21 ms·

In your second paragraph, are you referring to the redactions? The document contains quotes like this: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate ac

by hsod 9y ago

In your second paragraph, are you referring to the redactions? The document contains quotes like this: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions." which seem to directly tie it to GRU.

throwaway-1209 9y ago
That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.
- hsod 9y ago
  What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.
  - throwaway-1209 9y ago
    No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
    - hsod 9y ago
      It's evidence of what the person who wrote it thought at the time they wrote it. Your epistemology seems self-serving.
  - mladenkovacevic 9y ago
    If somebody leaked internal FSB analysis docs claiming but offering no raw intelligence that Ukrainian government is full of US spies and Euromaidan was financed by Soros, would any mainstream media outlet take this kind of source as "evidence"?
    - grandalf 9y ago
      It's embarrassing how much some people seem to forget about rationality and skepticism when thinking about this issue. The leaked info contains a few more specifics about the hand waving from a few months ago, but no actual evidence. What's worse is how the wording of the leaked document and press coverage (including that of The Intercept) interleaves simple assertions of fact into the narrative which do not support claims made by the narrative but simply make the whole thing seem "fact-based" even if it's speculative. Generally speaking, The Intercept publishes very high quality work, but the presence of Sam Biddle's name on the byline is generally a good indicator of low quality work.
      - hsod 9y ago
        I'll re-pose the question I asked above: what would constitute evidence in this context?
        grandalf 9y ago
        There is no supporting evidence for the assertion that it was "Russia" or about the nature of the "hacking groups". There is also no consideration of the possibility of false attribution of the above. Suppose I see that an enemy wears size 10.5 Adidas sneakers. If I buy an identical pair and leave muddy footprints with them near a crime scene, does the presence of the footprints implicate my adversary? In the case of hacking, our assessment must include a notion of how easy it would be for a nation or group to be falsely implicated. Separately, there must be a discussion of motive apart from specific evidence. But what we're seeing is a blurring together of various tiny pieces of data, analysis, guesswork, etc., into a narrative. Within intelligence circles such narratives are meant to be used to allow higher order analysis to proceed in the absence of low level proof. This is useful in the same way that imagining Travis Kalanick as a misogynist is useful in assessing the question of how such a trait might have impacted corporate culture, but it does not follow that it's true just because one lower-level incident occurred, etc.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > by experts Experts in what? Security research or PR?
    - hsod 9y ago
      This is not a PR document, it is a (leaked) internal classified NSA intelligence report. It was presumably prepared by NSA intelligence analysts, who are experts in analyzing intelligence.
      - salesguy222 9y ago
        NSA analysts can only be called "experts in analyzing intelligence" if TSA agents can also be called "experts in analyzing terrorist threats". Because the bar for hiring is pretty much the same lol

by hsod 9y ago

throwaway-1209 9y ago

That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.

hsod 9y ago
What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
  - hsod 9y ago
    It's evidence of what the person who wrote it thought at the time they wrote it. Your epistemology seems self-serving.
- mladenkovacevic 9y ago
  If somebody leaked internal FSB analysis docs claiming but offering no raw intelligence that Ukrainian government is full of US spies and Euromaidan was financed by Soros, would any mainstream media outlet take this kind of source as "evidence"?
  - grandalf 9y ago
    It's embarrassing how much some people seem to forget about rationality and skepticism when thinking about this issue. The leaked info contains a few more specifics about the hand waving from a few months ago, but no actual evidence. What's worse is how the wording of the leaked document and press coverage (including that of The Intercept) interleaves simple assertions of fact into the narrative which do not support claims made by the narrative but simply make the whole thing seem "fact-based" even if it's speculative. Generally speaking, The Intercept publishes very high quality work, but the presence of Sam Biddle's name on the byline is generally a good indicator of low quality work.
    - hsod 9y ago
      I'll re-pose the question I asked above: what would constitute evidence in this context?
      - grandalf 9y ago
        There is no supporting evidence for the assertion that it was "Russia" or about the nature of the "hacking groups". There is also no consideration of the possibility of false attribution of the above. Suppose I see that an enemy wears size 10.5 Adidas sneakers. If I buy an identical pair and leave muddy footprints with them near a crime scene, does the presence of the footprints implicate my adversary? In the case of hacking, our assessment must include a notion of how easy it would be for a nation or group to be falsely implicated. Separately, there must be a discussion of motive apart from specific evidence. But what we're seeing is a blurring together of various tiny pieces of data, analysis, guesswork, etc., into a narrative. Within intelligence circles such narratives are meant to be used to allow higher order analysis to proceed in the absence of low level proof. This is useful in the same way that imagining Travis Kalanick as a misogynist is useful in assessing the question of how such a trait might have impacted corporate culture, but it does not follow that it's true just because one lower-level incident occurred, etc.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > by experts Experts in what? Security research or PR?
  - hsod 9y ago
    This is not a PR document, it is a (leaked) internal classified NSA intelligence report. It was presumably prepared by NSA intelligence analysts, who are experts in analyzing intelligence.
    - salesguy222 9y ago
      NSA analysts can only be called "experts in analyzing intelligence" if TSA agents can also be called "experts in analyzing terrorist threats". Because the bar for hiring is pretty much the same lol