4 ms·

Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear" group for more than a year and caught them pr

Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear" group for more than a year and caught them pretty much live on camera while they hacked the Democratic Party. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... Wow, I wasn't aware how far the tentacles of the DNC establishment reach if they paid for that as you say!

93po 4y ago
Ah yes, the same Dutch intelligence agency that release from custody a person that stole nuclear weapons technology which enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear bombs. And did so at the behest of a foreign country. I wonder what else they'd do for a foreign country when asked? 1. All of the reporting on this in 2016 relied on the auditing I'm mentioning. Whether there was other evidence is beside the point - it wasn't something they used to influence their reporting 2. If it was known in 2014 that Cozy Bear was targeting the DNC and AIVD already had full access and knowledge of all of Cozy Bear's actions, why did they let them hack the DNC? 3. All sources say there were multiple people who had illicit access to DNC servers. There was clearly a vulnerability that multiple groups were able to exploit, and the exploiters were clearly doing nothing to prevent others from doing the same. Why are we so confident it was Cozy Bear? 4. Why did the DNC, after being told in summer 2015 that they were hacked, do nothing about this? Even the article points this out: "It is not clear why the hacks at the DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch warnings." They continued to be allegedly hacked for more than a year since the leaked emails date as far as May 2016. 5. We're also completely ignoring that the journalist who published the emails explicitly said it was an insider who provided it, and there is no evidence that this journalist received information from Russian officials. Literally none of this adds up to anything remotely close to conclusive.

93po 4y ago

Ah yes, the same Dutch intelligence agency that release from custody a person that stole nuclear weapons technology which enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear bombs. And did so at the behest of a foreign country. I wonder what else they'd do for a foreign country when asked? 1. All of the reporting on this in 2016 relied on the auditing I'm mentioning. Whether there was other evidence is beside the point - it wasn't something they used to influence their reporting 2. If it was known in 2014 that Cozy Bear was targeting the DNC and AIVD already had full access and knowledge of all of Cozy Bear's actions, why did they let them hack the DNC? 3. All sources say there were multiple people who had illicit access to DNC servers. There was clearly a vulnerability that multiple groups were able to exploit, and the exploiters were clearly doing nothing to prevent others from doing the same. Why are we so confident it was Cozy Bear? 4. Why did the DNC, after being told in summer 2015 that they were hacked, do nothing about this? Even the article points this out: "It is not clear why the hacks at the DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch warnings." They continued to be allegedly hacked for more than a year since the leaked emails date as far as May 2016. 5. We're also completely ignoring that the journalist who published the emails explicitly said it was an insider who provided it, and there is no evidence that this journalist received information from Russian officials. Literally none of this adds up to anything remotely close to conclusive.