News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by jessaustin on Friday December 30, 2016 @12:42AM (#13282775)
Here you're using a common everyday definition of the verb "rig". Observe that this definition excludes e.g. publicizing a political candidate's banal episodes of tawdriness to the scrutiny of voters, so it's not the definition in wide use in USA news media over the last month or so.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Friday December 30, 2016 @10:59AM (#13284953)
I'm using rig in a broad sense. The DNC didn't publicize banal episodes of tawdriness to the scrutiny of voters. If you're talking about the NGP VAN data access, that hit the news on 12/17/2015 when Michael Briggs (Sanders's communications aide) talked about it to BuzzFeed, and the story blew up on 12/18 when the Sanders campaign filed a lawsuit against the DNC over temporarily shutting down their access to the system until they could show that they had deleted any copies they might have had of the Clinton campaign's data.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by jessaustin on Friday December 30, 2016 @02:35PM (#13286718)
That's the point. Rigging an election consists of stuffing ballot boxes or intimidating voters or something like that. Phishing John Podesta is the sort of thing that used to be called "opposition research" (assuming arguendo that the phishing party actually cared who won).
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Friday December 30, 2016 @05:12PM (#13287937)
I'm sorry, but I don't see what phishing Podesta has to do with fleitz's claim that the DNC rigged the primaries.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by jessaustin on Friday December 30, 2016 @06:49PM (#13288511)
Perhaps you've missed the last month of news media output; congratulations! There has been a great deal of innuendo about hackers rigging our election under V. Putin's direct command. Here's the top of Google News just now when I checked: [0] This fine polemic starts with a lamentation of Podesta's email security, mumbles through some baseless speculation about fake news and voting machine hacks, then admits to that baselessness before winding up to this breezy pronouncement: "The bottom line is that as dangerous as actual attempts to compromise voter outcome are, the perception that voting results are flawed is also capable of delegitimizing the democratic process. If citizens believe the vote has been rigged, then why bother voting at all?"

One might note that this author stops short of saying rather than merely insinuating that "publishing emails" constitutes "rigging an election", but he sure wrote a lot of words in that effort.

[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-election-hack-obama-re...

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:48AM (#13291773)
I haven't missed that at all. It just has absolutely nothing to do with fleitz's claim that the DNC rigged the primaries.

Maybe you are not an American. Do you know what the primaries are?

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by jessaustin on Saturday December 31, 2016 @06:12PM (#13293706)
Does the definition of "rig" change from the primaries to the general?
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Sunday January 01, 2017 @11:07AM (#13296120)
We were discussing fleitz's claim that the DNC rigged the primaries for Clinton. I assert that they didn't. I'm still not sure what you're claiming or whom you think you are disagreeing with.