Reports that Russian hackers attempted to influence the U.S. presidential election through a series of stolen emails strategically released through Wikileaks are opening an unprecedented new era in U.S. politics. Never before has a foreign power been accused of meddling in U.S presidential elections.
President-elect Donald Trump dismisses the CIA and NSA report that individuals in the Russian government knew about or instigated the cyber attack on American democracy with the intention to help the Republican nominee. "Ridiculous," he says. But national intelligence professionals disagree. Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump admires and praises, is attempting to reassert Soviet-era hegemony over all of eastern Europe and former Soviet states in Asia, the intelligence specialists say.
Bipartisan members of Congress are planning to investigate the allegations of election tampering by Russia, but it's difficult to know the intentions of the cyber criminals who hacked into Democratic and Republican party email systems. Even if the break-ins to computer systems can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the motivation and intentions of the perpetrators is probably beyond the ability of congressional investigators. Who put together the tactics and approved the mission may remain a mystery forever.
No matter how diligently Congress digs into this mess, some people will doubt the conclusions, and the Great Electoral Con of 2016 may forever the the subject of conspiracy theorists and doubters.
It will be telling to see what the Trump Justice Department does with the information Congress exposes. Will the new Justice Department be willing to bring charges against international actors? Will the new president recognize the seriousness of any effort to undermine a presidential election? Or will he consider it just a little practical joke among friends?
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
About that order you didn't request ...
The creativity and persistence of perpetrators of email "phishing" scams never cease to amaze me. The latest trend in this bizarre underworld of massive amounts of email sent to naive (or thought to be naive) email users is the email designed to look like an innocent business transaction.
I've received a large number of emails that alert me that payment is due on the order I sent or that I need to confirm my order before it can be shipped or that information on the payment owed to me is in the attached file. Only thing is, I didn't place an order, don't need to confirm any order and am not owed any payments from these enigmatic senders. I'm confident that if I were to click on the attached file or the embedded link, I would find my computer infested with malware, a virus or who knows what.
The fact that I have received nearly identical emails, right down to the subject lines of the emails, several time in one day, all from different senders, shows me the ubiquity of this latest scam. Word is apparently getting around in the phishing community that these fake orders and payments work better than the Nigerian prince who wants to deposit $6 million in your bank account.
The popularity among phishers for this ruse indicates to me that the scam is successful. There must be millions of infected computers around the world right now as a result of curious people clicking to see what they had ordered or what was owed to them.
The Internet has made it easier for thieves to find and steal from their victims. No need for guns or threats; their weapon is their victims' curiosity. That natural curiosity is probably wiping out bank accounts and ruining expensive computers.
I've received a large number of emails that alert me that payment is due on the order I sent or that I need to confirm my order before it can be shipped or that information on the payment owed to me is in the attached file. Only thing is, I didn't place an order, don't need to confirm any order and am not owed any payments from these enigmatic senders. I'm confident that if I were to click on the attached file or the embedded link, I would find my computer infested with malware, a virus or who knows what.
The fact that I have received nearly identical emails, right down to the subject lines of the emails, several time in one day, all from different senders, shows me the ubiquity of this latest scam. Word is apparently getting around in the phishing community that these fake orders and payments work better than the Nigerian prince who wants to deposit $6 million in your bank account.
The popularity among phishers for this ruse indicates to me that the scam is successful. There must be millions of infected computers around the world right now as a result of curious people clicking to see what they had ordered or what was owed to them.
The Internet has made it easier for thieves to find and steal from their victims. No need for guns or threats; their weapon is their victims' curiosity. That natural curiosity is probably wiping out bank accounts and ruining expensive computers.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Junk email clutters my inbox
When I changed jobs in 2012, I inherited an email address that was incredibly popular — with spammers. Going on two years later, I'm still receiving scores of spam and phishing emails every day. I think I must receive every spam message this side of Mogadishu.
These emails suggest some things about the vulnerability of people using the Internet. They suggest that people are overweight — thus, the emails proclaiming shocking photos of people (often celebrities) who have lost weight. They suggest that people have problems with erectile dysfunction — thus, the emails about "Men's Renewal," "male enhancement" and testosterone. They suggests that American men are sexually longing — thus, the emails from "Russian Brides" and "Ashley Madison," who promotes a website advocating adulterous affairs with other married men/women. They suggest that people are greedy — thus all the emails about lottery winnings, bank errors in your favor, and the hundreds of Nigerians who need a friend to deposit millions of dollars in illicit earnings into an American bank account.
And these emails suggest that people are gullible. A recent trend I've noticed involves enigmatic messages such as, "whassup?" or "Where did you go?" or "Why did you leave?" The senders of these messages often have vaguely androgynous names, such as Jordan or Harper.
Some of these emails have gone unchanged since I first logged onto the account. Their persistence suggests that they have been successful in luring in their victims. Unfortunately, the spam filters on my computer and my phone have been unsuccessful in removing these unwanted emails. They keep coming. Every day.
I could take the time to build filters in my Outlook account to corral the unwanted email, but the time hardly seems worthwhile. Deleting them from my inbox takes less time. And the spammers are nimble. If I succeed in removing one message, the spammers will simply modify the subject, the sender or other information that might be rejected by my filters.
Junk email is the price we pay for the convenience — the necessity — of using email. Like junk postal mail, it consumes our time to look at it and throw it away, but in our multi-device digitall world, we have to toss out junk email twice or more times. And your mail server might resend emails you've deleted when it detects that the deleted email is not in your inbox.
Once an email account becomes a target of spam, many people have found, there is no solution short of deleting the account and opening a new email account. I've not resorted to that yet because the email I use is on publicity and in the contacts of dozens of actual people who need to contact me occasionally. I plan to keep the account I have and just move the unwanted emails into the junk folder two or three times a day.
These emails suggest some things about the vulnerability of people using the Internet. They suggest that people are overweight — thus, the emails proclaiming shocking photos of people (often celebrities) who have lost weight. They suggest that people have problems with erectile dysfunction — thus, the emails about "Men's Renewal," "male enhancement" and testosterone. They suggests that American men are sexually longing — thus, the emails from "Russian Brides" and "Ashley Madison," who promotes a website advocating adulterous affairs with other married men/women. They suggest that people are greedy — thus all the emails about lottery winnings, bank errors in your favor, and the hundreds of Nigerians who need a friend to deposit millions of dollars in illicit earnings into an American bank account.
And these emails suggest that people are gullible. A recent trend I've noticed involves enigmatic messages such as, "whassup?" or "Where did you go?" or "Why did you leave?" The senders of these messages often have vaguely androgynous names, such as Jordan or Harper.
Some of these emails have gone unchanged since I first logged onto the account. Their persistence suggests that they have been successful in luring in their victims. Unfortunately, the spam filters on my computer and my phone have been unsuccessful in removing these unwanted emails. They keep coming. Every day.
I could take the time to build filters in my Outlook account to corral the unwanted email, but the time hardly seems worthwhile. Deleting them from my inbox takes less time. And the spammers are nimble. If I succeed in removing one message, the spammers will simply modify the subject, the sender or other information that might be rejected by my filters.
Junk email is the price we pay for the convenience — the necessity — of using email. Like junk postal mail, it consumes our time to look at it and throw it away, but in our multi-device digitall world, we have to toss out junk email twice or more times. And your mail server might resend emails you've deleted when it detects that the deleted email is not in your inbox.
Once an email account becomes a target of spam, many people have found, there is no solution short of deleting the account and opening a new email account. I've not resorted to that yet because the email I use is on publicity and in the contacts of dozens of actual people who need to contact me occasionally. I plan to keep the account I have and just move the unwanted emails into the junk folder two or three times a day.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The next big thing drags down communication
I can hear it now: "He's so old-school, why, he's still blogging!"
That was what occurred to me as I read that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook were coming out with a new form of digital communication, which Zuckerberg and others said would make email obsolete. I'll admit that I'm an email junkie. I'd much rather email someone than call them on the phone. Half the time you don't get the person you're calling, so you leave a message and hope they call you back — you hope at a time when you can answer your own phone, or they'll have to leave a message. Email is simpler. Your message goes in their inbox; they read it; they reply. What could be simpler or more efficient?
Now they're saying email is passe, obsolete, so yesterday! As I understand it, what Facebook is offering is some sort of combination of email, instant messaging and text messaging. I've done all of those, including video chat, but I still find email the most efficient and effective means of communicating. I use group emails to convey information about upcoming meetings, to make announcements, and to keep colleagues or relatives informed. It's a lot simpler than individually calling people or sending separate postcards.
Of course, there are those who haven't quite gotten the hang of email yet. I still encounter people who have email at home but only check their inboxes once a week or so. I can only roll my eyes. "Didn't you get my email?" "Oh, I haven't checked my email in a couple of weeks?" Do these people not check their postal mailboxes but once a week? I can't imagine that Facebook's shorter, more instantaneous sort of messaging would be appealing to them.
Although I've sent and received text messages, I don't find them very efficient or even rational. You're sitting there with a phone in your hand, but instead of making a call, you type a short message on those teeny-tiny keys. There must be some thrill to it that I'm missing. So what is it that Facebook is going to do to make this email/texting hybrid communication the latest rage? It arranges your messages and allows you to block anyone who isn't your Facebook friend. OK. Any good email program can filter your email to achieve that goal. Just what is new here?
Perhaps a greater concern should be the way that email, texting and whatever is next is pushing out thoughtful communication — the kind that people used to exchange in long, handwritten letters, which would show up years later in "The Collected Letters of ..." That's not going to happen with emails. The cell phone calls that begin with "where you at?" and the Facebook status updates that say "At home. Eating baloney sandwich" do not constitute a conversation. Any "new thing" that encourages still briefer, less thoughtful exchanges of meaningless (and misspelled) words is a detriment to culture, courtesy and understanding.
So here's hoping that Mark Zuckerberg's big new thing doesn't catch on. It's not like he needs the money.
That was what occurred to me as I read that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook were coming out with a new form of digital communication, which Zuckerberg and others said would make email obsolete. I'll admit that I'm an email junkie. I'd much rather email someone than call them on the phone. Half the time you don't get the person you're calling, so you leave a message and hope they call you back — you hope at a time when you can answer your own phone, or they'll have to leave a message. Email is simpler. Your message goes in their inbox; they read it; they reply. What could be simpler or more efficient?
Now they're saying email is passe, obsolete, so yesterday! As I understand it, what Facebook is offering is some sort of combination of email, instant messaging and text messaging. I've done all of those, including video chat, but I still find email the most efficient and effective means of communicating. I use group emails to convey information about upcoming meetings, to make announcements, and to keep colleagues or relatives informed. It's a lot simpler than individually calling people or sending separate postcards.
Of course, there are those who haven't quite gotten the hang of email yet. I still encounter people who have email at home but only check their inboxes once a week or so. I can only roll my eyes. "Didn't you get my email?" "Oh, I haven't checked my email in a couple of weeks?" Do these people not check their postal mailboxes but once a week? I can't imagine that Facebook's shorter, more instantaneous sort of messaging would be appealing to them.
Although I've sent and received text messages, I don't find them very efficient or even rational. You're sitting there with a phone in your hand, but instead of making a call, you type a short message on those teeny-tiny keys. There must be some thrill to it that I'm missing. So what is it that Facebook is going to do to make this email/texting hybrid communication the latest rage? It arranges your messages and allows you to block anyone who isn't your Facebook friend. OK. Any good email program can filter your email to achieve that goal. Just what is new here?
Perhaps a greater concern should be the way that email, texting and whatever is next is pushing out thoughtful communication — the kind that people used to exchange in long, handwritten letters, which would show up years later in "The Collected Letters of ..." That's not going to happen with emails. The cell phone calls that begin with "where you at?" and the Facebook status updates that say "At home. Eating baloney sandwich" do not constitute a conversation. Any "new thing" that encourages still briefer, less thoughtful exchanges of meaningless (and misspelled) words is a detriment to culture, courtesy and understanding.
So here's hoping that Mark Zuckerberg's big new thing doesn't catch on. It's not like he needs the money.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
It was Greenlight's glitch, not revenge
It turns out that there was nothing nefarious in the rejection of emails from Greenlight subscribers by Time Warner email servers. In an earlier blog post, I suggested that blocking email from municipal broadband customers would be a perfect way for Time Warner and its commercial allies to get back at cities that offer broadband.
But that's not how it went. After querying Time Warner, Greenlight and a contact at city hall, I received a call from an official with Greenlight. The problem originated with Greenlight servers. A glitch on the Greenlight server made receiving email servers, including Time Warner's, think that the Greenlight server was generating huge amounts of spam. As a defensive maneuver, the receiving servers blocked email from Greenlight. The glitch has been fixed, and Greenlight email is back in the good graces of the receiving email servers.
But this should be a lesson for Internet service providers: Having email kick back for no apparent reason will not endear the service provider to subscribers. The frustration is almost enough to drive you back to the U.S. Postal Service.
But that's not how it went. After querying Time Warner, Greenlight and a contact at city hall, I received a call from an official with Greenlight. The problem originated with Greenlight servers. A glitch on the Greenlight server made receiving email servers, including Time Warner's, think that the Greenlight server was generating huge amounts of spam. As a defensive maneuver, the receiving servers blocked email from Greenlight. The glitch has been fixed, and Greenlight email is back in the good graces of the receiving email servers.
But this should be a lesson for Internet service providers: Having email kick back for no apparent reason will not endear the service provider to subscribers. The frustration is almost enough to drive you back to the U.S. Postal Service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
