6 ms·

Attributing the DNC Hacks to Russia – Bruce Schneier

24 points by Cozumel 10y ago

draw_down 10y ago
> Obama decided not to make the accusation public before the election so as not to be seen as influencing the election. That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought Clinton was going to win, i.e., that the hacking wasn't a big deal. Now it is. This is one reason Dems do not have credibility on this issue- either it's a problem for our democracy or it isn't, regardless of the winner. Another reason is Dems poured cold water on the idea that the election's outcome could be illegitimate, back when trump was saying he'd contest the result if he lost. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are stuck trying to declare the result illegitimate. Personally, I doubt the strength of the effect this had on the result of the election, and the Dems bungled it themselves by running a bad campaign and a poor candidate. Now they want to point the finger elsewhere.
- jeeva 10y ago
  >That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought Clinton was going to win, If I see someone trying to do something shady, and don't think they'll succeed, I'd surely care less than if I see someone doing it and they manage to have an effect. Also, hindsight is often said to be easier than predicting the future.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  In particular, with Trump saying that he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he lost, saying that there was foreign influence trying to tip the election could have been rather dangerous.
dimitar 10y ago
Schneier seems to focus a lot on a "smoking gun" type of evidence, which the US intelligence community probably does have and it doesn't have an incentive to publicize. Intentionally or not it appears he spreads doubt that Russia was in fact involved. However the leaking of the documents was done so sloppily there was a significant circumstantial evidence that private parties have used to conclude that it was done by Russians or the Russian government. Arstechnica can see some of the obvious signs that don't require any specialized training: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc... Schneier mentions "techniques go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" - well, identifying motives is one of them and Kremlin definitely has an interest of doing something like that and has done it before.
allthatglitters 10y ago
The discussion of "Russian hacking' is a archetype of a "false narrative". The "narrative" itself "hacks" the election.
banusaur 10y ago
Hmm. Still no public evidence. Maybe we should listen when Assange says "it wasn't a Russian state actor" and hints at murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC leaks. The Podesta phishing scam could have been done by anyone. Seems more like it was some 4chan faggot.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't call names on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ianai 10y ago
What's sad is this discussion immediately falls along party lines.
rwallace 10y ago
Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the Iraqi WMDs all over again. However, suppose for the sake of argument it was indeed the Russian government. One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one country in the world that cannot complain about interference in the political process of another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's the U.S. If you want a new world order where that's off the table, feel free to propose such a rule henceforth and let it be debated, but you don't get to retroactively say a new rule against X started to apply after the dozens of times you did X yourself and just before the time someone allegedly did X to you.
- travmatt 10y ago
  > Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the Iraqi WMDs all over again. I always though this argument was a kind of ideological test - like it's demonstrably terrible on it's face, but the people espousing it do so to show they're willing to disregard logic and evidence in order to show their loyalty to their 'side', like the Trump supporters who have told me with a straight face that they believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. In truth, plenty of evidence has been made available and public (most damningly the report into the spearphishing campaign), and reasonable people can debate whether the evidence is conclusive - but to say there is none is ridiculous on it's face. The second terrible part of this argument is the comparison to Iraq's WMD program, because it boldly reinvents history. In truth the IC was very pessimistic on the question, and the actual history is that Bush and Cheney literally invented a new office to 'process' intelligence before it was reported to them. But apparently, because a Republican President lied, we need to believe a different Republican President and not believe the IC. Some beautiful logic. >One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one country in the world that cannot complain about interference in the political process of another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's the U.S. Can't be a political discussion without an appeal to 'what-aboutism'.
  - rwallace 10y ago
    As it happens, I'm not on either 'side' - not American, and if I were, I'd be voting Libertarian, not Republican or Democrat. My claim is that, just as people shouldn't have believed Republicans when they invented stories to drum up support for starting a war, people shouldn't believe Democrats when they invent stories to drum up support for starting a war. As for Trump supporters who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, I'll let you have that argument with them. As for 'what-aboutism', are you going to start throwing that term around every time someone points out you cannot with any shred of moral authority complain about behavior in which you yourself have repeatedly and enthusiastically indulged?

24 points by Cozumel 10y ago

> Obama decided not to make the accusation public before the election so as not to be seen as influencing the election. That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought Clinton was going to win, i.e., that the hacking wasn't a big deal. Now it is. This is one reason Dems do not have credibility on this issue- either it's a problem for our democracy or it isn't, regardless of the winner. Another reason is Dems poured cold water on the idea that the election's outcome could be illegitimate, back when trump was saying he'd contest the result if he lost. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are stuck trying to declare the result illegitimate. Personally, I doubt the strength of the effect this had on the result of the election, and the Dems bungled it themselves by running a bad campaign and a poor candidate. Now they want to point the finger elsewhere.

jeeva 10y ago
>That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought Clinton was going to win, If I see someone trying to do something shady, and don't think they'll succeed, I'd surely care less than if I see someone doing it and they manage to have an effect. Also, hindsight is often said to be easier than predicting the future.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
In particular, with Trump saying that he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he lost, saying that there was foreign influence trying to tip the election could have been rather dangerous.

dimitar 10y ago

Schneier seems to focus a lot on a "smoking gun" type of evidence, which the US intelligence community probably does have and it doesn't have an incentive to publicize. Intentionally or not it appears he spreads doubt that Russia was in fact involved. However the leaking of the documents was done so sloppily there was a significant circumstantial evidence that private parties have used to conclude that it was done by Russians or the Russian government. Arstechnica can see some of the obvious signs that don't require any specialized training: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc... Schneier mentions "techniques go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" - well, identifying motives is one of them and Kremlin definitely has an interest of doing something like that and has done it before.

allthatglitters 10y ago

The discussion of "Russian hacking' is a archetype of a "false narrative". The "narrative" itself "hacks" the election.

banusaur 10y ago

Hmm. Still no public evidence. Maybe we should listen when Assange says "it wasn't a Russian state actor" and hints at murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC leaks. The Podesta phishing scam could have been done by anyone. Seems more like it was some 4chan faggot.

sctb 10y ago
Please don't call names on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ianai 10y ago

What's sad is this discussion immediately falls along party lines.

rwallace 10y ago

Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the Iraqi WMDs all over again. However, suppose for the sake of argument it was indeed the Russian government. One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one country in the world that cannot complain about interference in the political process of another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's the U.S. If you want a new world order where that's off the table, feel free to propose such a rule henceforth and let it be debated, but you don't get to retroactively say a new rule against X started to apply after the dozens of times you did X yourself and just before the time someone allegedly did X to you.

travmatt 10y ago
> Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the Iraqi WMDs all over again. I always though this argument was a kind of ideological test - like it's demonstrably terrible on it's face, but the people espousing it do so to show they're willing to disregard logic and evidence in order to show their loyalty to their 'side', like the Trump supporters who have told me with a straight face that they believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. In truth, plenty of evidence has been made available and public (most damningly the report into the spearphishing campaign), and reasonable people can debate whether the evidence is conclusive - but to say there is none is ridiculous on it's face. The second terrible part of this argument is the comparison to Iraq's WMD program, because it boldly reinvents history. In truth the IC was very pessimistic on the question, and the actual history is that Bush and Cheney literally invented a new office to 'process' intelligence before it was reported to them. But apparently, because a Republican President lied, we need to believe a different Republican President and not believe the IC. Some beautiful logic. >One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one country in the world that cannot complain about interference in the political process of another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's the U.S. Can't be a political discussion without an appeal to 'what-aboutism'.
- rwallace 10y ago
  As it happens, I'm not on either 'side' - not American, and if I were, I'd be voting Libertarian, not Republican or Democrat. My claim is that, just as people shouldn't have believed Republicans when they invented stories to drum up support for starting a war, people shouldn't believe Democrats when they invent stories to drum up support for starting a war. As for Trump supporters who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, I'll let you have that argument with them. As for 'what-aboutism', are you going to start throwing that term around every time someone points out you cannot with any shred of moral authority complain about behavior in which you yourself have repeatedly and enthusiastically indulged?