3 ms·

This is so true. The evidence presented by the government is totally underwhelming. This Twitter thread lays out the most concise and compelling case I've seen

This is so true. The evidence presented by the government is totally underwhelming. This Twitter thread lays out the most concise and compelling case I've seen, compiled from open-source intelligence: https://www.twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720 https://www.twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/8166215536432...

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I actually have a much simpler heuristic for knowing when something originates with Russian intelligence. Just follow the chain of reasoning being proposed to its eventual conclusion, and then check what that conclusion is. If the conclusion amounts to, "And therefore, the only political actors you can trust are the reactionary nationalists", it very likely originates with Russian intelligence. Why the Russians? Well, because Russian intelligence has been disseminating propaganda along exactly those lines for the past century, starting, if not earlier, with the world's most famous propagandistic literary forgery[1]. The content, at this point, can be mad-libbed, and usually is mad-libbed with little reference to facts or actual circumstances. All it has to do is sow paranoia, point to every democratic or revolutionary faction as destroying the nation, and then conclude, "Therefore the only people you can trust are the reactionary nationalists, ie: the Tsarists/Fascists/Stalinists/Arabists/Duginists/Trumpists/National Front/Neo-Nazis." Once you detect the mad-libbing, you can skip the argument, jump to the conclusion, and know what you're looking at. [1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of...
iconjack 10y ago
I believe the intent of Assange's statement that a 14-year-old could have made this hack, as well as Trump's tweeting of the statement, was to emphasize the non-sophistication of the attack (commonplace phishing), contrary to the idea we've been hearing from officials about how only a state actor could pull off such a thing.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

I actually have a much simpler heuristic for knowing when something originates with Russian intelligence. Just follow the chain of reasoning being proposed to its eventual conclusion, and then check what that conclusion is. If the conclusion amounts to, "And therefore, the only political actors you can trust are the reactionary nationalists", it very likely originates with Russian intelligence. Why the Russians? Well, because Russian intelligence has been disseminating propaganda along exactly those lines for the past century, starting, if not earlier, with the world's most famous propagandistic literary forgery[1]. The content, at this point, can be mad-libbed, and usually is mad-libbed with little reference to facts or actual circumstances. All it has to do is sow paranoia, point to every democratic or revolutionary faction as destroying the nation, and then conclude, "Therefore the only people you can trust are the reactionary nationalists, ie: the Tsarists/Fascists/Stalinists/Arabists/Duginists/Trumpists/National Front/Neo-Nazis." Once you detect the mad-libbing, you can skip the argument, jump to the conclusion, and know what you're looking at. [1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of...

iconjack 10y ago

I believe the intent of Assange's statement that a 14-year-old could have made this hack, as well as Trump's tweeting of the statement, was to emphasize the non-sophistication of the attack (commonplace phishing), contrary to the idea we've been hearing from officials about how only a state actor could pull off such a thing.