4 ms·

Maybe some more clarity on the "Russian's hacking DNC" is warranted, in light of the CIA track record.

by PKop 10y ago

dom0 10y ago
IMHO "Cyber Attribution" (cough) isn't really something you can do in a serious way. Let's be honest and admit that it's essentially "cui bono?" followed by looking at the locations of the first two C&C layers or something like that. Not saying it's not possible, with low-grade attackers it could be quite easy in some instances. But to actually attribute some attack to some entity you need actionable intelligence, not looking at - very likely consciously spoofed - traces left behind. I think we should also consider the standards for "cyber" (cough) evidence in the light of the recent "junk science in courts" articles showing how real-world evidence is often inconclusive or spoofable. We can't possibly think that it's easier, or more clear, with computers, whose default modus operandi is "fail open".
woofyman 10y ago
CIA's intelligence assessment on Iraq WMD: >The document determines that Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons program - although crucially, the CIA couldn't prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam's program. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the... The Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence.
- travmatt 10y ago
  Specifically, Bush created government agencies that say between himself and the int lligence agencies, these were tasked with 'correcting' the intelligence he was receiving. Bush wanted to believe that Iraq had WMD's, so he designed his administration in such a way as to make that conclusion inevitable.
jws 10y ago
The headline doesn't really match the conclusion. While the interrogations added and corrected information, in the run up to the Iraq war of 2003 the CIA analysis was dismissed and a tiny subset cherry picked to create a pretense for war. It is the nature of intelligence that you will collect a large body of information, and some of it will be false.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  This article, written prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is pretty damning of the Bush administration and to some extent separates then CIA Director George Tenet from the CIA in how intelligence was being handled. edit. Here's the article: http://prospect.org/article/pentagon-muzzles-cia http://prospect.org/article/pentagon-muzzles-cia
Eleopteryx 10y ago
Unless their claims are independently verifiable, is there anything they can say that won't be suspect? That seems to me to be the problem we face now. We built systems on top of layers of corruption, that corruption has been laid bare, the Internet has made it so I can consume it using Wikipedia alone. Now that our confidence is shaken, who do we trust? And, who with authority doesn't also have an agenda about which they might not tell us? Perhaps most importantly, how do we reconcile believing in a corrupt systems that have the capacity to sacrifice us just as soon as they'd protect us, versus the threat that distrust thereof weakens our overall cohesion?

Maybe some more clarity on the "Russian's hacking DNC" is warranted, in light of the CIA track record.

by PKop 10y ago

Maybe some more clarity on the "Russian's hacking DNC" is warranted, in light of the CIA track record.

dom0 10y ago

IMHO "Cyber Attribution" (cough) isn't really something you can do in a serious way. Let's be honest and admit that it's essentially "cui bono?" followed by looking at the locations of the first two C&C layers or something like that. Not saying it's not possible, with low-grade attackers it could be quite easy in some instances. But to actually attribute some attack to some entity you need actionable intelligence, not looking at - very likely consciously spoofed - traces left behind. I think we should also consider the standards for "cyber" (cough) evidence in the light of the recent "junk science in courts" articles showing how real-world evidence is often inconclusive or spoofable. We can't possibly think that it's easier, or more clear, with computers, whose default modus operandi is "fail open".

woofyman 10y ago

CIA's intelligence assessment on Iraq WMD: >The document determines that Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons program - although crucially, the CIA couldn't prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam's program. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the... The Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence.

travmatt 10y ago
Specifically, Bush created government agencies that say between himself and the int lligence agencies, these were tasked with 'correcting' the intelligence he was receiving. Bush wanted to believe that Iraq had WMD's, so he designed his administration in such a way as to make that conclusion inevitable.

jws 10y ago

The headline doesn't really match the conclusion. While the interrogations added and corrected information, in the run up to the Iraq war of 2003 the CIA analysis was dismissed and a tiny subset cherry picked to create a pretense for war. It is the nature of intelligence that you will collect a large body of information, and some of it will be false.

maxerickson 10y ago
This article, written prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is pretty damning of the Bush administration and to some extent separates then CIA Director George Tenet from the CIA in how intelligence was being handled. edit. Here's the article: http://prospect.org/article/pentagon-muzzles-cia http://prospect.org/article/pentagon-muzzles-cia

Eleopteryx 10y ago

Unless their claims are independently verifiable, is there anything they can say that won't be suspect? That seems to me to be the problem we face now. We built systems on top of layers of corruption, that corruption has been laid bare, the Internet has made it so I can consume it using Wikipedia alone. Now that our confidence is shaken, who do we trust? And, who with authority doesn't also have an agenda about which they might not tell us? Perhaps most importantly, how do we reconcile believing in a corrupt systems that have the capacity to sacrifice us just as soon as they'd protect us, versus the threat that distrust thereof weakens our overall cohesion?