4 ms·

> Because there's evidence. Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence are you talking about exactly? Could you point me to a source? As for your othe

> Because there's evidence. Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence are you talking about exactly? Could you point me to a source? As for your other points, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your points have nothing to do with each other, so if you're just trying to portrait Russia and/or Putin as the "source of all evil", then I've got some bad news: One could easily turn your points on the head and do the same with the United States. Examples: > Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria The fact they're US-aligned doesn't make them good. Newsflash: The US have been supporting extremists in the Middle East for decades, as long as it fits their bill. Besides, in terms of international laws, the West is the party that is illegally engaging in Syria, not Russia. > Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine The same thing could be said about the West, if you look at engagement in the Ukraine, financial support for various groups there, one-sided media reports that are closer to propaganda than anything else… And don't even get me started about US engagement in the Middle East and powering conflicts there. Besides, I'm always thinking about what the United States would do if there was a conflict / civil war in front of their borders… clearly they would engage. Conclusion: I'm not trying to defend Russia at all or justify its actions, I just find it funny that we in the Western World tend to only look at what bad things other countries do when we're probably not any better. I fully agree with the sentiment of saynsedit's post farther down: > Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

soundwave106 10y ago
> Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence exactly? Could you give a source? Wired: "According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they're probably right." (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) Wired cites the following firms: Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant... and a professor named Thomas Rid. Apparently Crowdstrike is the firm hired by the DNC specifically (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...) but there's more than one organization mentioned. New York Times: "American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-con...) Reuters: "U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret." (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hack-idUSKCN10N00D http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hac...) The Daily Beast: "The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-unmasked-he-really-works-for-russia-researchers-say.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-...) If you want notes from the cybersecurity organizations, why not head to both Crowdstrike's blog on the subject (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...) or ThreatConnect's blog (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-n...) or a link to Fidelis Cybersecurity's blog (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-that-they-cant-scratch.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-...)? This honestly doesn't seem like weaksauce evidence at first glance. Of course since this is politics / national relations, "you never know". But what I don't see yet via a Google search is a post in a cybersecurity research organization's blog saying Russia didn't hack the DNC. If you come across that, let me know. At present, the argument some are making -- that the evidence that Russia didn't hack the DNC -- seems weak to me. There's just no evidence I am encountering that Russia wasn't involved.

soundwave106 10y ago

> Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence exactly? Could you give a source? Wired: "According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they're probably right." (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) Wired cites the following firms: Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant... and a professor named Thomas Rid. Apparently Crowdstrike is the firm hired by the DNC specifically (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...) but there's more than one organization mentioned. New York Times: "American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-con...) Reuters: "U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret." (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hack-idUSKCN10N00D http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hac...) The Daily Beast: "The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-unmasked-he-really-works-for-russia-researchers-say.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-...) If you want notes from the cybersecurity organizations, why not head to both Crowdstrike's blog on the subject (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...) or ThreatConnect's blog (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-n...) or a link to Fidelis Cybersecurity's blog (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-that-they-cant-scratch.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-...)? This honestly doesn't seem like weaksauce evidence at first glance. Of course since this is politics / national relations, "you never know". But what I don't see yet via a Google search is a post in a cybersecurity research organization's blog saying Russia didn't hack the DNC. If you come across that, let me know. At present, the argument some are making -- that the evidence that Russia didn't hack the DNC -- seems weak to me. There's just no evidence I am encountering that Russia wasn't involved.