Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdabbadabba | Hacker News Reader

I'd say each of your three points are seriously exaggerated, but that's really neither here nor there. Why can't we be worried by the content of the emails and the fact that a foreign government hacked them and leaked them strategically to influence our election?

It strikes me as profoundly foolish to not react here just because you happen to be happy that this particular set of information was released. (As well as, by the way, reams of email with no value to the public whatsoever.)

And of course nobody is suggesting we fight a nuclear war. There's clearly plenty of space between GP's suggestion that we do more than tell them to 'cut it out' and nuclear warfare.

View on HN

It's called whistleblowing. By definition, you have to step outside of protocol... or hack. Choose whatever verbiage that suits you.

I don't know what country you're from, but our laws in America are supposed to protect whistleblowers––not prosecute them.

A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.

Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.

How do you feel about the fact that they appear to have hacked the RNC too but deliberately chose not to release those emails, in order to favor one candidate over the other. Still think that's a huge public service?

Not to mention that the emails they kept might be used for blackmail in the future.

Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?

The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.

The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".

Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.

And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?

The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.

If I remember correctly, that was walked back to a claim that they'd hacked "RNC actors" but not the RNC themselves - and we already knew that because e-mails from Republicans were released fairly early on. This is a problem with a lot of the scary claims going around in general; they simply don't actually seem to be true.

Yes they did 1/2 have of the work they could but I'm not complaining about getting more information. Someone else should leak the RNC. Or possibly it didn't contain as many bombshells? Either way, I'm happy to get more information than I had before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com