4 ms·

Assuming Russia's government was involved in the DNC hack (which, despite most of HN repeatedly saying it's just a conspiracy theory or fearmongering or falsely

Assuming Russia's government was involved in the DNC hack (which, despite most of HN repeatedly saying it's just a conspiracy theory or fearmongering or falsely suggesting that the only evidence is Russian IPs or Russian comments, seems quite plausible at this point), they're trying to help elect the candidate who would best serve their interests. Between Hillary and Trump, that's Trump.

tropo 10y ago
Hillary approved giving Russia control of 20% of US uranium. It's obvious that Hillary is better for Russia. I think Putin just likes or admires Trump in an entirely personal way. Having Putin all starstruck could be a good thing.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Putin doesn't like or admire anyone but Putin.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Why characterize Putin as a cartoon villain? I'm sure he is more or less a normal man with peers whom he likes, respects, and admires and peers whom he doesn't. Wild caricatures portend propaganda.
    - randac 10y ago
      Hilarious that this was downvoted, with a cowardly lack of discourse as usual. Please, continue to assume Putin is a stereotypical cartoon villain. One would think users of a site like HN would have at least passing knowledge of Occam's Razor...
      - nostrademons 10y ago
        I wasn't the one who downvoted, but I've heard someone who has met him speak (in a semi-private, company-internal event), and his exact words were "Putin is scary." This is from someone who is in tight with the current US administration, and who in the same talk mocked Kim Jong-un saying "North Korea has one export - fear. Everything else, they suck at", so it's not like he's afraid of all world leaders. You don't get to the highest levels of power by being a normal person nor by having other people who you like, respect, and admire, particularly not in a country with a long tradition of autocratic rule. I think that people who are assuming Putin is just another old Joe are projecting their own thought processes onto him, which in a way is admirable - I would love to believe the best in people too - but is at odds with both the culture and history of the country he rules and with the workings of power across all cultures.
        Relys 10y ago
        One does not simply get into that type of position without being an psychological apex predator. In fact, many high functioning sociopaths are attracted to positions of power both in the business and political worlds.
        riboflava 10y ago
        Meeting Putin would scare me just on the basis that as ex-KGB he could snap my neck if he was so inclined. I'm not sure that's enough to really characterize the man, though, at least it's little more than what the people who project average-Joeness have. At least with e.g. Larry Ellison we have many independent reports from those that worked with / under him that we can safely agree it is a mistake to anthropomorphize him.
- rrggrr 10y ago
  This isn't personal or about admiration. This is about Russian leadership responding to immense economic pressures at home. Buttons have been pushed freezing the assets of Putin supporters, sanctions have been imposed, and Putin's supporter's foreign bank accounts appear to have been exposed. May the Russian leadership have deserved it? Irrelevant. Either way, they appear to be pushing back hard. For you kiddies not around during the Cold War, this so far appears to be light hearted fun by comparison.
- whyenot 10y ago
  There is no evidence that Clinton was directly involved with this decision. Furthermore, the company involved may have 20% of US uranium production capacity, but it actually only produces about 11% of US uranium. Please save the Donald Trump talking points for a more appropriate forum. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 10y ago
Can you please elucidate on the evidence that Russia was actually behind the DNC leak? I'm genuinely curious. As far as I know, the only evidence we have that Russia is involved is the word of American officials.
- sitic 10y ago
  Three cybersecurity firms (Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant) have said so: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Thanks, definitely interesting stuff. For the record, Julian Assange has implied that the source was not Russia, but a now-deceased DNC staffer. I guess at some point all we'll have is someone's word for it, either for or against, and we'll each have to make our own judgment on the source's credibility.
    - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
      Assange implied no such thing, and specifically debunked the meme that he did.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        Do you have a link to the specific debunking? I don't think there's really a way to get out of it. I watched multiple interviews with Assange where he brings up Seth Rich unprompted. Of course he proceeds to state that he doesn't comment on sources, but the fact that he's bringing up an unrelated case and saying "it even could have been someone like this guy" is an implication, even if it's followed up by a "denial". Even mainstream outlets were reporting that Assange "suggested" Rich was the source of the leak. Maybe Rich wasn't the source, but I don't think it can be reasonably denied that Assange was making some kind of implication there. His motives are undefined. Since this whole discussion is obviously and thoroughly tainted by personal bias (because the information is so fuzzy that it's just about believing the entities that you trust more), I'll just lay out my cards and say that I don't believe that Russian state actors hacked the DNC (though I'm ready to admit it if real evidence is produced, which I understand is probably not possible). I think it's a cover story because the powers-that-be don't want the average citizen to know how easy it is to compromise the security of very important institutions, whether they be political organizations or major corporations, lest that citizen decide to take up some targets of their own. I believe the same thing happened with the Sony hack that was blamed on North Korea. It behooves IDS vendors to make people think that nation-states are regularly trying to invade their systems and it's free publicity to come out and corroborate the mainstream narrative, so they play along/feed into it and say "Yeah it was definitely the Russians even though there's no way we'd actually know that since our software wasn't installed until after-the-fact". This is especially blatant with the follow-on firms that just wanted to cash in on the available PR by saying "uh, yeah, we detected that too".
mulmen 10y ago
Even if we accept Russian responsibility for the hack how do you know their motive is to sabotage the election? It seems to me that insider knowledge of the party is valuable on its own. Why do you think they are trying to influence the election? It is likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Would it not be valuable for Russia to have knowledge of her party? Do you think the CIA would be interested to have inside knowledge of United Russia?
- oxide 10y ago
  >Why do you think they are trying to influence the election? because it's an election year?
- tzs 10y ago
  > It seems to me that insider knowledge of the party is valuable on its own. That kind of information loses most of its value when it is made public. Hence, when an entity with such information releases it, it is usually a safe bet that their goal is to influence public opinion about the party or, if there is information about criminal acts in the information, get someone indicted.
saynsedit 10y ago
It's really not that simple. If there are external groups trying to influence this election, they are not limited to the Russian government. They aren't even limited to governments. Russia is just the bogeyman du jour of American news media. Many other more capable enemies are completely unreported. The bogeyman figure is conveniently utilized to spin many stories. E.g. The DNC hack. In this case it's being used to smear Trump's campaign. The fact is there no substantial evidence Trump is a Russian sympathizer. There is also no evidence that Russia is a Trump sympathizer. The US has not changed its foreign policy agenda since WW2. There is beautiful continuity from Truman, to Eisenhower, to Kennedy, to Johnson, to Nixon, to Ford, to Carter, to Reagan, to HW Bush, to Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. It's highly unlikely that the next presidential election will have a noticeable effect on our policy towards Russia.

tropo 10y ago

Hillary approved giving Russia control of 20% of US uranium. It's obvious that Hillary is better for Russia. I think Putin just likes or admires Trump in an entirely personal way. Having Putin all starstruck could be a good thing.

nostrademons 10y ago
Putin doesn't like or admire anyone but Putin.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Why characterize Putin as a cartoon villain? I'm sure he is more or less a normal man with peers whom he likes, respects, and admires and peers whom he doesn't. Wild caricatures portend propaganda.
  - randac 10y ago
    Hilarious that this was downvoted, with a cowardly lack of discourse as usual. Please, continue to assume Putin is a stereotypical cartoon villain. One would think users of a site like HN would have at least passing knowledge of Occam's Razor...
    - nostrademons 10y ago
      I wasn't the one who downvoted, but I've heard someone who has met him speak (in a semi-private, company-internal event), and his exact words were "Putin is scary." This is from someone who is in tight with the current US administration, and who in the same talk mocked Kim Jong-un saying "North Korea has one export - fear. Everything else, they suck at", so it's not like he's afraid of all world leaders. You don't get to the highest levels of power by being a normal person nor by having other people who you like, respect, and admire, particularly not in a country with a long tradition of autocratic rule. I think that people who are assuming Putin is just another old Joe are projecting their own thought processes onto him, which in a way is admirable - I would love to believe the best in people too - but is at odds with both the culture and history of the country he rules and with the workings of power across all cultures.
      - Relys 10y ago
        One does not simply get into that type of position without being an psychological apex predator. In fact, many high functioning sociopaths are attracted to positions of power both in the business and political worlds.
      - riboflava 10y ago
        Meeting Putin would scare me just on the basis that as ex-KGB he could snap my neck if he was so inclined. I'm not sure that's enough to really characterize the man, though, at least it's little more than what the people who project average-Joeness have. At least with e.g. Larry Ellison we have many independent reports from those that worked with / under him that we can safely agree it is a mistake to anthropomorphize him.
rrggrr 10y ago
This isn't personal or about admiration. This is about Russian leadership responding to immense economic pressures at home. Buttons have been pushed freezing the assets of Putin supporters, sanctions have been imposed, and Putin's supporter's foreign bank accounts appear to have been exposed. May the Russian leadership have deserved it? Irrelevant. Either way, they appear to be pushing back hard. For you kiddies not around during the Cold War, this so far appears to be light hearted fun by comparison.
whyenot 10y ago
There is no evidence that Clinton was directly involved with this decision. Furthermore, the company involved may have 20% of US uranium production capacity, but it actually only produces about 11% of US uranium. Please save the Donald Trump talking points for a more appropriate forum. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

cookiecaper 10y ago

Can you please elucidate on the evidence that Russia was actually behind the DNC leak? I'm genuinely curious. As far as I know, the only evidence we have that Russia is involved is the word of American officials.

sitic 10y ago
Three cybersecurity firms (Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant) have said so: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Thanks, definitely interesting stuff. For the record, Julian Assange has implied that the source was not Russia, but a now-deceased DNC staffer. I guess at some point all we'll have is someone's word for it, either for or against, and we'll each have to make our own judgment on the source's credibility.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    Assange implied no such thing, and specifically debunked the meme that he did.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Do you have a link to the specific debunking? I don't think there's really a way to get out of it. I watched multiple interviews with Assange where he brings up Seth Rich unprompted. Of course he proceeds to state that he doesn't comment on sources, but the fact that he's bringing up an unrelated case and saying "it even could have been someone like this guy" is an implication, even if it's followed up by a "denial". Even mainstream outlets were reporting that Assange "suggested" Rich was the source of the leak. Maybe Rich wasn't the source, but I don't think it can be reasonably denied that Assange was making some kind of implication there. His motives are undefined. Since this whole discussion is obviously and thoroughly tainted by personal bias (because the information is so fuzzy that it's just about believing the entities that you trust more), I'll just lay out my cards and say that I don't believe that Russian state actors hacked the DNC (though I'm ready to admit it if real evidence is produced, which I understand is probably not possible). I think it's a cover story because the powers-that-be don't want the average citizen to know how easy it is to compromise the security of very important institutions, whether they be political organizations or major corporations, lest that citizen decide to take up some targets of their own. I believe the same thing happened with the Sony hack that was blamed on North Korea. It behooves IDS vendors to make people think that nation-states are regularly trying to invade their systems and it's free publicity to come out and corroborate the mainstream narrative, so they play along/feed into it and say "Yeah it was definitely the Russians even though there's no way we'd actually know that since our software wasn't installed until after-the-fact". This is especially blatant with the follow-on firms that just wanted to cash in on the available PR by saying "uh, yeah, we detected that too".

mulmen 10y ago

Even if we accept Russian responsibility for the hack how do you know their motive is to sabotage the election? It seems to me that insider knowledge of the party is valuable on its own. Why do you think they are trying to influence the election? It is likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Would it not be valuable for Russia to have knowledge of her party? Do you think the CIA would be interested to have inside knowledge of United Russia?

oxide 10y ago
>Why do you think they are trying to influence the election? because it's an election year?
tzs 10y ago
> It seems to me that insider knowledge of the party is valuable on its own. That kind of information loses most of its value when it is made public. Hence, when an entity with such information releases it, it is usually a safe bet that their goal is to influence public opinion about the party or, if there is information about criminal acts in the information, get someone indicted.

saynsedit 10y ago

It's really not that simple. If there are external groups trying to influence this election, they are not limited to the Russian government. They aren't even limited to governments. Russia is just the bogeyman du jour of American news media. Many other more capable enemies are completely unreported. The bogeyman figure is conveniently utilized to spin many stories. E.g. The DNC hack. In this case it's being used to smear Trump's campaign. The fact is there no substantial evidence Trump is a Russian sympathizer. There is also no evidence that Russia is a Trump sympathizer. The US has not changed its foreign policy agenda since WW2. There is beautiful continuity from Truman, to Eisenhower, to Kennedy, to Johnson, to Nixon, to Ford, to Carter, to Reagan, to HW Bush, to Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. It's highly unlikely that the next presidential election will have a noticeable effect on our policy towards Russia.