after the Russian attacks at their origin. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee's ranking Democrat, asked Rogers, "Have you been directed to do so, given this strategic threat that faces the United States and the significant consequences you recognize already?" "No, I have not," Rogers replied. But the spy chief pushed back on suggestions that he should seek a presidential signoff. "I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do," Rogers said when Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal pressed him on whether Trump should approve that authority.
"I'm an operational commander, not a policymaker," he added. "That's the challenge for me as a military commander." Rogers agreed with Blumenthal's estimation that Russian cyber operatives continue to attack the U.S. with impunity and that Washington's response has fallen short. "It hasn't changed the calculus, is my sense," the spy chief told Blumenthal. "It certainly hasn't generated the change in behavior that I think we all know we need."
"I'm an operational commander, not a policymaker," he added. "That's the challenge for me as a military commander." Rogers agreed with Blumenthal's estimation that Russian cyber operatives continue to attack the U.S. with impunity and that Washington's response has fallen short. "It hasn't changed the calculus, is my sense," the spy chief told Blumenthal. "It certainly hasn't generated the change in behavior that I think we all know we need."
But You're an SME! (Score:5, Insightful)
> I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do,
Yeah, when I feel that my product could use an improvement, I never bring it up to the product manager.
Re: (Score:3)
> I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do,
Yeah, when I feel that my product could use an improvement, I never bring it up to the product manager.
They basically asked if he wanted a bigger budget and he said yes his department wants a bigger budget to do more. Who says no to that? Now he's not responsible for anymore Russian hacking because he didn't get what he wants.
Re:But You're an SME! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the DoD. They asked that their budget not be increased so much, so they could buy fewer planes and tanks that they don't need. They also asked that the state dept. get some of that money to ensure they continue to not need them.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the responsibilities of a subordinate (whether it be a lower commander or a staff officer) is to make recommendations and suggestions to your commander. It's what you're paid to do!
Any subordinate who will NOT do that is a coward, a toadie.
Re: (Score:1)
In most companies you are NOT paid to make recommendations and suggestions. You ARE paid to tell your boss what he wants to hear. Sometimes the 2 are the same things (and in any organization with competent management they are). However when your boss is... less competent... it's stupid to give them recommendations that you know they don't want to hear. And it's pretty obvious that Trump does NOT want to hear that recommendation.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the management culture of your company, doesn't it?
It's not a universal thing that speaking your mind to a senior management is considered a good thing. There are cultures -- both national and corporate -- where bringing up ideas to senior people is seen as undermining the authority of management. I've worked in corporate cultures where expressing ideas is quite dangerous, and if such an expression drew management ire everyone was supposed to jump on the bandwagon ridiculing the unfortunate sub
Going after Russia, (Score:1, Insightful)
but not Mexico would be hypocritical. Mexican citizens cast a significant number of votes in the election - illegally - which to me is a bigger deal than doing some advertising.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
but not Mexico would be hypocritical. Mexican citizens cast a significant number of votes in the election - illegally - which to me is a bigger deal than doing some advertising.
You're going to get modded down into oblivion, but here's a little evidence to support your argument. [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi... [thehill.com]
http://www.capoliticalreview.c... [capoliticalreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
These are just the proven cases that are cataloged on this site [heritage.org]. It doesn't mean it's all the proven cases, and it certainly doesn't cover the ones that were covered up or not caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering each and every case has a link to an outside source I don't think it really matters that the hosting site is conservative.
You lefties love your fallacies when arguing against the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My post will be down-modded into oblivion because progressives need those votes, believe heavily in "solidarity", and narrative control.
There's also lots of progressives on Slashdot with mod points.
Fortunately there's also a lot of balance here as long as you're not insulting Apple. We'll see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Apple PR types don't troll slashdot with advertising, then their message will not get trolled back for shits and giggles.
When it comes to the current indictments, a real tactical mistake was made, instead of just making indictments against individuals in Russia who will never of course appear, they foolishly choose to indict companies and those companies can contest the indictments in court without ever appearing and force full disclosure of the US government case, all the so called evidence and
Re: Going after Russia, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not for nothing, but the border states where you imagine this happening (e.g Texas) are red. The fact that they haven't found anyone who cast an illegal vote probably means there weren't any.
Oh, I'm sorry, they found one person. But that doesn't fit your narrative at all (after all, they voted Republican twice).
Re: (Score:2)
So - since we're talking about Texas and if it's Texas voter fraud has to be pro-Republican:
https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]
https://empowertexans.com/arou... [empowertexans.com]
https://www.justice.gov/usao-s... [justice.gov]
Since this one was vague about party affiliation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Here's the one you're fond of: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/lo... [nbcdfw.com]
Notice it's primaries and run-offs. You can't be sure she wasn't voting Republican to try to make sure the weaker / less harsh on her issues person was the opponent. She
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for demonstrating how you despise the democratic process and freedom.
The very definition of fascist. [app.goo.gl]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious... What could Putin possibly have on Trump that is worse than what we already KNOW about him? And remember, Trump will have to actually care that the "goods" remain secret for Putin to have any leverage...
I mean that "Access Hollywood" tape business was pretty bad, but even that isn't enough. You are going to need some really nasty stuff to keep this nightmare of yours alive..
The REALLY nasty stuff is hard to hide for very long and we've had a special council looking at this for the las
Re: (Score:2)
Putin has leverage, but it isn't the blackmail kind.
As you point out, threatening to reveal Trump's secrets is likely pointless as Trump doesn't care. But there is something that trump cares about above all other things. POWER. Putin put him in power, and Putin can take him out of power just as easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen to him talk some time, all he ever talks about is how much power he has. And that didn't start when he got in to politics.
As for a businessman not having the power. I don't know where you've been, but business men often pull the strings of politicians.
We'd have to respond (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
to change the calculus. So far the administration (who's in charge of the response) doesn't seem to have done anything. Wait, strike that, They actually haven't done anything. [theguardian.com] It's almost as if they somehow benefited from it...
Did the last one do anything about it? You know, when it was actually supposedly happening?
I mean do anything besides be the only ones to collude, that is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Come on, you mean the president that laughed at his opponent when the idea of Russia being a geopolitical threat came up? The president that was captured on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” after the election?
The Democrats are accusing Republicans of siding with Russia... That's a knee slapper right there.
Please note, I'm not a Trump supporter or even a Republican supporter. This shit you just can't make up.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Trump's actions have been harder on Russia than Obama's [washingtonexaminer.com].
Obama was all talk, but not much action, compared to Trump.
Next you'll be claiming Obama defeated ISIS and the Trump Administration never did anything against them.
Going after attacks at origin is risky... (Score:5, Interesting)
But Rogers also made clear that he had not been granted what he called "the day-to-day authority" to disrupt Russian hacking operations at their point of origin.
To be fair, the range of actions to go after attacks "at their origin" in Russia would probably be a high risk no matter who was president, especially if it turns out the source is a Russian government agency. Admiral Rogers put it best near the end of the article:
Even if he were granted authority to act, Rogers questioned during the Senate hearing whether his agencies' capabilities would be the best or only response to those attacks.
"Be mindful of falling in the trap that just because someone comes at us in cyber that we have to default to immediately going back and doing the exact same thing," he warned. "I've always believed we need to step back and think a little bit more broadly about it and just don't default — it's because of that, you know, that I have not done that to date."
Re:Going after attacks at origin is risky... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That Trump is doing as bad a job as Obama did in countering this threat.
Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton
So you'd have him do what? Start a shooting war over this? Send Putin a strongly worded memo? Perhaps a UN security council action?
I don't think there is much we CAN do but monitor the activity and deal with any of it that runs counter to our law and happens where we have jurisdiction. Well that and make sure the electronic systems we used are hardened so they cannot easily mess with them from Moscow....
Why the need for spying? (Score:2)
Here we go again (Score:1)
Gotta get the clicks I suppose. The combined number of comments for all articles in the past 48 hours is less than the number of comments generated by a single tech article back when Slashdot was about tech.
This place has become downright embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the timeouts and failure to load parts of the page haven't been helping, but I do agree with your point...
America is being misled (Score:1)
This was a correct assessment (Score:1)
Look, Russia operates on a zero sum shrinking slice of pie model.
So does our current White House.
The problem is that, for most of us, it's far easier to just bake more pies, and accept a certain loss ratio, than to use half our resources defending our pie supply.
We know what we have to do: paper ballots, automatic voter registration, day of vote in person registration, and non-networked optical scan counting with an audit trail.
Everything else is a design for failure.
how is this different from arguing for propaganda (Score:2)
Traitor in chief? (Score:2)
.."preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (presidential oath of office)
So by NOT ordering the NSA to go after the Russians for their very well documented (13 indictments so far) interference, one wonders what, exactly he plans to do. The sanctions Congress approved (over his objections) have, so far, largely not been implemented and, barring some secret action it seems like he is going out of his way to spare Putin.
What exactly does Putin have on him? Does that infamous "dossi
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe in one year Trump has already taken more action against the Russians [washingtonexaminer.com] than occurred during the entire Obama Administration? Action, not talking tough.
Did you miss the couple hundred Russian mercenaries U.S. forces destroyed in Syria recently?
What's your evidence the Russians "hacked the election"? Even the NY Times doesn't believe that, and they'll believe just about anything related to Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm to believe a no-name (I've never heard of the "Washington Examiner", how many pulitzer prizes has it won) OPINION piece? Sounds like another bit of "Fake News" that those less well-educated fall for. That's the problem with many conservatives, they mistake opinion for fact and then they don't have the ability to judge what is important. You know there is a thing called quality in journalism, good journalism will often bring speak truth to power and bring down anyone of any political persuasion (li
Re: (Score:2)
You know everyone can just look at your comment I was replying to and find the words:
Bet you feel pretty dumb for not being able to read your own comment, huh?
As for the Washington Examiner, why don't we Ask the NY Times if it's a real newspaper or not? [nytimes.com] That's from 8 years ago, so they've been around a while. Or is the NY Ti
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Thanks for that, Ivan. It's always good to start out a topic on Russian interference with the mad hyperbole that comes out of a Russian troll farm.
Re:you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly, would he do against people joining Facebook and Twitter, etc?
There is No HACKING. They are simply using the same tools that Americans use.
Re: you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Despite no real scandals".
WTF are you smoking? Did you get that approved by CNN before posting or did they just give you that statement for you to ponder?
Re:you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick (Score:5, Insightful)
"dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage despite no real scandals"
Innocent emails about weddings and yoga cause damage?
If there was no scandal in the emails how would they have damaged Clinton? You can't have it both ways. Either the emails were damaging because scandal or the emails were innocent and not damaging. Pick one.
Re:you pro-war McCarthyites make me sick (Score:5, Insightful)
There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them.
Remember how outlets got two different versions of what happened re: Sanders during the primary? There was a concerted effort to rig the primaries and also the primaries couldn't be rigged since they were all run by individual state parties, and the emails somehow showed both.
Remember the pizza place basement slave dungeon (at the pizza place that didn't even have a basement)? Those were from the emails, even though it was a conspiracy theory. People took it and ran, and it damaged the campaign. But there was less than zero evidence.
So your desire to make everything a straw-man two choice argument is either intentionally misleading, or because of a problem with logical thinking. Pick one.
Or not, because there's probably another 1000 explanations.
Re: (Score:3)
"There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them."
Clinton campaign colluding with media to shut Sanders down and promote the pied piper Republicans is not a scandal? Showing the level of corruption that is normal for Clinton by hiring DWS after her disgraceful resignation that happened because of the unethical conduct uncovered from the emails, is not a scandal?
Wow, I guess if you change the definition, sure no "scandal". But for everyone else that was very unethical a
Re: (Score:1)
There's plenty of evidence of crooked shit going down regarding emails that mention that pizza place.
No one's figured out what that crooked shit was, or if it occurred at that pizza place.
Many emails used code words to refer to specific people, places, and things. The pizza place could be a code for something else, or it could be the pizza place.
You can go look at the emails yourself and try to piece it together. You can also see all the work others have done in decoding various pieces of it.
To state that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Installing a secret email server in your bathroom to evade public info retention laws is a simple IT mistake? On which planet?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh the Russian government hacked Hillary's campaign and the DNC and then dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage (but her emails...) despite no real scandals.
Trump's campaign aide Roger Stone communicated with, colluded with both the Russian government hackers and the Wikileaks Russian government mouthpiece.
The "hack" was some high-ranking clown clicking a URL in a phishing email and leaking his iWhatever credentials.
Her emails did expose real scandals. You can go and fucking read them if you want (you never will). The DNC and Hillary's campaign, along with media chills like CNN, rigged the DNC primary election for Hillary, despite Bernie Sanders being the far better candidate (even though he's a loon, he would have been an electable loon). And yes, Hillary leaked classified info through her private email s
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it make more sense that you're the Russian spy troll sent here to make Democrats look like unhinged imbeciles?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you watch "good night and good luck" and sit there cheering for the bad guys?
Putin this, russia that. Democrats demanding we start WWIII over a dozen guys shitposting on facebook.
HILLARY WAS A BAD CANDIDATE, WORSE THAN TRUMP. THE END
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Everybody wasn't voting for Trump as much as they were voting against Hillary. Hillary had many problems with high media coverage for years before she ran, why anyone thought she would make a good candidate is beyond me. Biden or Bernie would have been a much better candidate, but I think Hillary felt it was owed to her after she bowed out to allow Obama to win in 2008.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did Biden make up a ridiculous claim that he had to dodge sniper fire? Did he say that women and children have always been the primary victims of war? Was he tied to dozens of suspicious "accidental" deaths and suicides? Did he get a bunch of people killed during an aborted stint in office? Does he run a "charitable foundation" that is really a front for bribes, kickbacks, and other illicit pay-to-play dealings? Did he leak classified information all over hell? Did he conduct official business on a priv
Re: (Score:2)
No, sir, he did not.
You know who else didn't do any of this stuff? Clinton. But you go right ahead with your believing. It keeps you warm at night.
I see why you posted AC. Hillary literally said she had to dodge sniper fire and "run to our cars". When media showed the footage of her standing on the airport tarmac smiling and shaking hands, she quickly changed her story, saying she was "sleep deprived" when she said in front of dozens of crowds that she dodged sniper fire https://youtu.be/SfaxA9Q-9AQ [youtu.be]
Lord only knows how many other things she said while "sleep deprived" that media haven't caught her on yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot all the Russians on this site?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Trump's refusal to impose the sanctions against Russia that Congress passed and his refusal to even try to prevent Russian interference with our elections.
Re: (Score:3)
HILLARY WAS A BAD CANDIDATE, WORSE THAN TRUMP. THE END
Come on.. Let's be fair here... Both where pretty bad...
But I get your point... Hillary did have a lot going for her. Former Senator, Former Secretary of State and Former first lady with experience on her resume the envy of the field. She could talk a good game, had polish and was adept at political speak when cornered. Nobody could touch her it was her election to lose..... EXCEPT....
In walks Donald Trump, exactly zero elections to his name, no government experience on his resume. He's no politician,