4 ms·

> Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails That is not an accusation that the Russians are behind the DNC/Podesta leaks. Read carefully. T

by alva 10y ago

> Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails That is not an accusation that the Russians are behind the DNC/Podesta leaks. Read carefully. These statements are constructed with the utmost care.

wbhart 10y ago
"including from US political organizations"? OK, legalese can be pretty wild, but to me, this is totally unambiguous. Which political organizations do you think they could be referring to? Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.
- alva 10y ago
  > this is totally unambiguous > "including from US political organizations" edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.
burkaman 10y ago
Sorry, can you diagram the sentence or something? Not only do I not understand what you're hinting at, but I can't think of a more clear way to phrase it. If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
- alva 10y ago
  "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)" 1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago. 2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons. 2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to? >If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on." Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact. Edit: >Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about? Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    In your alternative, what does confident mean? Which specific people does "Russian Government" refer to? What does directed mean? What does compromise mean? The English language is not code that can be debugged, you can second guess the semantics of anything. If credibility is the only thing at stake here, then the legalese is irrelevant. As you noted, it seems like everyone besides you took this statement to be an unambiguous accusation. If it turns out to be wrong, the technical wording will not matter. James Clapper could not maintain credibility by claiming "Oh no you misunderstood, we were talking about a leak from 5 years ago". From a PR standpoint, that would look a lot worse than just saying "We screwed up, sometimes the evidence is misleading".

by alva 10y ago

wbhart 10y ago

"including from US political organizations"? OK, legalese can be pretty wild, but to me, this is totally unambiguous. Which political organizations do you think they could be referring to? Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.

alva 10y ago
> this is totally unambiguous > "including from US political organizations" edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.

burkaman 10y ago

Sorry, can you diagram the sentence or something? Not only do I not understand what you're hinting at, but I can't think of a more clear way to phrase it. If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?

alva 10y ago
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)" 1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago. 2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons. 2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to? >If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on." Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact. Edit: >Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about? Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
- burkaman 10y ago
  In your alternative, what does confident mean? Which specific people does "Russian Government" refer to? What does directed mean? What does compromise mean? The English language is not code that can be debugged, you can second guess the semantics of anything. If credibility is the only thing at stake here, then the legalese is irrelevant. As you noted, it seems like everyone besides you took this statement to be an unambiguous accusation. If it turns out to be wrong, the technical wording will not matter. James Clapper could not maintain credibility by claiming "Oh no you misunderstood, we were talking about a leak from 5 years ago". From a PR standpoint, that would look a lot worse than just saying "We screwed up, sometimes the evidence is misleading".