Miserably Biased Lester Holt on Trump Clinton Debate

JoyInTheMorning

Thu, Sep 29 2016, 2:17 am

Fox wrote:

This is precisely why the election is so close. Clinton says absolutely nothing in the above quote. In fact, she says less than Trump, which takes a bit of doing.

Trump's meandering answer brings out the fact that there are multiple threats -- from governments, people in their basements, and his ten-year-old son. Clinton seems determined to make this about Russia. There is no doubt that Russia is very active in hacking, but she's wrong to put so much focus on it.

And am I to understand that she's threatening military action unless Russia stops its hackers? I have a better idea: how about using secured servers and actually taking the advice of your IT experts? That won't stop all hackers, but it won't end with your IT guy taking the Fifth, either.

Fox, really, you think that Clinton said nothing? You don't understand what she said? You think that she said less than Trump?

Granted, neither candidate laid out a plan to stop hacking -- even computer experts haven't figured out how to do that -- but Clinton's remarks had much more content.

Here is a summary of Clinton's points on cybersecurity: (Refer to http://www.vox.com/policy-and-.....ebate for the full quotes.) I've added comments in square brackets with my initials.

Clinton (1) There are two different kinds of cybersecurity hackers: those who do so for personal gain, and state-sponsored hacking. [jitm: This is a crucial point, which neither Holt nor Trump mentioned. It's important because the consequences are much graver for the second than for the first; and because different strategies are needed to prevent and recover from the different types of attacks. It also shows that Clinton is relatively well informed, since this distinction was not much discussed outside of cyber circles until the past year.]

Clinton (2) Russia has been hacking our computer systems. They're doing it both to wreak havoc and to collect personal information. [jitm: Again, an important disinction.]

Clinton (3) In order to protect ourselves against Russian cyberhacking, we may have to go on the offensive, and launch cyberattacks against Russia. We don't want to, but we have to defend our citizens. [jitm: Fox, it's clear that Clinton wasn't talking about military action; she mentions a "different kind of warfare." We also know from Stuxnet, jointly built by the U.S. and Israel, that we have the capacity to do that.]

Now let's contrast that to Trump's remarks. What do we get out of them?

Trump (1) We don't know who hacked into the DNC, if it was Russia or China or some random fat guy. [jitm: Cybersecurity experts who have examined the evidence are quite certain it was Russia. It's not like hacking doesn't leave a trace. It absolutely does, and cybersecurity experts work like detectives, gathering evidence and making inferences. Also, note the exaggeration (400 pound person) and the fat shaming.]

Trump (2) We'll never know who did it because we've lost control over the internet even though we invented it. [jitm: Wrong on three counts. First, we can figure out who attacks us: see my remarks above. Second, we didn't invent the internet. Academics funded by the US government first came up with arpanet, which allowed computers to be linked together and to send email to one another, but that's not what the internet, as we use it today, is. The internet -- the world wide web -- was made possible / invented by Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, while he was working at CERN, in Switzerland. Third, we have not "lost control" over the internet; the internet was never meant to be "controlled." What we have to do is keep malicious actors from entering our websites, but that is not the same as having control over the whole internet. ]

Trump (3) ISIS is beating us at our own game on the internet. [jitm: No, ISIS is playing an entirely different game, using social media to recruit terrorists. The US doesn't use social media to recruit to anything. What the US government is trying to do is to learn how to use the internet to disrupt and counter such recruitment efforts. But "beating us at our own game"? That shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on.]

Trump (4) My son is unbelievably good at computers. [jitm: Mah inyan shmittah l'har sinai? How is this relevant to anything?]

Fox, can you still tell me with a straight face that Clinton said less that was meaningful and true than Trump?

Fox

Thu, Sep 29 2016, 8:15 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Quoting Vox is like quoting Breitbart. Only worse -- Breitbart's actual reporting standards have been validated by The Guardian. Both Vox and Breitbart are useful starting points, but you have to dig a bit deeper.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Clinton (1) There are two different kinds of cybersecurity hackers: those who do so for personal gain, and state-sponsored hacking. [jitm: This is a crucial point, which neither Holt nor Trump mentioned. It's important because the consequences are much graver for the second than for the first; and because different strategies are needed to prevent and recover from the different types of attacks. It also shows that Clinton is relatively well informed, since this distinction was not much discussed outside of cyber circles until the past year.]

Clinton (2) Russia has been hacking our computer systems. They're doing it both to wreak havoc and to collect personal information. [jitm: Again, an important disinction.]

Not an important distinction at all. Defense Systems

The tactics and resources are different, but the potential outcomes are not necessarily different. In fact, the ability to interrupt monetary transfer systems is potentially more dangerous than accessing military secrets.

There is also considerable cross-over between private and state-sponsored hacking, a line that will continue to blur.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Clinton (3) In order to protect ourselves against Russian cyberhacking, we may have to go on the offensive, and launch cyberattacks against Russia. We don't want to, but we have to defend our citizens. [jitm: Fox, it's clear that Clinton wasn't talking about military action; she mentions a "different kind of warfare." We also know from Stuxnet, jointly built by the U.S. and Israel, that we have the capacity to do that.]

If Clinton is being honest about "we may have to go on the offensive," then she has just demonstrated incompetence to the point of dereliction of duty during her time as Secretary of State.

If we're not already on the offensive in cyber-espionage, our only hope is for Israel to save us.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Trump (1) We don't know who hacked into the DNC, if it was Russia or China or some random fat guy. [jitm: Cybersecurity experts who have examined the evidence are quite certain it was Russia. It's not like hacking doesn't leave a trace. It absolutely does, and cybersecurity experts work like detectives, gathering evidence and making inferences. Also, note the exaggeration (400 pound person) and the fat shaming.]

The "cybersecurity experts" in this case are being paid by CrowdStrike, which is routinely criticized in IT security circles for having a vested interest in promoting the profile of state-sponsored hackers.

But it really doesn't matter. You are quite likely that it was the Russians ("C'mon, Vladimir! Give the lady back her emails!"). But it could also be a 400-lb man in his basement who was working with a Chinese national through a proxy server who then turned it over to Guccifer 2.0 which was co-opted or being paid by Russia, which was in cahoots with Julian from the beginning.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Trump (2) We'll never know who did it because we've lost control over the internet even though we invented it. [jitm: Wrong on three counts. First, we can figure out who attacks us: see my remarks above. Second, we didn't invent the internet. Academics funded by the US government first came up with arpanet, which allowed computers to be linked together and to send email to one another, but that's not what the internet, as we use it today, is. The internet -- the world wide web -- was made possible / invented by Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, while he was working at CERN, in Switzerland. Third, we have not "lost control" over the internet; the internet was never meant to be "controlled." What we have to do is keep malicious actors from entering our websites, but that is not the same as having control over the whole internet. ]

Yes, and no. It depends on whether you believe that the world would be a better place if ICANN and IANA functions are essentially under the control of the U.S. Granted, the Montevideio Statement has a nice, "let's all play ball together" feel to it, but giving repressive governments more control over speech in their countries isn't generally seen as an American goal.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Trump (3) ISIS is beating us at our own game on the internet. [jitm: No, ISIS is playing an entirely different game, using social media to recruit terrorists. The US doesn't use social media to recruit to anything. What the US government is trying to do is to learn how to use the internet to disrupt and counter such recruitment efforts. But "beating us at our own game"? That shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on.]

Huh? ISIS hackers are way, way behind the curve, but they're very active in doxing, and no one thinks they're going to stop there.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Trump (4) My son is unbelievably good at computers. [jitm: Mah inyan shmittah l'har sinai? How is this relevant to anything?]

Correct. Totally irrelevant.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Fox, can you still tell me with a straight face that Clinton said less that was meaningful and true than Trump?

I can tell you with a straight face that neither one is an expert. I can also tell you that anyone who stored classified info on a server that was less secure than the one in my basement and ignored advice from her IT consultant shouldn't be allowed to have a Facebook account, let alone exert more substantive influence over cybersecurity.

Fox

Thu, Sep 29 2016, 12:36 pm

marina wrote:

Are you arguing, Fox, that whether a private or state actor hacks emails makes no difference? Surely I am misunderstanding. I read the article that you posted and found it lacking in terms of national security and foreign policy. If a private hacker is trying to get into government emails, that's very different than if Russia or North Korea as a country is doing the same.

Just like if a plain vanilla criminal flies an airplane into a building vs a country- sanctioned attack. Just like a serial killer v. genocidal state actor. Etc. Just like a private citizen robbing a house v. government taking property. Just like a private citizen taking your gun v the government taking it.

That's the whole point of the article: the lines between state actors and private actors are increasingly blurred.

It's a mistake to picture state-sponsored hackers as civil servants dutifully showing up every morning for eight hours of hacking. They are more likely to be private hackers who have been co-opted or simply hired by state actors. In some cases, they may not realize they are working for a state.

A better metaphor would be a government that hires a private company that subcontracts to another private company that hires freelancers to take your gun. The freelancer who ultimately confiscates your gun may look like a private citizen, and he may even claim to be a private citizen, but the result is ultimately the same as if the government took your gun. In fact, it may even be worse: the government can claim plausible deniability and bury the whole operation under layers of transactions.

JoyInTheMorning

Thu, Sep 29 2016, 3:49 pm

Fox wrote:

Let me be clear. I wasn't quoting Vox. I was giving Vox as a reference for the portion of the transcript of the debate concerning cybersecurity. For the sake of brevity, I myself summarized the main points of what Clinton said on the subject, and what Trump said on the subject. I added my own comments in [jitm ...] brackets, but the summaries were also my own.

Now, to your points.

You say, citing https://defensesystems.com/Art.....ge=2, that the distinction between state and non-state actors isn't important. But the article you cite doesn't actually say that. It cites one person who says that sometimes the lines are blurred, and there's not a big gap between technologies and skills. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lot of cases where in fact state and non-state actors will act differently. And it certainly doesn't mean that the US can defend its systems similarly from these different actors. How the US predicts which actors will act when depends very much on what it knows about these actors and their motives.

You also say

Quote:

Do you seriously expect that Clinton is going to say in a public forum that the US co-developed Stuxnet with the Israelis? Has it escaped your notice that Stuxnet attacked computer systems in Iran -- and in the process, prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons -- exactly during the time when Clinton was Secretary of State? (To be fair, it seems clear that Stuxnet was started under GWB's watch, and continued, expanded, and unleashed during the Obama administration.)

It's very clear to anyone who knows anything what is going on. Clinton is saying that if a state actor messes too much with the US, the US can and will mess with them.

Quote:

I don't know what you have in your basement, Fox. I do know that State Department servers have been repeatedly hacked, while there is no evidence tht Clinton's server was hacked. Whether done for that purpose or not -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it was done for that purpose, and if that's part of the conversation between Powell and Clinton that we'll never know about -- Clinton's emails were safer on her personal server than they would have been if she had used State Department servers.

It's very clear that Clinton knows what she's talking about, while Trump is repeatedly claiming that no one knows anything for sure because that way he can cover up his own ignorance.

And again, can I ask: Are you not bothered at all by the fact that Trump can barely ever utter a coherent sentence? How many people do you know who can't talk at the level of a third grader? And how many of those would you trust to make important decisions?

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 29 2016, 4:26 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

SNIP
And again, can I ask: Are you not bothered at all by the fact that Trump can barely ever utter a coherent sentence? How many people do you know who can't talk at the level of a third grader? And how many of those would you trust to make important decisions?

That's not the only thing that bothers me.

I'm bothered by his casual sexism. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with referring to women as "fat" or "ugly." Saying that Clinton doesn't look "presidential" (which he later denied). http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....-look

I'm bothered by his assumption that Christians are best. From his statement that he would ban Muslm immigration to the US (now retracted, sort of, maybe) to his asking those who are not "conservative Christians" to raise their hands at a rally (supposedly a joke, not a funny one IMNSHO)

blob:https://vine.co/9829d88b-7265-46b7-ab02-1f58ff97ad4e

I'm bothered by his casual racism, especially with respect to the "Birther" myth that he perpetuated for years. His belief that crime can be stopped by racial profiling. The fact that he still refuses to say "it was wrong" that his company refused to rent to blacks. (Instead, he said that lots of companies were accused of the same thing, and that his company settled without an admission of liability).https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html His statement about Mexican immigrants -- "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." And his condemnation of a judge born in Indiana, because he is "Mexican."

I'm bothered by his inability to tell the truth, even about ridiculous little things. Like the fact that he was sniffling at the debate. http://nymag.com/daily/intelli......html I mean, Howard Dean notwithstanding (and he's an idiot to have made the joke he did), who cares if he had the sniffles. Or that he said that he's "smart" for not paying taxes. http://www.snopes.com/trump-taxes-smart/ (including video). Or denying that he said that climate control was a Chinese hoax. When he did. https://twitter.com/realDonald.....5Etfw

I'm troubled by his lack of familiarity with the issues. I'm not saying he's a Gary Johnson, but he didn't know about the Russian incursion into the Ukraine. Really?

I'm troubled by Trump's failure to prepare for the debate, according to his own advisors. http://www.mediaite.com/print/.....ored/ What does that suggest about his ability to stay on point in office? And by the fact that he was lobbed the biggest softball in history -- about cyber security (and while I agree that Clinton's servers were not attacked, and it shouldn't be a big issue, he certainly could and should have pounded it to death) -- but was so distracted by a suggestion he's not really that rich that he couldn't get himself on point.

That's aside from his policies, which I believe would be a disaster for the country.