4 ms·

> Does anyone have any good examples of left-leaning fake, conspiratorial news stories in the last few years? The theory that Putin hacked the Democrats to get

by geowwy 10y ago

> Does anyone have any good examples of left-leaning fake, conspiratorial news stories in the last few years? The theory that Putin hacked the Democrats to get Donald Trump elected. There's zero proof that Russia is behind the leaks, but Dems still peddle this myth. Hillary Clinton even went as far as threatening Russia with military intervention over the emails. And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it.

untog 10y ago
There isn't conclusive evidence, but from what I've read, the hack to Podesta's email used a Bitly account known to be associated with Russian intelligence: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john... Like I said, not conclusive, but I wonder what definite evidence you're likely to have with intelligence agencies. Point taken, though.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  More good reading on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/29/cozy-bear-fancy-bear-russia-hack-dnc https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/29/cozy-bear...
- flukus 10y ago
  How do they differentiate between a Russian Intelligence hacker and one sharing resources with one? Or just a kid in a basement somewhere?
- fareesh 10y ago
  I agree, this is definitely not conclusive proof that the source used by Wikileaks is the same source. It's probably important to note that his password was something like "p@ssword".
sirrocco 10y ago
When you say no proof, what would you expect good enough proof? I expect the Russians would never admit to anything.
badlucklottery 10y ago
>And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it. The western intelligence community has converged on the conclusion that the Russian government was involved and staked their reputation on that conclusion. So, unless you just don't trust your government at all, it's likely to be true.
- fareesh 10y ago
  The western intelligence community has simply said that the Russian government accessed these mails. There's nothing to suggest that they're the ones who gave Wikileaks access though. It's quite likely that there were multiple parties who had access.
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  Western intelligence community also converged on the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs. They lost their credibility after that and it will take a long time to regain the trust. Though if you have any other credible source, please share it.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Did they? It seems only the anglosphere countries came to this conclusion and that they were "instructed" to.
  - badlucklottery 10y ago
    >Western intelligence community also converged on the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs Not really. There was a decent amount of dissent in the western intel community on Iraqi WMDs (pretty much everyone not in the "coalition of the willing" and even some within it), it's just that the Bush administration purposefully ignored the dissenters. >Though if you have any other credible source, please share it. If you don't believe the intelligence community can ever be trusted again after Iraq, I don't think there's any source could be enough for you. If the authorities on the subject are in on the conspiracy, then any proof could be just another layer on the conspiracy, right? Turtles all the way down.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jimrandomh 10y ago
In response to this comment, I went and googled the incident. The primary source is a joint statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence, which says: > "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr... The Director of National Intelligence is capable of mistakes, and their saying it does not necessarily mean it's true. But the statement was absolutely unambiguous. And yet, on a google search for "Podesta email DNI-DHS statement", I found lots of sites lying outright about the content of the statement: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/01/hillarys-russian-hack-hoax-the-biggest-lie-of-this-election-season/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/01/hillarys-russian-hack-... http://www.wuc-news.com/2016/10/no-hillary-17-us-intelligence-agencies.html http://www.wuc-news.com/2016/10/no-hillary-17-us-intelligenc...
- flukus 10y ago
  > are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. That is far from proof. I might be a good reason to suspect but it's far from proof. >Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. How do the differentiate an attack originating from a Russian server from an attack Russian Attack? How do they know they aren't just being used?
  - jimrandomh 10y ago
    The statement didn't say how they know or why they're confident. It just says that they're confident. If they know because they have their own spies, or hacked Russian systems, then they can't say that.
    - flukus 10y ago
whybroke 10y ago
I think you have the backwards: the right's instance that there is no evidence is the unreasonable position. Of course one might insist it's a conspiracy by the Director of National intelligence but that just makes the claim even less reasonable. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Hillary Clinton even went as far as threatening Russia with military intervention over the emails. AFAICT, this is itself a propaganda myth of the right (its a radical distortion of Clinton's suggestion that cyberattacks should be met with a range of political, economic, and military responses like any other attacks -- an announcement which was fairly similar in content, including the four identified adversaries, the Pentagon's own most recently announced cyberwar strategy, which predates the emails. > And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it. There is nonzero public evidence backing the conclusion of various cybersecurity firms that particular previously identified Russian actors were involved, a conclusion which predated and whose data likely provided a key input to the intelligence community determination (which may or may not also have additional all no public evidence backing it, which you wouldn't expect to be published.)

by geowwy 10y ago

untog 10y ago

There isn't conclusive evidence, but from what I've read, the hack to Podesta's email used a Bitly account known to be associated with Russian intelligence: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john... Like I said, not conclusive, but I wonder what definite evidence you're likely to have with intelligence agencies. Point taken, though.

fisherjeff 10y ago
More good reading on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/29/cozy-bear-fancy-bear-russia-hack-dnc https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/29/cozy-bear...
flukus 10y ago
How do they differentiate between a Russian Intelligence hacker and one sharing resources with one? Or just a kid in a basement somewhere?
fareesh 10y ago
I agree, this is definitely not conclusive proof that the source used by Wikileaks is the same source. It's probably important to note that his password was something like "p@ssword".

sirrocco 10y ago

When you say no proof, what would you expect good enough proof? I expect the Russians would never admit to anything.

badlucklottery 10y ago

>And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it. The western intelligence community has converged on the conclusion that the Russian government was involved and staked their reputation on that conclusion. So, unless you just don't trust your government at all, it's likely to be true.

fareesh 10y ago
The western intelligence community has simply said that the Russian government accessed these mails. There's nothing to suggest that they're the ones who gave Wikileaks access though. It's quite likely that there were multiple parties who had access.
RestlessMind 10y ago
Western intelligence community also converged on the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs. They lost their credibility after that and it will take a long time to regain the trust. Though if you have any other credible source, please share it.
- flukus 10y ago
  Did they? It seems only the anglosphere countries came to this conclusion and that they were "instructed" to.
- badlucklottery 10y ago
  >Western intelligence community also converged on the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs Not really. There was a decent amount of dissent in the western intel community on Iraqi WMDs (pretty much everyone not in the "coalition of the willing" and even some within it), it's just that the Bush administration purposefully ignored the dissenters. >Though if you have any other credible source, please share it. If you don't believe the intelligence community can ever be trusted again after Iraq, I don't think there's any source could be enough for you. If the authorities on the subject are in on the conspiracy, then any proof could be just another layer on the conspiracy, right? Turtles all the way down.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jimrandomh 10y ago

In response to this comment, I went and googled the incident. The primary source is a joint statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence, which says: > "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr... The Director of National Intelligence is capable of mistakes, and their saying it does not necessarily mean it's true. But the statement was absolutely unambiguous. And yet, on a google search for "Podesta email DNI-DHS statement", I found lots of sites lying outright about the content of the statement: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/01/hillarys-russian-hack-hoax-the-biggest-lie-of-this-election-season/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/01/hillarys-russian-hack-... http://www.wuc-news.com/2016/10/no-hillary-17-us-intelligence-agencies.html http://www.wuc-news.com/2016/10/no-hillary-17-us-intelligenc...

flukus 10y ago
> are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. That is far from proof. I might be a good reason to suspect but it's far from proof. >Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. How do the differentiate an attack originating from a Russian server from an attack Russian Attack? How do they know they aren't just being used?
- jimrandomh 10y ago
  The statement didn't say how they know or why they're confident. It just says that they're confident. If they know because they have their own spies, or hacked Russian systems, then they can't say that.
  - flukus 10y ago

whybroke 10y ago

I think you have the backwards: the right's instance that there is no evidence is the unreasonable position. Of course one might insist it's a conspiracy by the Director of National intelligence but that just makes the claim even less reasonable. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Hillary Clinton even went as far as threatening Russia with military intervention over the emails. AFAICT, this is itself a propaganda myth of the right (its a radical distortion of Clinton's suggestion that cyberattacks should be met with a range of political, economic, and military responses like any other attacks -- an announcement which was fairly similar in content, including the four identified adversaries, the Pentagon's own most recently announced cyberwar strategy, which predates the emails. > And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it. There is nonzero public evidence backing the conclusion of various cybersecurity firms that particular previously identified Russian actors were involved, a conclusion which predated and whose data likely provided a key input to the intelligence community determination (which may or may not also have additional all no public evidence backing it, which you wouldn't expect to be published.)