3 ms·

> throw a wrench into our credit system How, by getting Equifax to hire IT staff that does not see the wisdom in patching known vulnerabilities? > everythin

> throw a wrench into our credit system How, by getting Equifax to hire IT staff that does not see the wisdom in patching known vulnerabilities? > everything we now know about Russia's attempts to influence our elections and sew division Be careful what you believe. To date there has not been hard evidence that the Russian government was involved in any of the mischief that has been discovered. It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. There has been consistent conflict between the US and Russia all along since the cold war ended. And certainly lots of mischief on both sides. The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Considering the way that information about the alleged hacks have been strategically leaked and timed to convince the American people to resent Russia, it's pretty clear what the objective is. Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort. We are seeing the beginnings of it with the outrage over "meddling". It's only going to get worse. Expect to read additional revelations about Putin's character and Russian society/culture. The goal is to gradually foment mistrust and hate to the point where Americans actually consent to a war which may kill many Russians and many Americans.

allemagne 9y ago
Propagandists like the US President's own son and close associates will stop at nothing to frame the Russian government with emails and undisclosed meetings. The scope of the deception is almost unbelievable.
_jal 9y ago
> It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. Neither of those square with observed data, unless you posit a rather massive conspiracy to control that information. And you still have to contend with a highly suggestive narrative involving key Trumpistas, key Russians, a gloating "denial" from Putin himself, highly suspicious correlations between Trumpist-public actions and private meetings, and the fact that the administration has zero credibility with their stories, having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events. Not to mention, eventually Mueller's investigation will come out. That should be amusing. > The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Care to elaborate? What do you call it? I've always preferred 'info war' ('cyber' is just insipid), but unfortunately that phrase has been rather coopted. > Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort Very, very true. And we have at least three players here, all spinning in support of their own motives. I just believe you've misidentified the motives of at least one of them.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > Neither of those square with observed data What is the observed data? Anyone who had a VPS in Russia could have been responsible for the data that is currently known to the public. The intelligence agencies claim there is additional data but it appears unlikely that there actually is. > Trumpistas I think it's important not to let distaste for Trump interfere with analysis of this issue. Trump attempts to maximize all publicity in his favor, which is why he thanked "the Russians" for leaking the HRC emails. Just as many lobbyists for Ukraine hire American officials as consultants, Russian firms have in some cases hired former American officials and influencers to help with business/political goals in the US. This is just a normal phenomenon and not in and of itself cause for alarm. > having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events They found themselves in an unexpected situation where the Russia story got legs that they had not anticipated. Some lies had been told thinking that the non-story would go away faster, and some Trump affiliates were caught in those lies. As unappealing as it is, the lies were probably the right strategy at the time for Trump, since his political enemies had made the Russia story front page news for a period of weeks. > Care to elaborate? What do you call it? Russia has first world state actor hacking capability. There is a decent chance that a Stuxnet-like worm has deeply penetrated many of the firms that make voting machines used in US elections. If anything, evidence of minor pentesting artifacts on the web servers of a few voting machine companies ought to make us think Russian involvement is less likely rather than more likely. The stuff we saw in the past year (phishing, pentesting) requires such little sophistication that moderately interested teenager could have done it. Might Russia have some sort of after school program for patriotic teens? Certainly it might, but any such program would not be considered likely to have any impact other than the remote possibility of a lucky chain of events. I think it's relevant to consider "Russia" the government vs any of the millions of moderately tech-savvy Russian people who might have been involved in content farming or low-sophistication hacking/phishing. Since the probability of one of those attacks succeeding is so low (and likely had nothing to do with the 2016 US election outcome) having people conducting those attacks on Russian soil would much more likely be viewed by the Russian government as a liability, analogous to someone in Alaska launching home made missiles into Russia trying to "help" US interests. Only in the most myopic, partisan political mindset can anyone take seriously the notion that somehow "The Russians" knew how to leverage < $200K in ad spend on Facebook and Twitter to shift the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. It's just a ludicrous claim, and one that anyone actually doing marketing or involved in budgeting for social media marketing would laugh at without hesitation. It relies on the same sort of fiction that existed during the cold war that imagined super-genius Russian scientists creating super-weapons that would wipe out the US. It's useful for fear-mongering, but much more a figment of the imagination than based in reality.

allemagne 9y ago

Propagandists like the US President's own son and close associates will stop at nothing to frame the Russian government with emails and undisclosed meetings. The scope of the deception is almost unbelievable.

_jal 9y ago

> It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. Neither of those square with observed data, unless you posit a rather massive conspiracy to control that information. And you still have to contend with a highly suggestive narrative involving key Trumpistas, key Russians, a gloating "denial" from Putin himself, highly suspicious correlations between Trumpist-public actions and private meetings, and the fact that the administration has zero credibility with their stories, having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events. Not to mention, eventually Mueller's investigation will come out. That should be amusing. > The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Care to elaborate? What do you call it? I've always preferred 'info war' ('cyber' is just insipid), but unfortunately that phrase has been rather coopted. > Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort Very, very true. And we have at least three players here, all spinning in support of their own motives. I just believe you've misidentified the motives of at least one of them.

grandalf 9y ago
> Neither of those square with observed data What is the observed data? Anyone who had a VPS in Russia could have been responsible for the data that is currently known to the public. The intelligence agencies claim there is additional data but it appears unlikely that there actually is. > Trumpistas I think it's important not to let distaste for Trump interfere with analysis of this issue. Trump attempts to maximize all publicity in his favor, which is why he thanked "the Russians" for leaking the HRC emails. Just as many lobbyists for Ukraine hire American officials as consultants, Russian firms have in some cases hired former American officials and influencers to help with business/political goals in the US. This is just a normal phenomenon and not in and of itself cause for alarm. > having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events They found themselves in an unexpected situation where the Russia story got legs that they had not anticipated. Some lies had been told thinking that the non-story would go away faster, and some Trump affiliates were caught in those lies. As unappealing as it is, the lies were probably the right strategy at the time for Trump, since his political enemies had made the Russia story front page news for a period of weeks. > Care to elaborate? What do you call it? Russia has first world state actor hacking capability. There is a decent chance that a Stuxnet-like worm has deeply penetrated many of the firms that make voting machines used in US elections. If anything, evidence of minor pentesting artifacts on the web servers of a few voting machine companies ought to make us think Russian involvement is less likely rather than more likely. The stuff we saw in the past year (phishing, pentesting) requires such little sophistication that moderately interested teenager could have done it. Might Russia have some sort of after school program for patriotic teens? Certainly it might, but any such program would not be considered likely to have any impact other than the remote possibility of a lucky chain of events. I think it's relevant to consider "Russia" the government vs any of the millions of moderately tech-savvy Russian people who might have been involved in content farming or low-sophistication hacking/phishing. Since the probability of one of those attacks succeeding is so low (and likely had nothing to do with the 2016 US election outcome) having people conducting those attacks on Russian soil would much more likely be viewed by the Russian government as a liability, analogous to someone in Alaska launching home made missiles into Russia trying to "help" US interests. Only in the most myopic, partisan political mindset can anyone take seriously the notion that somehow "The Russians" knew how to leverage < $200K in ad spend on Facebook and Twitter to shift the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. It's just a ludicrous claim, and one that anyone actually doing marketing or involved in budgeting for social media marketing would laugh at without hesitation. It relies on the same sort of fiction that existed during the cold war that imagined super-genius Russian scientists creating super-weapons that would wipe out the US. It's useful for fear-mongering, but much more a figment of the imagination than based in reality.