[EL] What could be done

Sun Jan 8 10:58:44 PST 2017

This states craft it is multi pronged and designed to be hidden.

If you are looking for missile silos ALA Cuban Missile Crisis you are going to be disappointed.

The issues are the Russians succeeded in getting the data and accurately determined how each central player would react to accomplish a desired outcome.

This is more like playing three dimensional chess blindfolded for us to know how long it took to place pieces and plan as well as carry out the attack.  Out federal election system is our most vulnerable time for espionage activity.

Electrons are snapshots of a lot of things about a culture and society-- the Russians did not invent Benghazi, or the Primary process or email issues but they played on them to push their interest in a certain outcome.  The reality TV conditioned voting public loved the drama.

Our Intelligence Community saw Russian activity but did not know what game was in play, when they determined the source of the Wikileaks data was Russian they knew it was them, but which them an Oligarch(s), mob, hacker, or state sponsored.

Russia studies the US to its benefit not our own--they did this activity during our federal election and we have an unclassified report to discuss.  The classified version could put our sources or people at risk so some will see it-but never discuss it.

The most problematic issue is the beneficiaries of the Russian activity seem to have problems believing our own Intelligence Agencies.

Winning is one thing--invitations to continue this activity is another.  Being in denial is a was of time--we should think about international law as it relates to elections as well as improving the election system.  

No voter suppression, no interference by the FBI, better press obligations to not support spreading the hacked information or campaigns refusing to comment on state sponsored pilfered data would seem reasonable and may have denied the Russians a celebration on how well they did in influencing our national election.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Is this that much different than a super PAC in the U.S. doing things outside the sphere of the campaign and the campaign not being held accountable or responsible. Maybe the Federal Elections Commission should fine Russia for not filing the paperwork or reports required of Super PACS and others who engage in electoral politics. One of the many problems with the intersection of the law and electoral politics is that until forfeiture of office is one possible penalty, there is no incentive to toe the line.
> Larry
>  
>  
> From: Lillie Coney [mailto:coney at lillieconey.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 5:16 AM
> To: Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com>
> Cc: larrylevine at earthlink.net; law-election at uci.edu; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] What could be done
>  
> I would not dismiss the hacking as a factor that in its actions and effects cannot be controlled.
>  
> Computing security technologists have long warned of this particular threat to election integrity and the intelligence community far in advance of the election indicated that the source was Russia and purpose of the hack was to influence the outcome of the election.
>  
> Areas introduced into the election:
>  
> -Spy craft 
> - Means and methods used by nations engaged in influencing elections 
> - Media ethics in reporting information known to be sourced from this activity (before and after the election)
> - Security of technology 
>  
> My view is the media glossed over the reported source and purpose of the Wikileaks information prior to the election, they were quick to report any new information released, and during the post election has covered the Russian aspect heavily--pictures of Putin appearing in nearly all reports.
>  
> Spy craft election tactics included more than hacking email it involved knowing, influencing, or predicting how candidates, institutions or parties would react.  Having parties not mind getting help from a foreign intelligence agency with an election victory is a problem.
>  
> The technologists who have well documented their concerns for years and made recommendations on voting systems and the potential for hacking should be allowed to advise on what technologies and security measures should be taken.
> 
> Media has devolved from Edward R Murrow to a form of tabloid journalism broadcasting, which is something they need to think about.
>  
> In my view this not going away and 2017 will present ample opportunities in state and local elections for problems--perhaps not from the Russians, but now the playbook is public any entity foreign or domestic might find it tempting to interfere in this fashion.
>  
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 8, 2017, at 7:31 AM, Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> what, realistically can be done?  "Do Over?"
>  
> While one may or may not like Trump's ties to Russia or Putin, in the end, Russia is another interest group with an interest in the election.  Some of them spend lots of money, others others speak and write, others...hack.  The latter situation is one that we unfortunately can't control.
>  
> We can try to control money through better campaign spending legislation.  But the realities of the cyberworld indicate that anyone from the Russian government, to the 12 year old hacker in Boise who is home from school with the flu for several days now have the power to effect all sorts of cybermischief.  And, sadly, what's sauce for the goose...: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/02/the_hypocrisy_of_american_exceptionalism_missing_the_big_picture_of_the_dncs_alleged_election_meddling/  
>  
> No one has come up with a suggestion to control hacking that does not entail an Orwellian surveillance operation.
>  
> Also, realistically, what had the greater effect?  The hack (whose real impact is still somewhat fuzzy) or Comey? Clinton blamed the FBI for the loss:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html  
>  
> It's 21st century America...
>  
> cheers to all
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
> In an election as close as this one was in several key states, I think it can be concluded that the actions of the Russian government influenced public opinion in the U.S. to a degree that it is reasonable to believe it changed the result of the election. But under our system, even if it were proved, what could be done.
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-11-most-important-lines-from-the-new-intelligence-report-on-russia%e2%80%99s-hacking/ar-BBxYXGw?li=BBnb7Kz
> Larry
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Mark Rush
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170108/f0b2a177/attachment-0001.html>