us warns russia not to mess with election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analy...lytic_Confidence_in_National_Security_Reports



Levels of Analytic Confidence in National Security Reports[edit]



In an effort to apply more rigorous standards to National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council includes explanations of the three levels of analytic confidence made in estimative statements.[1]
High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.[1]
Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.[1]
 
evince said:
hacking the DNC is cheating you evil fuck
Click to expand...

And? You are still to prove that Russia or Trump...hacked anything. Unless you consider the adj. MOST LIKELY to be an objective term. Since when is rhetoric considered evidence? You keep repeating BS as if its sounds better the more you circle it. Its called a lack of articulation. When you can't defend the ACCUSATION that was made. Again....were is the evidence that the election was a fraud and Mr. Trump was involved? What? More circular arguments?

Its like the pseudo scientists attempting to prove the age of something by dating the age of a fossil due to the supposed age of the earth it was found in...and dating the earth from the supposed age of the fossil found in it. CIRCULAR REASONING.

One thing's for sure...when I am dead an gone...perhaps buried and dug up in about 1000 years...I hope they don't claim that I am as old as the dirt that I was buried beneath. That's your left wing logic....or the lack thereof.

Try this....by your logic.....Hildabeast is as guilty as hell.....she's under FBI investigation. That is the CHARGE you are making against TRUMP and you can't even demonstrate that his name is ever mentioned with any so called Russian Cyber Attack. Priceless. What? Do you want your cake and eat it also? FYI: You can't have (possess) your cake and eat it at the same time. Once you eat it...its gone. You are saying Hillary is innocently under investigation while TRUMP is guilty as sin because he supposedly talked to some Russian...but is not under investigation? Your cake is gone....wait for the defecation....like all your posts.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
US Warns Russia: Don't Mess With Our Election
By BRIAN ROSS
19 hours ago
Good Morning America The U.S. government has warned Russia not to interfere with the presidential election today or face "serious consequences," a senior U.S. official told ABC News.
The private warning followed an unusual public condemnation from America's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said the Kremlin's "senior-most officials" must have authorized cyberattacks on American individuals and political institutions, including the hack of the Democratic National Committee this summer.
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails... are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a joint statement with the Department of Homeland Security on Oct. 7. "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."
LATEST: 2016 Presidential Election
Election Cyberattacks Could Hurt Public Confidence but not Change Results, Feds Say
US Intelligence Officials Confirm Russian Role in *…
Play video


The NSA Is Likely 'Hacking Back' Russia's Cyber Squads
In addition to the hacking of emails related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which have continued up to Election Day, the U.S. intelligence community said in October that some U.S. states have "recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company," though the U.S. said it was not in a position to blame the Russian government for that. Russian officials have denied the hacking allegations.
Already at least four U.S. states have had some part of the security surrounding their voter registration databases breached, which is separate from the voting systems, U.S. officials previously told ABC News, and in response 46 states took the DHS up on its offer to provide cyber "hygiene" services to root out any vulnerabilities in their systems.
Cybersecurity researchers and experts have long warned that the U.S. election process is vulnerable to cyberattacks, even down to hacking individual voting booths. But while U.S. officials have acknowledged the threat, they've remained publicly confident that hackers would not be able to actually impact the election's outcome. They said the system is so complex and antiquated, and often backed up by paper ballots, that large-scale disruption is virtually impossible.
"The [U.S. Intelligence Community] and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion," the DHS and ODNI said in their statement. "This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place."
Talking Specifics: Cyber Security
Play video


Some experts, however, have pointed out that big moments in nationwide elections have come down to particular key districts in key states -- meaning a targeted attempt to throw off the vote there could have an out-sized impact.
"A slight alteration of the vote in some swing precincts in swing states might not raise suspicion," former White House cybersecurity advisor and current ABC News consultant Richard Clarke wrote in a news analysis titled "Yes, It's Possible to Hack The Election" in August. "I have to emphasize that we have no evidence that such hacking has ever taken place in the U.S. or that it is about to occur. What we do know is that it could happen."
U.S. officials also told ABC News a major concern involves a cyberattack that wouldn't even have to be a successful hack of the system - just one big enough to undermine Americans' confidence in the system or to sow confusion about the results.
Click to expand...

post three has facts fucking liars
 
evince said:
In addition to the hacking of emails related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which have continued up to Election Day, the U.S. intelligence community said in October that some U.S. states have "recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company
Click to expand...


post 22 has facts
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analy...lytic_Confidence_in_National_Security_Reports



Levels of Analytic Confidence in National Security Reports[edit]



In an effort to apply more rigorous standards to National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council includes explanations of the three levels of analytic confidence made in estimative statements.[1]
High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.[1]
Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.[1]
Click to expand...

post 44 has facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top