7 ms·

And, yet, this is the same CIA who we're listening to when they claim Russia hacked the election.

by 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago

vinay427 10y ago
It doesn't seem very logical to dismiss evidence from an organization because of a few mistakes. Consider also the wealth of things they got right, some of which may never be made public.
- lossolo 10y ago
  What evidence you are writing about? Did you seen any? that shows what mass media are saying? I didn't. And after seeing how US lost in Syria with Russia and suddenly CIA talks about Putin directly involved in hacking US election I would be really cautious to make any judgments without seeing hard proofs.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    This middlebrow dismissal has occurred on so many threads at this point that I feel it's aged out of being taken seriously. Instead of generating evidence for you, I feel justified in telling you that obviously there has been evidence posted, and if you don't find it compelling and want to shoot it down, you must first demonstrate to others that you actually know how to find it. The alternative position is the one where we first collect all the analysis and evidence and context and present it to you so that you can say you knew all of that all along and didn't mention it because it was so obviously flawed. In addition to being frustrating to deal with, that latter position is an effective way to shoot down any common-sense argument, from "vaccines don't cause autism" to "men really did land on the moon" to "9/11 was not an inside job".
    - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
      The position of side-stepping the argument over the veracity of the Russia claims is an old and tired one. You can't just move the ball and dismiss anyone who questions you. Your position seems to be "obviously my opinion is correct and LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU"
  - lisivka 10y ago
    You saw lot of evidences. You just not attributed them to Russia. Russia doesn't tries to make a direct action for their benefit, but to create situation to benefit from. Moreover, they are not trying to force single exit from a situation, but to limit number of exits, so they can prepare a solution for all of them beforehand. I clearly see goals and actions, and I attribute them to Russia, because they will benefit a lot from resolution, but I have trained eye because I watched how Russians are working in Ukraine at time of Maidan.
    - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
      All of the actual evidence that I've seen so far is equivalent to an investigator seeing "made in china" written on a hammer used to smash a store window and saying "china broke into wal-mart". As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that could be equally attributable to anyone? EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or that I believe this would have happened). My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are lots of equally plausible scenarios here.
      - lisivka 10y ago
        Republicans are natural enemies of Russia, so preferred exists for Russia: democrat elected OR distrust in government happens, which then can be played into something like massive protest. I also unable to see how Russian-US relations can be better than now. Russia captured Crimea, while USA and Britain are ignored their obligations. It's looks like a gift. Yeah, sanctions can be canceled, but even if not, sanctions are doing very minor harm in compare to gained benefit: Russia now controls Black Sea and can intercept rockets launched from Turkey, so USA bases in Turkey are useless now. Also Russia prevented Shell from pumping of natural gas from Sloviansk (their second goal after Crimea) to Europer, so they saved lot of money on that war.
- dchuk 10y ago
  Did you just suggest we consider stuff they got right that we will never know the actual details of?
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    I believe they did.
  - vinay427 10y ago
    Yes, what I mean by that is that I would guess (emphasis on guess) that it is much more likely for mistakes to be made public rather than successes. Someone or some agency needs to be blamed if something goes wrong. It's well known that various CIA activities are not public, and so my conjecture is that those are disproportionately successful as they didn't result in public criticism, etc.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Got right? They couldn't even kill Castro, despite 600 attempts. Oh and they failed to stop 9/11. Also chemical weapons in Iraq.
  - vinay427 10y ago
    Exactly, which is why I would conjecture that the secrets we don't find out about were disproportionately more successful than the failures that must be made public to place the blame on someone or some agency. This is strictly my conjecture, to be clear.
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
  I'm not saying to completely dismiss it, but, keep a few things in mind. Firstly, there is no evidence from the CIA regarding the election hacks. There are anonymous sources who claim to work with/in the CIA and/or have information from the CIA. Secondly, I'm not saying to outright dismiss it, but, that you need to frame the information in the context of their success rate. (and, no, you don't get to consider secret unknowable wins in that calculation)
  - vinay427 10y ago
    That's very reasonable; thank you for clarifying. I don't mean to imply that the CIA or anyone should be taken at their word, but it's a little concerning that some are more willing to trust the Russian state than the CIA. There isn't a conclusive case either way yet.
tptacek 10y ago
First: many more sources besides CIA are attributing the attack to Russia, including (I believe?) all the major private forensics/attributions companies, and what appears to be the entire IC. Second: the CIA's role in the Iraq is complicated, and apparently significant numbers of senior people inside CIA were opposed to the case made for Hussein's weapons programs. Most of what I've read suggests that DoD and the VP's office was the primary driver for the war and for the perspective on intelligence supporting it. A good book here is Gellman's _Angler_. Third: "the CIA" isn't a single monolithic thing and, in particular, the leadership at CIA changes dramatically across administrations --- as, in fact, it did within the Bush administration (similarly: Bush's first-term DoD leadership bears little resemblance to Robert Gates's DoD). Fourth: the argument you're making is an essentialist one --- suggesting as it does that if CIA was ever wrong about anything, then that is dispositive evidence that the CIA is always wrong. But that's an absurd rhetorical position to take. If it's the case that CIA is uniformly (or, perhaps, in some Byzantine fashion) wrong, you have to support that claim with more evidence.
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
  First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" this week) Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too. Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually). Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 regarding availability of evidence (and reply there, if you feel the need, just to keep the thread coherent). Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were. Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it. Your fourth point knocks down a straw man.

And, yet, this is the same CIA who we're listening to when they claim Russia hacked the election.

It doesn't seem very logical to dismiss evidence from an organization because of a few mistakes. Consider also the wealth of things they got right, some of which may never be made public.

lossolo 10y ago
What evidence you are writing about? Did you seen any? that shows what mass media are saying? I didn't. And after seeing how US lost in Syria with Russia and suddenly CIA talks about Putin directly involved in hacking US election I would be really cautious to make any judgments without seeing hard proofs.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This middlebrow dismissal has occurred on so many threads at this point that I feel it's aged out of being taken seriously. Instead of generating evidence for you, I feel justified in telling you that obviously there has been evidence posted, and if you don't find it compelling and want to shoot it down, you must first demonstrate to others that you actually know how to find it. The alternative position is the one where we first collect all the analysis and evidence and context and present it to you so that you can say you knew all of that all along and didn't mention it because it was so obviously flawed. In addition to being frustrating to deal with, that latter position is an effective way to shoot down any common-sense argument, from "vaccines don't cause autism" to "men really did land on the moon" to "9/11 was not an inside job".
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    The position of side-stepping the argument over the veracity of the Russia claims is an old and tired one. You can't just move the ball and dismiss anyone who questions you. Your position seems to be "obviously my opinion is correct and LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU"
- lisivka 10y ago
  You saw lot of evidences. You just not attributed them to Russia. Russia doesn't tries to make a direct action for their benefit, but to create situation to benefit from. Moreover, they are not trying to force single exit from a situation, but to limit number of exits, so they can prepare a solution for all of them beforehand. I clearly see goals and actions, and I attribute them to Russia, because they will benefit a lot from resolution, but I have trained eye because I watched how Russians are working in Ukraine at time of Maidan.
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    All of the actual evidence that I've seen so far is equivalent to an investigator seeing "made in china" written on a hammer used to smash a store window and saying "china broke into wal-mart". As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that could be equally attributable to anyone? EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or that I believe this would have happened). My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are lots of equally plausible scenarios here.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Republicans are natural enemies of Russia, so preferred exists for Russia: democrat elected OR distrust in government happens, which then can be played into something like massive protest. I also unable to see how Russian-US relations can be better than now. Russia captured Crimea, while USA and Britain are ignored their obligations. It's looks like a gift. Yeah, sanctions can be canceled, but even if not, sanctions are doing very minor harm in compare to gained benefit: Russia now controls Black Sea and can intercept rockets launched from Turkey, so USA bases in Turkey are useless now. Also Russia prevented Shell from pumping of natural gas from Sloviansk (their second goal after Crimea) to Europer, so they saved lot of money on that war.
dchuk 10y ago
Did you just suggest we consider stuff they got right that we will never know the actual details of?
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
  I believe they did.
- vinay427 10y ago
  Yes, what I mean by that is that I would guess (emphasis on guess) that it is much more likely for mistakes to be made public rather than successes. Someone or some agency needs to be blamed if something goes wrong. It's well known that various CIA activities are not public, and so my conjecture is that those are disproportionately successful as they didn't result in public criticism, etc.
tomjen3 10y ago
Got right? They couldn't even kill Castro, despite 600 attempts. Oh and they failed to stop 9/11. Also chemical weapons in Iraq.
- vinay427 10y ago
  Exactly, which is why I would conjecture that the secrets we don't find out about were disproportionately more successful than the failures that must be made public to place the blame on someone or some agency. This is strictly my conjecture, to be clear.
464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
I'm not saying to completely dismiss it, but, keep a few things in mind. Firstly, there is no evidence from the CIA regarding the election hacks. There are anonymous sources who claim to work with/in the CIA and/or have information from the CIA. Secondly, I'm not saying to outright dismiss it, but, that you need to frame the information in the context of their success rate. (and, no, you don't get to consider secret unknowable wins in that calculation)
- vinay427 10y ago
  That's very reasonable; thank you for clarifying. I don't mean to imply that the CIA or anyone should be taken at their word, but it's a little concerning that some are more willing to trust the Russian state than the CIA. There isn't a conclusive case either way yet.

tptacek 10y ago

First: many more sources besides CIA are attributing the attack to Russia, including (I believe?) all the major private forensics/attributions companies, and what appears to be the entire IC. Second: the CIA's role in the Iraq is complicated, and apparently significant numbers of senior people inside CIA were opposed to the case made for Hussein's weapons programs. Most of what I've read suggests that DoD and the VP's office was the primary driver for the war and for the perspective on intelligence supporting it. A good book here is Gellman's _Angler_. Third: "the CIA" isn't a single monolithic thing and, in particular, the leadership at CIA changes dramatically across administrations --- as, in fact, it did within the Bush administration (similarly: Bush's first-term DoD leadership bears little resemblance to Robert Gates's DoD). Fourth: the argument you're making is an essentialist one --- suggesting as it does that if CIA was ever wrong about anything, then that is dispositive evidence that the CIA is always wrong. But that's an absurd rhetorical position to take. If it's the case that CIA is uniformly (or, perhaps, in some Byzantine fashion) wrong, you have to support that claim with more evidence.

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" this week) Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too. Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually). Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
- tptacek 10y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 regarding availability of evidence (and reply there, if you feel the need, just to keep the thread coherent). Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were. Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it. Your fourth point knocks down a straw man.