5 ms·

> So far we only know the DNC leaks were very likely Russian. We don't know that at all. There isn't a single piece of evidence for it anywhere.

res0nat0r 10y ago
Unfortunately for this we aren't going to get some 1080p video of someone in a mask sneaking into the DNC server room, just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case. Unfortunately everyone these days think everything is a conspiracy or has to have HD recordings of something they think happened as public evidence or it is false, but that's not how the world really works...
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  The thing is, "17 agencies agree" doesn't really mean anything, if the evidence that all 17 agencies are relying on is a single report from a private security company hired by the DNC, and not independent investigation. If all of those agencies had looked at the original evidence themselves, the story would be different.
  - rev_null 10y ago
    If 30 helens agreed, it would be a different case.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    But they aren't just relying on a single report from a private security company, where did you assume that?
    - elif 10y ago
      https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-woul... fun fact, it is the same private company the government paid for evidence that North Korea (yeah, right) was responsible for the sony hack.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - alasdair_ 10y ago
    Also, the "17 agencies" statement came from James Clapper, and not individually issued from each of the agencies themselves. It also bears mentioning that the "17 agencies" include groups that I really, really doubt bothered to investigate ANYTHING to do with a politician getting his emails hacked - do people actually believe that the coast guard was tracking down Russian hackers after DNC secrets? What about the department of energy? These are some of the "17 agencies" mentioned.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  >" just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case." This simply isn't true. The whole "17 agencies" thing is a talking point that first came up in one of Hillary Clinton's debates and gets repeated without challenge. The "17 agencies" didn't all independently make their own assesments about what happened and decided it was the Russians. Instead, James Clapper (at the time, the Director of National Intelligence) made the claim that the Russians were behind certain hacks. Clapper is the ultimate head of sixteen out of seventeen of the agencies. The actual agencies involved include parts of the coast guard and the department of energy and other groups that seem REALLY unlikely to have conducted an in-depth, independent investigation into the hacking of a politician's emails. Also, this is the same James Clapper who lied under oath to congress. Specifically, when asked “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.” Wyden asked “It does not?” and Clapper said, “Not wittingly." This is perjury and he should have been prosecuted for it. At a minimum, lying under oath makes it less likely that anything else he claims should be taken at face value.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    He wasn't going to out a secret program in a public hearing. The folks asking the questions had security clearance and could have asked the question during a classified briefing but they chose not to.
    - leesalminen 10y ago
      That doesn't make perjury legal.
      - res0nat0r 10y ago
        If grandstanding to out a secret program when he knew the answer and was supposed to be asking that question in private I'd say it was fine, and it seems everyone else thought so also hence no charges.
        10y ago
troyvit 10y ago
https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence... There is some evidence, but no definitive evidence. '"[SecureWorks] researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government," the report from SecureWorks concluded.'
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  The "evidence" appears to be simply that one anonymous group about which nothing is known was going after targets that would presumably be of interest to Russia. But that's simply heresy: such targets might also be of interest to western intelligence, or really anyone who wanted to stir up trouble by framing another country. All we can say is that the correlation is interesting, but that's about it.
  - jessedhillon 10y ago
    This is why we have intelligence -- the evidence for almost anything of consequence will never be able to meet a judicial, syllogistic standard. The idea that we need mathematically perfect deduction before we can make actionable conclusions is an assumption on your part.
    - rand83746 10y ago
      And the people inside the government to whom the intelligence is provided have every right to trust the source. However, to us in the public, we don't know these people, and have zero reason to trust them, absent actual factual evidence. What, you wouldn't put it past them to lie all the sudden?
      - jessedhillon 10y ago
        The logical end of that position is that states aren't allowed to keep secrets, which you are welcome to believe is possible, but it's not the world I believe we live in.
astrange 10y ago
https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816622915860963328 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/81662291586096332...

res0nat0r 10y ago

Unfortunately for this we aren't going to get some 1080p video of someone in a mask sneaking into the DNC server room, just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case. Unfortunately everyone these days think everything is a conspiracy or has to have HD recordings of something they think happened as public evidence or it is false, but that's not how the world really works...

NoGravitas 10y ago
The thing is, "17 agencies agree" doesn't really mean anything, if the evidence that all 17 agencies are relying on is a single report from a private security company hired by the DNC, and not independent investigation. If all of those agencies had looked at the original evidence themselves, the story would be different.
- rev_null 10y ago
  If 30 helens agreed, it would be a different case.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  But they aren't just relying on a single report from a private security company, where did you assume that?
  - elif 10y ago
    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-woul... fun fact, it is the same private company the government paid for evidence that North Korea (yeah, right) was responsible for the sony hack.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  Also, the "17 agencies" statement came from James Clapper, and not individually issued from each of the agencies themselves. It also bears mentioning that the "17 agencies" include groups that I really, really doubt bothered to investigate ANYTHING to do with a politician getting his emails hacked - do people actually believe that the coast guard was tracking down Russian hackers after DNC secrets? What about the department of energy? These are some of the "17 agencies" mentioned.
alasdair_ 10y ago
>" just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case." This simply isn't true. The whole "17 agencies" thing is a talking point that first came up in one of Hillary Clinton's debates and gets repeated without challenge. The "17 agencies" didn't all independently make their own assesments about what happened and decided it was the Russians. Instead, James Clapper (at the time, the Director of National Intelligence) made the claim that the Russians were behind certain hacks. Clapper is the ultimate head of sixteen out of seventeen of the agencies. The actual agencies involved include parts of the coast guard and the department of energy and other groups that seem REALLY unlikely to have conducted an in-depth, independent investigation into the hacking of a politician's emails. Also, this is the same James Clapper who lied under oath to congress. Specifically, when asked “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.” Wyden asked “It does not?” and Clapper said, “Not wittingly." This is perjury and he should have been prosecuted for it. At a minimum, lying under oath makes it less likely that anything else he claims should be taken at face value.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  He wasn't going to out a secret program in a public hearing. The folks asking the questions had security clearance and could have asked the question during a classified briefing but they chose not to.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    That doesn't make perjury legal.
    - res0nat0r 10y ago
      If grandstanding to out a secret program when he knew the answer and was supposed to be asking that question in private I'd say it was fine, and it seems everyone else thought so also hence no charges.
      - 10y ago

troyvit 10y ago

https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence... There is some evidence, but no definitive evidence. '"[SecureWorks] researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government," the report from SecureWorks concluded.'

zigzigzag 10y ago
The "evidence" appears to be simply that one anonymous group about which nothing is known was going after targets that would presumably be of interest to Russia. But that's simply heresy: such targets might also be of interest to western intelligence, or really anyone who wanted to stir up trouble by framing another country. All we can say is that the correlation is interesting, but that's about it.
- jessedhillon 10y ago
  This is why we have intelligence -- the evidence for almost anything of consequence will never be able to meet a judicial, syllogistic standard. The idea that we need mathematically perfect deduction before we can make actionable conclusions is an assumption on your part.
  - rand83746 10y ago
    And the people inside the government to whom the intelligence is provided have every right to trust the source. However, to us in the public, we don't know these people, and have zero reason to trust them, absent actual factual evidence. What, you wouldn't put it past them to lie all the sudden?
    - jessedhillon 10y ago
      The logical end of that position is that states aren't allowed to keep secrets, which you are welcome to believe is possible, but it's not the world I believe we live in.

astrange 10y ago

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816622915860963328 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/81662291586096332...