7 ms·

Here's The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ http://time.com/

Here's The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton... Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

13years 9y ago
Those were 2016. There has been many questions since. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-qu...
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Well... it happened in 2016, so yes, many of the articles about it are going to be from around then. You may want to take a closer read of the editor's note prepended to the Nation article you linked to, which is a lengthy apology for the article's inaccuracy: >we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims[...] We have obtained such a review in the last week [...which] lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Here are some better pointers: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721c... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very-worst-kind-of-conspiracy-theorists-bdeb0f4e496b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-everyone-stupid-dd8f56449101 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-ever... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-atrocities-going-under-reported-amid-russia-hysteria-35dc07cd9393 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-a... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clinton-russia-collusion-narrative-49facda6ad41 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clin... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-claiming-its-perfectly-normal-to-do-oppo-research-with-russians-98ee884e04a4 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-clai... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-without-being-an-establishment-hack-153a11dddf1b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-wi...
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      Those are obviously-partisan opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and the Dutch government and even Mitch McConnell) on this one. [edit: added adjectives, and the Dutch because they deserve it]
      - 13years 9y ago
        > Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community on this one Because they have proven such integrity? I still remember the pictures being shown on TV from our intelligence community of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
        outsidetheparty 9y ago
        Granted. (You're conflating the "intelligence community" with the "Bush administration," which is a little iffy, but I take your point.) And if this were just one source, or just one agency, or even just one political party, I might be more skeptical. (My usual routine when a story seems questionable is to check a source with the opposite political bias. If Fox and the WaPo both say something happened, I'm much more likely to believe that it did.) Not for nothing, but: "The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation... is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-swede... Seems like it's working.
        13years 9y ago
        It wasn't just one source during the Bush administration either. It was both parties. Also, we supposedly shared our 'intelligence' with other Nations which all were convinced it was legit. We are quite good at propaganda also http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-b...
  - 13years 9y ago
    > although he does not rule out a leak It seems this should still be important, right? Before we take actions that lead to hostility between nations, possibly even wars, shouldn't we be absolutely sure?
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      Yes, we should! Which is presumably why it took more than a year of investigation before Mueller filed these charges.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      The hack was recently publicly confirmed by a Dutch intelligence agency where they confirmed the DNC was indeed hacked, and that they were witness with recorded video and possibly logs of Cozy Bear committing the very hack that was proposed to be a leak. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-...
      - 13years 9y ago
        It is 'claimed' to be confirmed by anonymous source. Still many statements raise questions... https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-the-dutch-evidence-of-the-dnc-hack https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-t... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-lying-about-meeting-with-putin-is-fake-news-used-by-russia-or-about-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly...
        52-6F-62 9y ago
        Both of the opinion columns you posted seem to allege nefarious intent because classified information wasn't broadcast to the public during an attack and subsequent investigation. I'm not sure what your assertion is.
        13years 9y ago
coldtea 9y ago
The evidence being some "because private security companies" said so? Those have even less credibility that state agencies, and will report anything you like for enough dinero. There is no evidence in the post, only claims.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Yes, the private security companies who performed the investigation said so (and provided plenty of evidence, if you take the time to look at the links). So did the intelligence community. So did Obama. So did John McCain and Mitch McConnell, who you'd think have a pretty good vested interest in not saying so. What is your basis for disbelieving all of those people and groups?
  - smsm42 9y ago
    They all have high motivation to arrive to exactly the conclusion they have arrived (and even higher motivation to arrive to some conclusion - it's a huge egg on your face to say "Russia hacked us", but it's much bigger egg on your face to say "Somebody hacked us and we don't even know who and have no way to really find out"), and they have means to select their subcontractors (e.g. choose specific security company that will agree to say what you want to be said - it's not the proof that's what happened but certainly the possibility of choice is there) to confirm what they want to conclude. These are pretty solid grounds for some measure of disbelief. I personally looked through all technical evidence that was in public and that I could find (of course I could miss some, I am not perfect and I have a day job), and 90% of it is conjecture and references to some private data that I could not see. Maybe that private data shows what they say, maybe not - there's no way to see. The only semi-public info that I could see is that bit.ly fishing thing that shows that the fishing operation (which is only one of the multiple hacks that happen) is most likely performed by the same organization that performed a number of other fishing operations, which could be useful to Russians, and thus most likely is performed by Russians (either the government or private contractor working by the government order). There were also some scripts and sources of Ukrainian and Russian origin, seemingly, but those are traded on darknet so anybody could get their hands on them. That is the only data I've seen in public that pinpoints the whole deal to Russia - all other things are "trust us, it's Russia". Which may very well be true - but "trust us" is not exactly a proof. It doesn't mean it's not Russia - very well may be - but the conclusive proof is still not there.

13years 9y ago

Those were 2016. There has been many questions since. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-qu...

outsidetheparty 9y ago
Well... it happened in 2016, so yes, many of the articles about it are going to be from around then. You may want to take a closer read of the editor's note prepended to the Nation article you linked to, which is a lengthy apology for the article's inaccuracy: >we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims[...] We have obtained such a review in the last week [...which] lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Here are some better pointers: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721c... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very-worst-kind-of-conspiracy-theorists-bdeb0f4e496b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-everyone-stupid-dd8f56449101 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-ever... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-atrocities-going-under-reported-amid-russia-hysteria-35dc07cd9393 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-a... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clinton-russia-collusion-narrative-49facda6ad41 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clin... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-claiming-its-perfectly-normal-to-do-oppo-research-with-russians-98ee884e04a4 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-clai... https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-without-being-an-establishment-hack-153a11dddf1b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-wi...
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    Those are obviously-partisan opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and the Dutch government and even Mitch McConnell) on this one. [edit: added adjectives, and the Dutch because they deserve it]
    - 13years 9y ago
      > Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community on this one Because they have proven such integrity? I still remember the pictures being shown on TV from our intelligence community of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
      - outsidetheparty 9y ago
        Granted. (You're conflating the "intelligence community" with the "Bush administration," which is a little iffy, but I take your point.) And if this were just one source, or just one agency, or even just one political party, I might be more skeptical. (My usual routine when a story seems questionable is to check a source with the opposite political bias. If Fox and the WaPo both say something happened, I'm much more likely to believe that it did.) Not for nothing, but: "The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation... is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-swede... Seems like it's working.
        13years 9y ago
        It wasn't just one source during the Bush administration either. It was both parties. Also, we supposedly shared our 'intelligence' with other Nations which all were convinced it was legit. We are quite good at propaganda also http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-b...
- 13years 9y ago
  > although he does not rule out a leak It seems this should still be important, right? Before we take actions that lead to hostility between nations, possibly even wars, shouldn't we be absolutely sure?
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    Yes, we should! Which is presumably why it took more than a year of investigation before Mueller filed these charges.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    The hack was recently publicly confirmed by a Dutch intelligence agency where they confirmed the DNC was indeed hacked, and that they were witness with recorded video and possibly logs of Cozy Bear committing the very hack that was proposed to be a leak. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-...
    - 13years 9y ago
      It is 'claimed' to be confirmed by anonymous source. Still many statements raise questions... https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-the-dutch-evidence-of-the-dnc-hack https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-t... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-lying-about-meeting-with-putin-is-fake-news-used-by-russia-or-about-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly...
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        Both of the opinion columns you posted seem to allege nefarious intent because classified information wasn't broadcast to the public during an attack and subsequent investigation. I'm not sure what your assertion is.
        13years 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

The evidence being some "because private security companies" said so? Those have even less credibility that state agencies, and will report anything you like for enough dinero. There is no evidence in the post, only claims.

outsidetheparty 9y ago
Yes, the private security companies who performed the investigation said so (and provided plenty of evidence, if you take the time to look at the links). So did the intelligence community. So did Obama. So did John McCain and Mitch McConnell, who you'd think have a pretty good vested interest in not saying so. What is your basis for disbelieving all of those people and groups?
- smsm42 9y ago
  They all have high motivation to arrive to exactly the conclusion they have arrived (and even higher motivation to arrive to some conclusion - it's a huge egg on your face to say "Russia hacked us", but it's much bigger egg on your face to say "Somebody hacked us and we don't even know who and have no way to really find out"), and they have means to select their subcontractors (e.g. choose specific security company that will agree to say what you want to be said - it's not the proof that's what happened but certainly the possibility of choice is there) to confirm what they want to conclude. These are pretty solid grounds for some measure of disbelief. I personally looked through all technical evidence that was in public and that I could find (of course I could miss some, I am not perfect and I have a day job), and 90% of it is conjecture and references to some private data that I could not see. Maybe that private data shows what they say, maybe not - there's no way to see. The only semi-public info that I could see is that bit.ly fishing thing that shows that the fishing operation (which is only one of the multiple hacks that happen) is most likely performed by the same organization that performed a number of other fishing operations, which could be useful to Russians, and thus most likely is performed by Russians (either the government or private contractor working by the government order). There were also some scripts and sources of Ukrainian and Russian origin, seemingly, but those are traded on darknet so anybody could get their hands on them. That is the only data I've seen in public that pinpoints the whole deal to Russia - all other things are "trust us, it's Russia". Which may very well be true - but "trust us" is not exactly a proof. It doesn't mean it's not Russia - very well may be - but the conclusive proof is still not there.