3 ms·

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

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
    If the only evidence they can show is "we think it's them, trust us" then they should not say anything.
- untog 10y ago
  While that is a fair criticism, it's still evidence towards a conclusion, even if it isn't a conclusion itself. To compare it, as in my original point, to "Barack Obama is a Muslim", it's in an entirely different league.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

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
  If the only evidence they can show is "we think it's them, trust us" then they should not say anything.
untog 10y ago
While that is a fair criticism, it's still evidence towards a conclusion, even if it isn't a conclusion itself. To compare it, as in my original point, to "Barack Obama is a Muslim", it's in an entirely different league.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]