4 ms·

A very common source of information to reporters are people who aren't authorized to speak about an issue, or people who have informal relationships with the pr

A very common source of information to reporters are people who aren't authorized to speak about an issue, or people who have informal relationships with the press and don't want their names revealed publicly. There are indeed many good reasons why specific people aren't cited in these articles, but who you're trusting is the Washington Post, not these individuals. The trust comes from what the Washington Post does when it finds out it has published false information, and its track record of making sure what it publishes as news is accurate, or corrected when discovered to be false. As a overly generic rule, trust (or don't) the Institution over the individuals.

simias 6y ago
I'm perfectly willing to trust that the WaPo is reporting truthfully and that their sources are legit, but without concrete evidence it's hard to judge how serious the allegation really is. Is it "they forgot to switch their VPN on once and we got a direct connection from an IP that belongs to the Russian state" like that other time (still manipulable but fairly conclusive IMO) or is it "that really looks like the modus operandi of those damn russians and we really need somebody to pin it on right now"? To be clear I'm not making one of those "fake news" pro-russian rants, I can totally believe that Russia would very much do the things being reproached here if given the opportunity, I just have a really hard time taking the word of an anonymous source without concrete elements in these matters because the potential for manipulation is so absolutely tremendous.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I tend to consider news reports more akin to a, “here’s what we know now” report than a, “this is the definitive explanation of what’s taken place.” So in that spirit I agree with you. What this looks like, so far, is a sophisticated Russian attack. From here, we’re going to learn more, and that new info may change how we understand what’s happened substantially. Though I will say I personally don’t care much that the source is anonymous, because I trust WaPo to vet what they’ve said with other sources. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not like journalists are unaware of the groups trying to manipulate them.
chroem- 6y ago
> As a overly generic rule, trust (or don't) the Institution over the individuals. That is precisely the same line of reasoning that started the Iraq War based on lies. The New York Times claimed to have intel from anonymous sources showing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and their false reporting is what led the US to declare war. That snafu didn't happen all that long ago, and yet most people in 2020 seem to have blocked it out of their minds.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The difference is that it wasn't hard to work out the claims were nonsense. WMDs are hugely expensive, and the Iraqi economy was running on fumes at that point. That combined with US belligerence against Iraq made the claims improbable. But Russia actually does have a strong black hat culture, with links to the political establishment. Putin is a technologically savvy kind of despot who likes sneaky low-cost high-return actions. So this fits the profile - both as a workable hack and also as a proof of concept for future attacks. Consider the cost/benefit. Instead of physically blowing up infrastructure and security systems you can cripple them, possibly permanently, for the cost of - what? - 20 or 30 specialists, some PCs, and maybe some supercomputer time. Although even that may be optional. It's unlikely conclusive evidence will be released, because that might reveal too much information about defence strategies. So circumstantial evidence will be as good as it gets. But whatever the cause, clearly - clearly - all countries and larger orgs need to work much harder on security. Some decorative pen-testing isn't going to be nearly enough in the 2020s.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    That's all well and good, but it fails to account for potential action by state actors other than Russia. Everything you have said applies just as much to China, if not more so.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Vetting and sourcing information accurately is a Hard Problem. I don’t expect WaPo (or anyone) to get it right all the time, but I do trust WaPo reporters to be very aware of the best ways to do it, and to let me know when they end up getting it wrong. At some point you have to trust others to be good at their jobs, and when an org like WaPo demonstrates their proficiency over and over again, their believability rises.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Often, people who "aren't authorized" are used to plant an idea in the press, without the agency in question having to make an official statement. Whether that information is reliable depends on whether you trust the agenda of whoever decided to leak the information. The Washington Post's record on verifying the claims of the US national security apparatus is poor. The newspaper uncritically reported false claims by the Bush administration about Iraqi WMD. Many people people at the time found those claims extremely dubious, but critical voices were belittled or shut out of most mainstream reporting. More recently, the Washington Post has been all-in on Russia paranoia. That doesn't mean that everything they publish about Russian hackers is wrong, but it very well may be misinformation leaked by US intelligence officials, or something insignificant blown out of proportion and presented without any context. In December 2016, for example, the Washington Post reported that the Russians had hacked a Vermont utility. That story turned out to be complete nonsense, but the Washington Post never fully retracted it. If you look at the story today, you'll still get the impression that the Russians attempted to hack the utility, even though that aspect of the story completely fell apart. The Washington Post on Russia is a bit like Bloomberg on Chinese hackers (e.g., Supermicro).
polytely 6y ago
But you should also keep in mind that organizations (or factions within organizations) will use these channels for their own purposes, to test public opinion before an official announcement, as propaganda channel or to undermine elected officials who are politically in charge.

simias 6y ago

I'm perfectly willing to trust that the WaPo is reporting truthfully and that their sources are legit, but without concrete evidence it's hard to judge how serious the allegation really is. Is it "they forgot to switch their VPN on once and we got a direct connection from an IP that belongs to the Russian state" like that other time (still manipulable but fairly conclusive IMO) or is it "that really looks like the modus operandi of those damn russians and we really need somebody to pin it on right now"? To be clear I'm not making one of those "fake news" pro-russian rants, I can totally believe that Russia would very much do the things being reproached here if given the opportunity, I just have a really hard time taking the word of an anonymous source without concrete elements in these matters because the potential for manipulation is so absolutely tremendous.

TameAntelope 6y ago
I tend to consider news reports more akin to a, “here’s what we know now” report than a, “this is the definitive explanation of what’s taken place.” So in that spirit I agree with you. What this looks like, so far, is a sophisticated Russian attack. From here, we’re going to learn more, and that new info may change how we understand what’s happened substantially. Though I will say I personally don’t care much that the source is anonymous, because I trust WaPo to vet what they’ve said with other sources. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not like journalists are unaware of the groups trying to manipulate them.

chroem- 6y ago

> As a overly generic rule, trust (or don't) the Institution over the individuals. That is precisely the same line of reasoning that started the Iraq War based on lies. The New York Times claimed to have intel from anonymous sources showing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and their false reporting is what led the US to declare war. That snafu didn't happen all that long ago, and yet most people in 2020 seem to have blocked it out of their minds.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The difference is that it wasn't hard to work out the claims were nonsense. WMDs are hugely expensive, and the Iraqi economy was running on fumes at that point. That combined with US belligerence against Iraq made the claims improbable. But Russia actually does have a strong black hat culture, with links to the political establishment. Putin is a technologically savvy kind of despot who likes sneaky low-cost high-return actions. So this fits the profile - both as a workable hack and also as a proof of concept for future attacks. Consider the cost/benefit. Instead of physically blowing up infrastructure and security systems you can cripple them, possibly permanently, for the cost of - what? - 20 or 30 specialists, some PCs, and maybe some supercomputer time. Although even that may be optional. It's unlikely conclusive evidence will be released, because that might reveal too much information about defence strategies. So circumstantial evidence will be as good as it gets. But whatever the cause, clearly - clearly - all countries and larger orgs need to work much harder on security. Some decorative pen-testing isn't going to be nearly enough in the 2020s.
- chroem- 6y ago
  That's all well and good, but it fails to account for potential action by state actors other than Russia. Everything you have said applies just as much to China, if not more so.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Vetting and sourcing information accurately is a Hard Problem. I don’t expect WaPo (or anyone) to get it right all the time, but I do trust WaPo reporters to be very aware of the best ways to do it, and to let me know when they end up getting it wrong. At some point you have to trust others to be good at their jobs, and when an org like WaPo demonstrates their proficiency over and over again, their believability rises.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

Often, people who "aren't authorized" are used to plant an idea in the press, without the agency in question having to make an official statement. Whether that information is reliable depends on whether you trust the agenda of whoever decided to leak the information. The Washington Post's record on verifying the claims of the US national security apparatus is poor. The newspaper uncritically reported false claims by the Bush administration about Iraqi WMD. Many people people at the time found those claims extremely dubious, but critical voices were belittled or shut out of most mainstream reporting. More recently, the Washington Post has been all-in on Russia paranoia. That doesn't mean that everything they publish about Russian hackers is wrong, but it very well may be misinformation leaked by US intelligence officials, or something insignificant blown out of proportion and presented without any context. In December 2016, for example, the Washington Post reported that the Russians had hacked a Vermont utility. That story turned out to be complete nonsense, but the Washington Post never fully retracted it. If you look at the story today, you'll still get the impression that the Russians attempted to hack the utility, even though that aspect of the story completely fell apart. The Washington Post on Russia is a bit like Bloomberg on Chinese hackers (e.g., Supermicro).

polytely 6y ago

But you should also keep in mind that organizations (or factions within organizations) will use these channels for their own purposes, to test public opinion before an official announcement, as propaganda channel or to undermine elected officials who are politically in charge.