Dear Obama, from Infosec • Hacker News Board

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#41

Post by bcoates » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 8:55 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #5

rkcf wrote: post #2

Before the GRIZZLY STEPPE report I found myself asking where the proof for the insinuations of a Russian hack to influence the US elections was. I still ask that question after the report was released. I find it completely plausible. However, given the turbulence and hyper-partisanship of this election cycle, I need a bit more than 'It was the Russians because we say so'.

It was first attributed to the Russians by CrowdStrike. I have yet to see any even remote indication of partisanship, especially pro-Democratic partisanship by CrowdStrike or its ownership.

CrowdStrike's partisanship is like the news media's: bias towards spectacle, unwarranted certainty, and producing a coherent narrative facts be damned.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#42

Post by bcoates » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 8:59 AM UTC

santoriv wrote: post #24

hartator wrote: post #18

Assange repeatably - and again tonight - said he was sure it wasn't Russia. I think it's worth something to consider the main visible actor opinion.

I have the same level of skepticism towards Assange that I do for the US intelligence community, but for different reasons. If Assange received a email dump from a source, how could he possibly know with absolute certainty that the Russian government didn't have any involvement? The only thing I can think of is if he or one of his very trusted associates executed the attacks themselves. Isn't it possible that the Rus…

I think he's saying between the lines that his source is a insider, and it's either a leak or an internal hack. That's the only way he could have any reliable information at all about the source.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#43

Post by akerro » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:10 AM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #36

Sorry, come again, what part of the election did 'Russia' hack again? I thought it was a private organization.

The one that's spelled 'none'. WikiLeaks claimed many times Russia wasn't involved, NYT admitted they faked the story. It's nothing more than liberal tears who can't deal with losing elections in a system they were creating and shaping for years.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#44

Post by kgdinesh » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:11 AM UTC

Thanks Obama.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#45

Post by 3131s » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:17 AM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #42

santoriv wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same level of skepticism towards Assange that I do for the US intelligence community, but for different reasons. If Assange received a email dump from a source, how could he possibly know with absolute certainty that the Russian government didn't have any involvement? The only thing I can think of is if he or one of his very trusted associates executed the attacks themselves. Isn't it possible that the Rus…

I think he's saying between the lines that his source is a insider, and it's either a leak or an internal hack. That's the only way he could have any reliable information at all about the source.

Assange strongly implied that the emails were leaked by Seth Rich.

Not sure if I believe that though, since it seems that Assange would have proved it by now if it were true. Maybe he's withholding the proof as leverage, or maybe he's lying. I do trust Assange much more than the CIA though.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#46

Post by akerro » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:17 AM UTC

yakcyll wrote: post #29

Pardon my ignorance, but as a non-American, I still have no bloody clue what the election hacking was about. That, plus, it shouldn't matter who has done it, since (especially if it was Russia) they most likely won't be persecuted for it. What the focus should be put on is making sure this won't happen again - but that the general public isn't very interested in.

Because 'hack' is poorly understood word with negative meaning that was created by mass-media - it is and will be used everywhere to justify everything to anyone. People just need to know that hacking is a thing for criminal magicians. It sounds best when it's repeated by every media, every politician on every possible occasion.

Puf - hacked elections, puf - hacked city, puf - hacked country, puf - hacked your iCloud (well, not really, your password was 1234567).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJq3OiP6Sow

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#47

Post by CN7R » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:31 AM UTC

akerro wrote: post #43

exabrial wrote: post #36

Sorry, come again, what part of the election did 'Russia' hack again? I thought it was a private organization.

The one that's spelled 'none'. WikiLeaks claimed many times Russia wasn't involved, NYT admitted they faked the story. It's nothing more than liberal tears who can't deal with losing elections in a system they were creating and shaping for years.

Last sentence was a bit caustic. Should WikiLeaks even be considered as a reliable source after Assange demonstrated his political bias against Hillary? Also, can you provide a link to NYT admitting to publishing a fake story? Thanks.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#48

Post by tomohawk » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:32 AM UTC

The following is a a good fact sheet that puts the hacks in context with some others, and contains some details that don't seem to be reported on:

https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks...

For example, Wikileaks says that they did not get the info from Russia, and this is corroborated by the former British ambassador.

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#49

Post by slowmotiony » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:36 AM UTC

xname2 wrote: post #27

Did Russians tell DNC chairwoman to leak debate questions to the HRC team? Did Russians tell DNC to backstab Bernie Sanders? It is so crazy that democrats and liberal main stream media are trying so hard to avoid discussing the real problem. And they truly believe that people are stupid enough to no seeing which problem is more important.

...but you were not supposed to know!

Re: Dear Obama, from Infosec

#50

Post by Fnoord » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 9:58 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #19

nl wrote: post #12

Bloody Hell. I find it very frustrating that intelligent people don't seem to follow through their thought process here. The intelligence community will never be able to release enough information to satisfy people. The information will either be so non-specific as to be useless ("we had spies who told us" - would anyone here believe that anymore than they do now?), or so specific it will damage ongoing interests ("W…

> The intelligence community will never be able to release enough information to satisfy people. Then they should say nothing. "It was the Russians, trust us" simply doesn't cut it.

Its not meant to convince those who are skeptical of the intelligence community (the same organisations who failed at 9/11, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, .., or even Iraq). It is propaganda. Its meant to convince those who believe what the intelligence community has to say. The question is, are we going to convince those believers otherwise? After all, they're in their own bubble.

Is wasting your time on trying to refute this intelligent? Intelligent people can spend our time better than trying to refute obvious propaganda. Ie. we're wasting our time.

The reason people are skeptical is because the track records of CIA, NSA, FBI, .. don't add up in history. Yet only in hindsight -in history, when FOIA requests are granted with less and less censorship on the documents- will we get a better picture on who was right and who was wrong. And we may end up never getting the full picture.