Putin Ordered Effort To Undermine Faith In U.S. Election and Help Trump
Behold the Trump-Putin-Assange alliance.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:21 AM
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Previous Posts
- Man Who "Identifies" As Woman Wins Women's Cycling...
- Grayson "See You Next Fall" Allen Back In Duke Lineup
- U.S. Intercepts Show Senior Russian Officials Cele...
- Chicago Police: Facebook Torture Video Probably No...
- Some Trump Voters Explain Themselves
- Trump Moving To Cover Putin's Tracks?
- Dylann Roof: On His Way To the Death Penalty
- Some Anti-Firearm Nonsense By A UW Philosopher
- Trump Appears To Side With Assange Over U.S. Intel...
- "Did Inadequate Women's Health Care Destroy Star W...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
7 Comments:
Did you read the actual report? A huge amount of the evidence is inference based on the leanings of RT. I'm sure they are choosing not to release stuff, but it is kind of stunning how poorly evidenced that report was. The document about APT29 was similarly poor. Wordfence did a much better analysis than anything on WaPo here (with a link to a more detailed report contained within).
I'll agree that the evidence that the intelligence community offered to the public isn't ironclad, but perhaps the aspect of this we should look at is the degree of skepticism. Is the skepticism of Trump and company proportionate given our current geopolitical standing with Russia?
I don't want to seem like a naive, little sheep who trusts the gub'mint because I'm afraid of the Russians, but I'm not sure the level of distrust of our intelligence communities is warranted.
Some of the justifications I've seen for distrusting the CIA, the FBI, etc. have been "Remember WMDs in Iraq?" "Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?"
I dunno. There are going to be some people that you just aren't going to be able to convince.
I don't really distrust the intelligence community a priori, but it seems like the primary evidence here is the integrity of the intelligence community itself. I mean, with APT29, the actual evidence they released makes it more likely that Russian intelligence wasn't involved. It was open-sourced Ukrainian malware involved in a host of low-level attacks even a Wordpress security firm encountered, and the IP addresses involved heavily suggested common ways of obfuscating network communication (using hijacked cloud boxes, communicating through TOR). The probability space there is overwhelmingly non-GRU.
To trust the institution here, you really need to assume that there is no conclusive evidence that is not harmful to release. That seems really unlikely to me, and what they are releasing is just so unbelievably bad. Like insultingly bad.
LISTEN ANONYMOUS 2 I'M NOT ASKING FOR A RATIONAL DISCUSSION HERE I'M ASKING YOU TO BUY INTO MY ANGER
I MEAN ANONYMOUS 1
I think that there are two important aspects to think about here:
1) what is the consensus in the IT community about the strength of the evidence that has been released? Okay, so you have your doubts, but what do others who have knowledge of IT think of this case? I really don't know the answer to this question, and I know almost next-to-nothing about computers, so someone would have to fill me in.
2) Have the vast majority of those who are skeptical drawn their conclusion based on reasoning that is similar to yours? I doubt that Trump has the knowledge that you do with respect to computer networks and hacking. Is our president-elect justified in being skeptical? He's being briefed, of course, but I'm assuming that those who are briefing him are recommending that he take the allegations of hacking seriously. Who's instructing him to be skeptical?
Of course, I might just be a dense asshole in this case. Is the ODNI report not as difficult to understand as I'm making it out to be? I hate to defer to an authority about whether or not to trust some other alleged authority, but it's the position that I'm in now..I'm also admittedly not being as objective as I probably should be.
Regarding (1) I could dig for some more links, but I definitely remember others besides Wordfence have called it inadequate. Wordfence was simply the most thorough of those I've seen, that's why I linked to it. Also, they explained most of their methods really well, I thought, but I could walk through it if necessary.
Regarding (2), I have no doubt that Trump's response is no more sophisticated than seeing how convenient the story would be for Democrats. He probably can't spell phishing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home