4 ms·

Why trust them in the first place, look at the evidence and if you disagree with a conclusion, be able to say why. This is the whole problem we're dealing with

Why trust them in the first place, look at the evidence and if you disagree with a conclusion, be able to say why. This is the whole problem we're dealing with right now - people just decide they do or do not trust something. Don't agree with a fact check? Just call it bogus and move on, even though it might be a 50 point case they make why bother finding a flaw in their reasoning and using that to refute their conclusion when you can just be a cynic and shrug it off. Don't agree with climate change? Just pick the 1 totally debunked study that supports your case and ignore the 1000 that don't that haven't been debunked. So I ask, in the analyses that have come out (not just this one), what do you disagree with? As far back as June crowdstrike released a report [1], I assume you went through it in detail and can point to flaws in its reasoning as well? [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

grandalf 10y ago
The basic flaws I'd mention are: - Multiple state actors (or well-funded non-state actors) likely compromised the emails. - A state actor could also have faked the "trail" that points to Russia. - The rest of the evidence is circumstantial. Sure, if we pretend we live in a pre-stuxnet, script kiddie sort of world, this was likely a high level state sponsored attack, but it seems preposterous that a state actor would be so sloppy: If you were Putin wishing to try to use spearfishing to get access to specific accounts, you would not source that work to groups that were known to work with your government. You'd set up a fake Nigerian operation so that if found it would look like the email address had been randomly chosen from a list of many used by some Nigerian person to try to scam a few thousand dollars. This is not akin to thinking three or four moves ahead, it's simply thinking one move ahead.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  This is my issue with it. I know I can pull this off without getting caught, hell half the people here can, why can't a Russian super hacker team?
- dv_dt 10y ago
  Exactly, it could just as easily be China making it look like Russia did it...
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    Yea, This made me think of chinese black pr groups too. Hillary was not liked in china or korea.
pessimizer 10y ago
> Why trust them in the first place, look at the evidence and if you disagree with a conclusion, be able to say why. They never even claim that the evidence they show would lead to the conclusions they assert. What they claim is that there's other information that they can't tell you that would lead to their conclusions, and then they release documents like this so interests who have an interest in supporting their conclusions have something to cite. They're explicitly asking you to trust them, and offering no evidence. When climate change scientists who operate within an opaque government agency start telling me that the evidence for climate change is too secret for me to see, I'll become a climate change skeptic, too.

grandalf 10y ago

The basic flaws I'd mention are: - Multiple state actors (or well-funded non-state actors) likely compromised the emails. - A state actor could also have faked the "trail" that points to Russia. - The rest of the evidence is circumstantial. Sure, if we pretend we live in a pre-stuxnet, script kiddie sort of world, this was likely a high level state sponsored attack, but it seems preposterous that a state actor would be so sloppy: If you were Putin wishing to try to use spearfishing to get access to specific accounts, you would not source that work to groups that were known to work with your government. You'd set up a fake Nigerian operation so that if found it would look like the email address had been randomly chosen from a list of many used by some Nigerian person to try to scam a few thousand dollars. This is not akin to thinking three or four moves ahead, it's simply thinking one move ahead.

cmdrfred 10y ago
This is my issue with it. I know I can pull this off without getting caught, hell half the people here can, why can't a Russian super hacker team?
dv_dt 10y ago
Exactly, it could just as easily be China making it look like Russia did it...
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Yea, This made me think of chinese black pr groups too. Hillary was not liked in china or korea.

pessimizer 10y ago

> Why trust them in the first place, look at the evidence and if you disagree with a conclusion, be able to say why. They never even claim that the evidence they show would lead to the conclusions they assert. What they claim is that there's other information that they can't tell you that would lead to their conclusions, and then they release documents like this so interests who have an interest in supporting their conclusions have something to cite. They're explicitly asking you to trust them, and offering no evidence. When climate change scientists who operate within an opaque government agency start telling me that the evidence for climate change is too secret for me to see, I'll become a climate change skeptic, too.