5 ms·

Glad to see actual evidence, too often we see tenuous links that are touted as proof positive. The DNC leaks were pretty bad for the campaign, but ultimately o

by dahdum 9y ago

Glad to see actual evidence, too often we see tenuous links that are touted as proof positive. The DNC leaks were pretty bad for the campaign, but ultimately of their own doing. Edit: downvoted I assume for not specifying technical evidence, like this garbage news story about dns traffic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/...

Amezarak 9y ago
"A source familiar with the government's investigation" is about as far from actual evidence as you can get. Especially in the past year, but certainly throughout the past half-century, "anonymous" government sources have been demonstrated to be completely wrong or intentionally lying to advance a political agenda. Moreover, note the weasel wording. For all we know, "familiar with the government's investigation" just means "the guy who brings in the water bottles overheard some office gossip." I would take this story with a grain of salt.
- dahdum 9y ago
  Oh for sure, but at least they are claiming something that passes the smell test technically. I read some of the BS reports that firms have put out, often they made their conclusion first (since they were paid on that basis) and connected the dots like /r/pizzagate to prove it.
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    Understood. I think the idea that it could be traced back to the GRU is highly likely, though I do have some trouble with the idea they were able to identify a specific agent based on the IP address - what, does Russia assign static IPs to each and every agent in the office? Of course, there could have been more legwork we're not told about, or this could be a case of parallel construction, but who knows. I did want to point out the sourcing either way, though. It's really distressing to me the way anonymous sourcing has really taken off lately, and that most people appear to be entirely credulous despite the lessons we learned back during the Bush administration. It rarely even gets questioned, though even the past year in particular has served up frequent and egregious object lessons of why anonymous government sources cannot simply be taken at their word. The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of anonymous sources are not leaking information to edify the American people. They are leaking information because they have an agenda. That doesn't mean that we can simply ignore them. Sometimes the information is false, sometimes critical context is left out, but sometimes it is true and extremely important. It means we have to consider what they say very carefully and why they might be saying it.
    - dahdum 9y ago
      I’ve often wished for a reporter scorecard, showing how many times the reporter quoted unnamed sources that turned out to be garbage, and how severe those were. Columbia Journalism Review publishes insightful articles on these and other problems. With the modern need to push fast headlines for outrage clicks, I don’t see the standards rising anytime soon.
    - zrobotics 9y ago
      The only thing I've seen that even possibly makes sense is that it was the officer's home/personal IP, not work. Which might also explain the opsec slip up, but until I see something more credible than an anonymous source (which may happen soon from muller) or a better explanation, that statement is ringing some alarm bells for me. However, the article doesn't explicitly state GRU headquarters, just ties the officer to GRU headquarters and tries to imply the connection was directly from their HQ w/ weasel wording.
- timb07 9y ago
  "A source familiar with the government's investigation" doesn't imply it's a government source. Recommended reading for understanding attribution: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-investigation-eight-tips-who-saying-what https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-invest...

by dahdum 9y ago

Amezarak 9y ago

"A source familiar with the government's investigation" is about as far from actual evidence as you can get. Especially in the past year, but certainly throughout the past half-century, "anonymous" government sources have been demonstrated to be completely wrong or intentionally lying to advance a political agenda. Moreover, note the weasel wording. For all we know, "familiar with the government's investigation" just means "the guy who brings in the water bottles overheard some office gossip." I would take this story with a grain of salt.

dahdum 9y ago
Oh for sure, but at least they are claiming something that passes the smell test technically. I read some of the BS reports that firms have put out, often they made their conclusion first (since they were paid on that basis) and connected the dots like /r/pizzagate to prove it.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  Understood. I think the idea that it could be traced back to the GRU is highly likely, though I do have some trouble with the idea they were able to identify a specific agent based on the IP address - what, does Russia assign static IPs to each and every agent in the office? Of course, there could have been more legwork we're not told about, or this could be a case of parallel construction, but who knows. I did want to point out the sourcing either way, though. It's really distressing to me the way anonymous sourcing has really taken off lately, and that most people appear to be entirely credulous despite the lessons we learned back during the Bush administration. It rarely even gets questioned, though even the past year in particular has served up frequent and egregious object lessons of why anonymous government sources cannot simply be taken at their word. The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of anonymous sources are not leaking information to edify the American people. They are leaking information because they have an agenda. That doesn't mean that we can simply ignore them. Sometimes the information is false, sometimes critical context is left out, but sometimes it is true and extremely important. It means we have to consider what they say very carefully and why they might be saying it.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    I’ve often wished for a reporter scorecard, showing how many times the reporter quoted unnamed sources that turned out to be garbage, and how severe those were. Columbia Journalism Review publishes insightful articles on these and other problems. With the modern need to push fast headlines for outrage clicks, I don’t see the standards rising anytime soon.
  - zrobotics 9y ago
    The only thing I've seen that even possibly makes sense is that it was the officer's home/personal IP, not work. Which might also explain the opsec slip up, but until I see something more credible than an anonymous source (which may happen soon from muller) or a better explanation, that statement is ringing some alarm bells for me. However, the article doesn't explicitly state GRU headquarters, just ties the officer to GRU headquarters and tries to imply the connection was directly from their HQ w/ weasel wording.
timb07 9y ago
"A source familiar with the government's investigation" doesn't imply it's a government source. Recommended reading for understanding attribution: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-investigation-eight-tips-who-saying-what https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-invest...