5 ms·

> I just wish they'd release what they have on Kaspersky. All they've given us is vague assertions. That's probably what they have. But imagine you're a Govern

by smsm42 8y ago

> I just wish they'd release what they have on Kaspersky. All they've given us is vague assertions. That's probably what they have. But imagine you're a Government Official and the Member of The Press asks you: "Do you know that your office is running software produced by Russians? The same Russians that hacked our elections?! And not just by any Russians, but Russians with links with Russian Government, which includes Russian Military, Russian Intelligence Service and controls Russian Nukes?!" Of course, you could start explaining that doing business with Russian government (aka "links") is not weird for a Russian company, especially a major one and near-monopoly on the local market, and you can not declare every Russian a spy just because Russian spies exist and sometimes even mess with some American interests, even though nothing of the sort happened in the election - you can try to do all that and earn a headline "Government Official N. Is Soft on Russia - Idiocy or Corruption?" And God forbid it turns out you visited an industry conference in Russia 3 years ago or attended, among other 500 people, a reception which (unknowingly to you) was paid by a Russian oligarch living in New York... Or you can ban Kaspersky software - which has a bunch of viable local alternatives anyway - and earn a headline "Government Official N. is Exercising Reasonable Prudence in the Face of the Red Threat". Which one would you choose? > They're doing this to promote American and European alternatives which can be manipulated by Western intelligence Could be but more likely they are just opportunist and doing CYAing. > It is just a "red scare" within the US DoD, and they aren't releasing technicals because they have no technicals. Rem acu tetigisti. > All I am asking for is "Here's a technical paper explaining exactly what we caught Kaspersky doing Don't hold your breath.

reacweb 8y ago
And Russians are using products produced by Google, the same Google that has deep relationship with government and military contracts. With your reasoning, every countriy should ban products of GAFA.
- cf498 8y ago
  They most definitively should. In that case we even know, that US companies are be forced to cooperate and are legally barred from reporting it. Any foreign government using commercial US software for sensitive information is at least reckless.
- simonh 8y ago
  Firsty, only if they perceive the US to be hostile in the same way they perceive Russia to be hostile. Secondly only if their dependence on Google is as critical and as potentially damaging as their dependence on operating system security software.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Well, it's not my reasoning, but in general same logic of course would apply to other governments - if some government perceives the US to be a hostile power, they would be wary of American companies and US-made hardware/software.
celticninja 8y ago
>even though nothing of the sort happened in the election you seem very certain of that, which appears to be at odds with the Mueller investigation and investigations undertaken on FB, Twitter and Reddit posts/ads from russian based accounts. So what exactly are you saying did not occur?
- smsm42 8y ago
  Ah, excellent, this demonstrates rampant confusion created in this area very well. > Mueller investigation and investigations undertaken on FB, Twitter and Reddit posts/ads from russian based accounts Ads most definitely happened. Though the valiant effort by Mueller's team is mostly wasted because a) publicly speaking about US politics while being Russian is not a crime, neither is astroturfing or failing to disclose vested interest (both are routinely done in advertising and politics), and trying to imply otherwise would run straight into the 1st amendment, which SCOTUS still has pretty healthy respect for; and b) even minor financial irregularities, that are crimes, which Mueller inevitably discovered (I mean, can you imagine a campaign run by thoroughly corrupt Russian government that won't have financial irregularities? even many US campaigns are full of them if you look close enough...) are not prosecutable since none of the perpetrators are anywhere US law can reach them. However, the ads definitely existed. Moreover, it is also a definite fact that there were multiple hacks of both DNC and RNC computer systems, some of them might have been perpetrated by Russian groups. As a result of those, some dirty laundry definitely got aired. > what exactly are you saying did not occur? "hacking elections". Which is a commonly used phrase, and it is both vague and misleading. There is no indication that any component of electoral system per se was hacked, so direct meaning - implying the genuine voting preferences of Americans were subverted - is definitely false. We may only talk about persuasive effects of the Russian actions, but even then there's not much. There is no indication that a minuscule-budgeted and hamfistedly-executed (I mean, have you seen them? they are hilariously bad) Russian ads changed anything in relation to the elections. The airing of dirty laundry that followed the email hacks may have had some influence, but it is in line of long-standing tradition of leaks and whistleblowing that has existed in US politics since forever - a lot of secret things become public eventually, to the major embarrassment of people who would rather not have them published. I haven't heard any of the leaks referred to as "hacking the election" - in fact, many are lauded as valiant efforts in informing public about the misdeeds of the powerful. So summarily, nothing is left from the claim that "Russians hacked the elections" in any meaningful sense. The most one could claim is "Russians tried to influence the elections, mostly without success, but it is possible they uncovered some dirt on some of the politicians that may have influenced some voters".

by smsm42 8y ago

reacweb 8y ago

And Russians are using products produced by Google, the same Google that has deep relationship with government and military contracts. With your reasoning, every countriy should ban products of GAFA.

cf498 8y ago
They most definitively should. In that case we even know, that US companies are be forced to cooperate and are legally barred from reporting it. Any foreign government using commercial US software for sensitive information is at least reckless.
simonh 8y ago
Firsty, only if they perceive the US to be hostile in the same way they perceive Russia to be hostile. Secondly only if their dependence on Google is as critical and as potentially damaging as their dependence on operating system security software.
smsm42 8y ago
Well, it's not my reasoning, but in general same logic of course would apply to other governments - if some government perceives the US to be a hostile power, they would be wary of American companies and US-made hardware/software.

celticninja 8y ago

>even though nothing of the sort happened in the election you seem very certain of that, which appears to be at odds with the Mueller investigation and investigations undertaken on FB, Twitter and Reddit posts/ads from russian based accounts. So what exactly are you saying did not occur?

smsm42 8y ago
Ah, excellent, this demonstrates rampant confusion created in this area very well. > Mueller investigation and investigations undertaken on FB, Twitter and Reddit posts/ads from russian based accounts Ads most definitely happened. Though the valiant effort by Mueller's team is mostly wasted because a) publicly speaking about US politics while being Russian is not a crime, neither is astroturfing or failing to disclose vested interest (both are routinely done in advertising and politics), and trying to imply otherwise would run straight into the 1st amendment, which SCOTUS still has pretty healthy respect for; and b) even minor financial irregularities, that are crimes, which Mueller inevitably discovered (I mean, can you imagine a campaign run by thoroughly corrupt Russian government that won't have financial irregularities? even many US campaigns are full of them if you look close enough...) are not prosecutable since none of the perpetrators are anywhere US law can reach them. However, the ads definitely existed. Moreover, it is also a definite fact that there were multiple hacks of both DNC and RNC computer systems, some of them might have been perpetrated by Russian groups. As a result of those, some dirty laundry definitely got aired. > what exactly are you saying did not occur? "hacking elections". Which is a commonly used phrase, and it is both vague and misleading. There is no indication that any component of electoral system per se was hacked, so direct meaning - implying the genuine voting preferences of Americans were subverted - is definitely false. We may only talk about persuasive effects of the Russian actions, but even then there's not much. There is no indication that a minuscule-budgeted and hamfistedly-executed (I mean, have you seen them? they are hilariously bad) Russian ads changed anything in relation to the elections. The airing of dirty laundry that followed the email hacks may have had some influence, but it is in line of long-standing tradition of leaks and whistleblowing that has existed in US politics since forever - a lot of secret things become public eventually, to the major embarrassment of people who would rather not have them published. I haven't heard any of the leaks referred to as "hacking the election" - in fact, many are lauded as valiant efforts in informing public about the misdeeds of the powerful. So summarily, nothing is left from the claim that "Russians hacked the elections" in any meaningful sense. The most one could claim is "Russians tried to influence the elections, mostly without success, but it is possible they uncovered some dirt on some of the politicians that may have influenced some voters".