undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGVIrish8y ago0 comments

Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction.

This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone, it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda.

This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.

0 comments

at-fates-hands8y ago

>> Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem

So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu?

According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-funded grants to a political group in Israel to build a campaign operation, which subsequently was used to try to influence Israelis to vote against conservative Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 2015 election for prime minister.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350...

vorotato8y ago

This is the definition of whataboutism. It wasn't okay when Russia did it, and it wasn't okay when Obama did it. Saying Obama did it doesn't make something okay?

GVIrishOP8y ago

Huh? I'm talking about illegal hacking by a hostile intelligence service interfering in our election. What you linked has nothing to do with any illegal activities, which is what the point of the whole thread is.

Even from the article you linked, it says that "OneVoice did not use State Department funds directly for political activities, or seek State Department grants in anticipation of the Israeli elections" but that it indirectly allowed that non-profit to campaign against Netanyahu. Not exactly the same kettle of fish.

Just the same I don't support our government trying to fund political campaigns against our allies either.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse