5 ms·

While Guccifer 2 may have all sorts of motives, the important question is the legitimacy of the data and whether it reveals any sort of wrongdoing by US elected

While Guccifer 2 may have all sorts of motives, the important question is the legitimacy of the data and whether it reveals any sort of wrongdoing by US elected officials. I personally hope it doesn't and that we can move on from this scandal... But if it does, I'd also like to know.

tptacek 10y ago
That doesn't follow logically, because we're meant to trust: * That whoever this is hasn't left out information that doesn't fit the narrative they're selling * Hasn't edited the information to suit their narrative * Hasn't included wholly false information This matters even more if we believe it's Russia, because falsified leaks are part of Russia's M.O.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Unfortunately if we follow that logic we would be out believing in the content of things like the Panama Papers, the Snowden Documents or the DNC hacks. In this world of state disinformation programmes (US, Russia and others) we need these leaks AND we need journalists and civilians to take them seriously; looking to establish second sources to corroborate information.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't understand. Do you dispute the logic, or just worry about where it leads? I read your comment and rebutted it, but your response doesn't feel like a rebuttal.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      I would call it deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic. Also I am a different commenter than the one that you responded to (I'm not the guy from your internet argument).
      - tptacek 10y ago
        If you think the logic is faulty, could you actually rebut it with some specificity?
        jwtadvice 10y ago
        Sure. I think the logic is faulty because it is very specific about implying what sources to trust/not to trust - without motivating that trust/lack of trust on a logical basis. As such the argument is open to selective application, whereby the party applying the logic decides a priori the result based on their biases about the trustworthiness of the source (and therefore the truthiness of the leaked documents). In this case - in the domain of information warfare - hacks and leaks implicating US officials in foul activity (global surveillance, propaganda programming, election flipping, regime change, torture programs, corruption in election systems) ought not be questioned a priori less or more than leaks implicating non-US officials in foul activity (tax avoidance, e.g. Panama Papers; arming proxy groups that in turn cause accidental casualties, e.g. MH17). Not fully stipulating - in a consistent, logical and sound format - a formal criteria for a comprehensive system to establish and evaluate a priori source trust leaves your logic wholly incomplete, unable to grapple with real world issues of information consumption and investigative reporting. Resulting in what I had said: deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic.
        grandalf 10y ago
        This is a really interesting comment and approach to reasoning about information warfare. I'm curious if you have any reading recommendations or if you would care to share more thoughts on the subject.
    - vintermann 10y ago
      The logic can be used to justify scepticism, but not categorical dismissal as you seem to want.
- grandalf 10y ago
  I'm not arguing that we should not keep those cautions firmly in mind when interpreting this data dump. A few points: - Some may be DKIM/DomainKeys signed, which could provide evidence of tampering if the tamperer was unsophisticated enough to try tampering with a signed message. - Any other party to any contested email could potentially produce a version of the email that differed from the leaked one. - Chances are more than one group/individual hacked the server, so there could be other sources of verification, though it would still be difficult to determine which one to trust. All in all, I hope that nothing interesting or troubling is found in the emails and we can all move on from this issue. I'm also skeptical Russia had anything to do with it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I know your politics are not the same as mine (I think we're both left of center, but you're way more left than I am), but I have to ask: Why are you skeptical that Russia had anything to do with this? Serious question! * Russia is notorious for doing stuff like this online. * Three threat intelligence firms --- including the two most reputable firms in the business, one of which is run by someone who hates Clinton --- publicly attributed the attacks to Russia. * The basis of that attribution includes IOCs that weren't even publicly known before the attribution occurred, and would be difficult even for an expert to forge. Clearly, anyone could have hacked the Clinton Foundation. But I'm surprised people believe that it would be straightforward to hack the Clinton Foundation in such a way as to leave a trail of IOCs leading back to Russia. I think? you have to be an expert to do that.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      I have moved to the left on this sort of issue after there was no high level official response or remediation after the Snowden revelations. I think many people fail to grasp how vulnerable we are to surveillance and propaganda. I have not seen any elected officials offer any reasonable reassurance or even accept accountability for what appear to be excesses. This suggests to me either fear or complicity, either of which are pretty bad news. I think your questions contain the assumptions for my answer: A state sponsored intelligence agency has the sophistication to forge the IOCs (or not to). Russia has a state sponsored intelligence agency. Therefore, the IOCs would not have been found unless the state sponsored agency responsible for the leak wanted them found. Thus if the data was leaked by Russia, it would have been accountable only if being held accountable offered a strategic benefit. I have not yet observed any strategic benefit to Russia doing this. In fact, unless the hypothetical smoking gun is so significant that it will harm the very likely election of HRC to the presidency (and that was deemed beneficial), I find it unlikely that Russia would have been willing to risk the significant harm in diplomacy caused by being caught meddling in a US election. So I think the hack was either done by a less sophisticated group (likely Russian) or by a different state sponsored group who chose to leave the trail pointing to Russia. Considering that escalated US/Russia tensions will amount to Billions in appropriations, there is clearly a financial incentive for stewing the conflict. There is also a dedicated interest group in the US that has tried to nudge the US into more direct conflict with Russia over the Ukraine, etc. But the surprising factor has been how readily Clinton's campaign jumped into finger pointing. I do not see how it possibly benefits Clinton (or her diplomatic core in 2017) to engage Russia in finger pointing and accusations of meddling in a US election. If a response was warranted, it should (in my opinion) have been measured, and it should have come from president Obama, and the issue should not have become a rallying cry for HRC's campaign. It's absurd and unprecedented for a candidate who does not hold office to levy such serious accusations at a foreign government. If accusations are warranted there is an existing group of officials whose job it is to deal with it. The first version of the Russia finger pointing story didn't really get legs and was not vetted by any named/credible infosec experts. The second round was, by the firms you mention, and I believe at least one official made a statement confirming the suspicion of Russian involvement. So there is some unknown motive for HRC deciding to circumvent the proper diplomatic method of resolving something as serious as election tampering by a foreign country. I doubt it amounts simply to trying to leverage the news cycle in a beneficial way, or even misdirection. It seems like too big a risk, one that a former Secretary of State would be abundantly cognizant of, especially if it really was Russia and some retaliatory action would need to be taken in the near future. I think there is room for exploration of the various motives that other state actors might have had for leaking the docs, but my guess is that the goal is to get the information into public view so that it cannot be used against HRC later after she's elected. Only if the leaked information ends up containing an election-risking smoking gun will it be plausible to believe that a state actor released the information to harm HRC.

tptacek 10y ago

That doesn't follow logically, because we're meant to trust: * That whoever this is hasn't left out information that doesn't fit the narrative they're selling * Hasn't edited the information to suit their narrative * Hasn't included wholly false information This matters even more if we believe it's Russia, because falsified leaks are part of Russia's M.O.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Unfortunately if we follow that logic we would be out believing in the content of things like the Panama Papers, the Snowden Documents or the DNC hacks. In this world of state disinformation programmes (US, Russia and others) we need these leaks AND we need journalists and civilians to take them seriously; looking to establish second sources to corroborate information.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't understand. Do you dispute the logic, or just worry about where it leads? I read your comment and rebutted it, but your response doesn't feel like a rebuttal.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    I would call it deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic. Also I am a different commenter than the one that you responded to (I'm not the guy from your internet argument).
    - tptacek 10y ago
      If you think the logic is faulty, could you actually rebut it with some specificity?
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        Sure. I think the logic is faulty because it is very specific about implying what sources to trust/not to trust - without motivating that trust/lack of trust on a logical basis. As such the argument is open to selective application, whereby the party applying the logic decides a priori the result based on their biases about the trustworthiness of the source (and therefore the truthiness of the leaked documents). In this case - in the domain of information warfare - hacks and leaks implicating US officials in foul activity (global surveillance, propaganda programming, election flipping, regime change, torture programs, corruption in election systems) ought not be questioned a priori less or more than leaks implicating non-US officials in foul activity (tax avoidance, e.g. Panama Papers; arming proxy groups that in turn cause accidental casualties, e.g. MH17). Not fully stipulating - in a consistent, logical and sound format - a formal criteria for a comprehensive system to establish and evaluate a priori source trust leaves your logic wholly incomplete, unable to grapple with real world issues of information consumption and investigative reporting. Resulting in what I had said: deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic.
        grandalf 10y ago
        This is a really interesting comment and approach to reasoning about information warfare. I'm curious if you have any reading recommendations or if you would care to share more thoughts on the subject.
  - vintermann 10y ago
    The logic can be used to justify scepticism, but not categorical dismissal as you seem to want.
grandalf 10y ago
I'm not arguing that we should not keep those cautions firmly in mind when interpreting this data dump. A few points: - Some may be DKIM/DomainKeys signed, which could provide evidence of tampering if the tamperer was unsophisticated enough to try tampering with a signed message. - Any other party to any contested email could potentially produce a version of the email that differed from the leaked one. - Chances are more than one group/individual hacked the server, so there could be other sources of verification, though it would still be difficult to determine which one to trust. All in all, I hope that nothing interesting or troubling is found in the emails and we can all move on from this issue. I'm also skeptical Russia had anything to do with it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I know your politics are not the same as mine (I think we're both left of center, but you're way more left than I am), but I have to ask: Why are you skeptical that Russia had anything to do with this? Serious question! * Russia is notorious for doing stuff like this online. * Three threat intelligence firms --- including the two most reputable firms in the business, one of which is run by someone who hates Clinton --- publicly attributed the attacks to Russia. * The basis of that attribution includes IOCs that weren't even publicly known before the attribution occurred, and would be difficult even for an expert to forge. Clearly, anyone could have hacked the Clinton Foundation. But I'm surprised people believe that it would be straightforward to hack the Clinton Foundation in such a way as to leave a trail of IOCs leading back to Russia. I think? you have to be an expert to do that.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I have moved to the left on this sort of issue after there was no high level official response or remediation after the Snowden revelations. I think many people fail to grasp how vulnerable we are to surveillance and propaganda. I have not seen any elected officials offer any reasonable reassurance or even accept accountability for what appear to be excesses. This suggests to me either fear or complicity, either of which are pretty bad news. I think your questions contain the assumptions for my answer: A state sponsored intelligence agency has the sophistication to forge the IOCs (or not to). Russia has a state sponsored intelligence agency. Therefore, the IOCs would not have been found unless the state sponsored agency responsible for the leak wanted them found. Thus if the data was leaked by Russia, it would have been accountable only if being held accountable offered a strategic benefit. I have not yet observed any strategic benefit to Russia doing this. In fact, unless the hypothetical smoking gun is so significant that it will harm the very likely election of HRC to the presidency (and that was deemed beneficial), I find it unlikely that Russia would have been willing to risk the significant harm in diplomacy caused by being caught meddling in a US election. So I think the hack was either done by a less sophisticated group (likely Russian) or by a different state sponsored group who chose to leave the trail pointing to Russia. Considering that escalated US/Russia tensions will amount to Billions in appropriations, there is clearly a financial incentive for stewing the conflict. There is also a dedicated interest group in the US that has tried to nudge the US into more direct conflict with Russia over the Ukraine, etc. But the surprising factor has been how readily Clinton's campaign jumped into finger pointing. I do not see how it possibly benefits Clinton (or her diplomatic core in 2017) to engage Russia in finger pointing and accusations of meddling in a US election. If a response was warranted, it should (in my opinion) have been measured, and it should have come from president Obama, and the issue should not have become a rallying cry for HRC's campaign. It's absurd and unprecedented for a candidate who does not hold office to levy such serious accusations at a foreign government. If accusations are warranted there is an existing group of officials whose job it is to deal with it. The first version of the Russia finger pointing story didn't really get legs and was not vetted by any named/credible infosec experts. The second round was, by the firms you mention, and I believe at least one official made a statement confirming the suspicion of Russian involvement. So there is some unknown motive for HRC deciding to circumvent the proper diplomatic method of resolving something as serious as election tampering by a foreign country. I doubt it amounts simply to trying to leverage the news cycle in a beneficial way, or even misdirection. It seems like too big a risk, one that a former Secretary of State would be abundantly cognizant of, especially if it really was Russia and some retaliatory action would need to be taken in the near future. I think there is room for exploration of the various motives that other state actors might have had for leaking the docs, but my guess is that the goal is to get the information into public view so that it cannot be used against HRC later after she's elected. Only if the leaked information ends up containing an election-risking smoking gun will it be plausible to believe that a state actor released the information to harm HRC.