6 ms·

It seems notable that many of these comments are jumping on this for not providing proof that it was Russia, when that was not the intention of the report. The

• supergeek133 10y ago
  The funny part about all of this to me, is that if most companies with data to lose aren't already taking these recommendations.. then they've already been cracked. Most of this report is pretty simple social engineering tactics/table stakes.
• parktheredcar 10y ago
  The bloomberg article I read (http://archive.is/j5wRd http://archive.is/j5wRd) presented it as evidence. Maybe other publications are doing the same. >As part of the administration’s response, the FBI and Homeland Security Department also released a report with technical evidence intended to prove Russia’s military and civilian intelligence services were behind the hacking and to expose some of their most sensitive hacking infrastructure.
  • grandalf 10y ago
    > presented it as evidence Quite predictable, since they also considered the wild accusations of various politicians of a high level Russian conspiracy to be evidence.
    • gipp 10y ago
      If you rephrase your hysterical wording as "major bipartisan concern across every intelligence agency and nearly all ranking members of both houses of Congress, including the heads of both Intelligence Committees," then I'm not really sure what more evidence you or I could hope for from such an obviously sensitive, active topic for the time being.
      • grandalf 10y ago
        By mentioning that they are "ranking members" you make an argument from authority that is predicated on the legitimacy of the government alone, effectively saying "kneel and take whatever they say at face value". In my view, they are all self-serving career politicians and none have shown any particular reason they should be trusted or respected. They were the ones who urged the knee-jerk reaction in Iraq which has cost trillions of dollars and many lives, among many other bad decisions that they all agree on.
        • gipp 10y ago
          Fine. But (assuming you extend this attitude to "the mainstream media" as well) you've created for yourself an ontology of the world in which it is impossible to claim any knowledge of anything outside your direct field of view. I'm not really sure how you intend us to accomplish much of anything without _some_ ability to trust _someone_ else. And bipartisan agreement from bitter enemies who have little or nothing to gain personally from such statements is about the lowest bar of trust I can imagine.
          • hueving 10y ago
            Politicians stand to gain government expansion when they scare the population. So it's not nearly as low of a bar as you think. It's like you're claiming we must trust pharmaceutical representatives from competing companies when they both agree that we all need more pills.
            • gipp 10y ago
              Who's expanding what part of government here?
              • voxic11 10y ago
                Every Democrat and most Republicans?
          • 10y ago
  • mundo 10y ago
    The "evidence" cited is not the handful of unclassified details included, it's the fact that the FBI and DHS are willing to go on record publicly accusing Russia. There are no asterisks or weasel-words or "allegedly"s. Just a clear "Russia did it." There are only two possible explanations for that: 1) A massive conspiracy in which the leaders of practically the entirety of the US military/intelligence community are willing to go on record with a hoax that will easily be unraveled by the incoming administration in a few months 2) There is clear and damning evidence that Russia did it, but it's classified
    • naturally2014 10y ago
      I'd guess a third option, actually: It's just a best guess, but they don't like being questioned. If they had damning evidence it'd be in their interest to release it.
      • walshemj 10y ago
        Not if it would give any humint sources away and they may have kicked out people to allow a source to step into their shoes - as the UK did to put there man in as the Resident in London
        • porpoisemonkey 10y ago
          It's somewhat obvious from the context but for anyone not familiar with military jargon I think the parent post meant to say "humint" instead of "humit" which is short hand for "human intelligence" or in layman's terms "spies".
          • walshemj 10y ago
            oops my bad
    • acjohnson55 10y ago
      Of course, Iraq and WMD do little to build confidence. Not that I don't believe you -- motive and opportunity for Russia are crystal clear here, and given that the results of the election are not going to be overturned, I see little gain for the current administration to lie about this.
• chvid 10y ago
  Agreed - this is meant to present the evidence or at least the public part of. If this is all there is; then the skepticism coming from the incoming administration is warranted.
  • gipp 10y ago
    You said "Agreed" then said the exact opposite of what the parent said.
• 1_2__3 10y ago
  Not only many of these comments, but a few commenters jumping on the thread within minutes trying to repeatedly question or throw shade on Russia's role in this.
  • walshemj 10y ago
    well I suppose their phones will work really well from now on wink