13 ms·

Tellingly, the FBI's press release says that the bureau's conclusion is only based "in part" on these clues. This leaves open the possibility that the governmen

Tellingly, the FBI's press release says that the bureau's conclusion is only based "in part" on these clues. This leaves open the possibility that the government has classified evidence that North Korea is behind the attack. I am surprised that the article doesn't end here. Other press reports have highlighted that there is classified evidence that has not been disclosed, and it seems odd to me that Schneier would play this aspect down in a story involving cyberattacks, North Korea, the FBI and the US intelligence community.

barrkel 12y ago
Secret evidence can be used to justify whatever whims the gatekeepers of that evidence wish to pursue politically. If anything should be learned from the Iraq debacle, it's that.
- aragot 12y ago
  That focus on Iraq is strange. I'm French and when Bush provided so-called "evidence" at the UN, people here were laughing and media were skeptic. From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    > From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, Not sure if you heard the news, but Bush quickly invaded Iraq. I think it's safe to assume he was taken seriously. > which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war. Some US citizens just like to complain about foreigners to be more patriotic (as if that would help). I would doubt most people could explain anything about french foreign policy.
  - arjie 12y ago
    Exactly! It honestly beats me. The tone around the news in India was that the so-called "evidence" was total bullshit. I, too, was amazed to learn that there were people who believed it.
  - barrkel 12y ago
    The net effect was to shout "he's got a gun!" at the critical moment of action - a security council vote, IIRC. I didn't think Saddam was a serious threat to the west at the time, but the relentless hype did make me think it over one night: what if? And then I saw that anything asymmetrical he could do would quickly result in his destruction. Even if he had all the dirty weapons possible at his disposal, he wouldn't have been able to use them. And, of course, what came out later makes governmental prognostications now from secret evidence almost impossible to believe. Western governments, in particular US and UK, lost their credibility. Secret evidence is used for political purposes, not for security. The case for covert interception of communications is severely weakened. Probably even our security is damaged.
- RickHull 12y ago
  Hmm... I wonder if there is any sort of equivalency between the Gatekeepers of Evidence and the Guardians of Peace.
isaacremuant 12y ago
As the other commenter said, there was also "classified evidence" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why would you blindly "just trust them" when there's enough history to show that skepticism is a much healthier attitude.
- pyre 12y ago
  IIRC, a lot of the evidence in the Saddam case came from a defector from Iraq that spun a story to tell the Americans what they wanted to hear. No one bothered to do enough verification of what they were hearing because it was what they wanted to hear.
  - isaacremuant 12y ago
    I recall something of the sort, yeah. This doesn't change anything I said, though. Regardless of where it comes from, "hidden facts" from agencies with an agenda that don't necessarily align with citizens are not to be automatically trusted.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    North Korean defectors have also done this.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- personZ 12y ago
  The common narrative is that the US contrived the whole thing to justify an attack. This is how that unfortunate situation gets used to explain all sorts of nefarious conspiracies. But they really, honestly had reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs (yes there were doubters and skeptics, and of course they get the bulk of the attention after the fact, but many actually believed it). Aside from defectors and people trying to lie their way to something, add that Saddam himself wanted the world (particularly Iran) to think that the Iraq government had WMDs. Iraq believed that having WMDs was a good defense (a good example since then is North Korea), so they tried to play the middle ground where they could seem to have WMDs hidden away, and could act as if they had that ace in the hole, but they would play along with UN inspectors just enough to try to avoid an attack, adding just enough mystery to the whole thing that there were open doubts. Intelligence is tough when the person you're trying to prove is doing something is also trying to convince you that they're doing something. The game of chicken didn't turn out well. But the recurring narrative that innocent Iraq was all along say no no no look where you want and the US invented the situation is historical revisionism.
rst 12y ago
On the flip side, other fairly recent claims of classified evidence from US officials have proven to be unfounded -- most notably, the claims of active Iraqi nuke and chemical weapons programs which were the stated basis for George W. Bush's invasion. And other more recent examples, like Clapper's lie to Congress about bulk data collection, seem to indicate that the culture of US intelligence hasn't changed since then in any fundamental respect. It's your choice whether to take these guys at their word in any particular instance. But some of us don't take their word alone as evidence for much, unless it's backed up by evidence which stands up to independent review.
- jobu 12y ago
  US officials have lied so many times it's difficult to give credibility to anything they say: NSA lies to senate about surveillance on U.S. citizens living inside the country: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/... CIA lies about torture and it's effectiveness: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/the-senate-report-on-the-cias-torture-and-lies.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/the-senate-report-... FBI lies to U.S. courts about surveillance records: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/fbi-chastised-court-lying-about-existence https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/fbi-chastised-court-ly...
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    The problem with liars isn't that they lie, it's that sometimes they tell the truth.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    I don't think that holds weight. The federal government employs nearly 3 million people, and of course some of them will lie to better serve their interests. You'd reasonably expect this. You see racists making similar arguments about random minorities - a few isolated cases expanded into a gross stereotype. To blanket dismiss any statement as untrustworthy is unwise and misguided.
revelation 12y ago
Because why exactly would anyone believe the US government after they have invoked the "secret evidence" trope for the billionth time? They will claim this to get out of some clerical error. They will claim this for anything. It's unverifiable, it's unbelievable, it's a wonder any publication with some journalistic integrity left would read anything into it. Here is attorney general Holder invoking state secrets to cover up what was eventually revealed as a lowly FBI clerk checking the wrong box: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder1.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder... This wasn't even an important case! Think what these people will do when the stakes are higher.
- sonoffett 12y ago
  But surely the military industrial complex has the incentive to have the public's best interest at heart when it come to defining cyber warfare doctrine?
mc32 12y ago
Schneier is a skeptic. And skepticism garners more page views and also street credibility. It's not a bad way for him to get into the news every once in a while. Moreover, basically what he's saying is there is more than one possible probable actor whereas the FBI discounted the rest. It's not that insightful. Schneier is a pretty smart guy, but like everyone else has biases (I mean, tendencies). Not saying he's wrong here as I, as most everyone, have no first or second hand knowledge about this incident. Just saying that just because it's Schneier does not give him any more credibility in this than anyone else, unless he knows something about this incident most people don't know.
- DanBC 12y ago
  I'd be really interested to hear from HN about "appeal to authority". When someone talks about security, and links to Schneier, I give their argumet more credit. If they link to GRC I give them less credit, and sometimes I dismess their comment. I realise this is a bad thing. Gibson is going to be right occasionally and Schneier is going to be wrong sometimes. But is this a generally sound policy? Find the experts and "not-experts" and decide how much time to spend investigating what they say accordingly; or should I be evaluatin arguments equally regardless who makes the arguemtn (with exceptions for obvious trolls and wingnuts)?
  - mc32 12y ago
    Schneier himself makes a couple of appeals to authority (Allan Friedman, Jonathan Zittrain) by essentially saying I believe this because so and so told me something (and I think their logic and conclusions are sound). But in neither case provides opposing opinions (as though there might not be). But, to your question. I think we should question everyone one's assertions. Lots of experts, I mean true domain experts, will opine one way, just to be wrong down the road. So, maybe being an expert gives them an edge over a non expert but it does not make them automatically right.
  - ahelwer 12y ago
    Appeal to authority (as a fallacy) refers to advancing the opinion of a prominent figure for something on which they themselves are not an authority. Citing Schneier on computer security is not an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is citing his opinion on the best way to prepare coffee.

barrkel 12y ago

Secret evidence can be used to justify whatever whims the gatekeepers of that evidence wish to pursue politically. If anything should be learned from the Iraq debacle, it's that.

aragot 12y ago
That focus on Iraq is strange. I'm French and when Bush provided so-called "evidence" at the UN, people here were laughing and media were skeptic. From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war.
- duaneb 12y ago
  > From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, Not sure if you heard the news, but Bush quickly invaded Iraq. I think it's safe to assume he was taken seriously. > which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war. Some US citizens just like to complain about foreigners to be more patriotic (as if that would help). I would doubt most people could explain anything about french foreign policy.
- arjie 12y ago
  Exactly! It honestly beats me. The tone around the news in India was that the so-called "evidence" was total bullshit. I, too, was amazed to learn that there were people who believed it.
- barrkel 12y ago
  The net effect was to shout "he's got a gun!" at the critical moment of action - a security council vote, IIRC. I didn't think Saddam was a serious threat to the west at the time, but the relentless hype did make me think it over one night: what if? And then I saw that anything asymmetrical he could do would quickly result in his destruction. Even if he had all the dirty weapons possible at his disposal, he wouldn't have been able to use them. And, of course, what came out later makes governmental prognostications now from secret evidence almost impossible to believe. Western governments, in particular US and UK, lost their credibility. Secret evidence is used for political purposes, not for security. The case for covert interception of communications is severely weakened. Probably even our security is damaged.
RickHull 12y ago
Hmm... I wonder if there is any sort of equivalency between the Gatekeepers of Evidence and the Guardians of Peace.

isaacremuant 12y ago

As the other commenter said, there was also "classified evidence" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why would you blindly "just trust them" when there's enough history to show that skepticism is a much healthier attitude.

pyre 12y ago
IIRC, a lot of the evidence in the Saddam case came from a defector from Iraq that spun a story to tell the Americans what they wanted to hear. No one bothered to do enough verification of what they were hearing because it was what they wanted to hear.
- isaacremuant 12y ago
  I recall something of the sort, yeah. This doesn't change anything I said, though. Regardless of where it comes from, "hidden facts" from agencies with an agenda that don't necessarily align with citizens are not to be automatically trusted.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  North Korean defectors have also done this.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
personZ 12y ago
The common narrative is that the US contrived the whole thing to justify an attack. This is how that unfortunate situation gets used to explain all sorts of nefarious conspiracies. But they really, honestly had reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs (yes there were doubters and skeptics, and of course they get the bulk of the attention after the fact, but many actually believed it). Aside from defectors and people trying to lie their way to something, add that Saddam himself wanted the world (particularly Iran) to think that the Iraq government had WMDs. Iraq believed that having WMDs was a good defense (a good example since then is North Korea), so they tried to play the middle ground where they could seem to have WMDs hidden away, and could act as if they had that ace in the hole, but they would play along with UN inspectors just enough to try to avoid an attack, adding just enough mystery to the whole thing that there were open doubts. Intelligence is tough when the person you're trying to prove is doing something is also trying to convince you that they're doing something. The game of chicken didn't turn out well. But the recurring narrative that innocent Iraq was all along say no no no look where you want and the US invented the situation is historical revisionism.

rst 12y ago

On the flip side, other fairly recent claims of classified evidence from US officials have proven to be unfounded -- most notably, the claims of active Iraqi nuke and chemical weapons programs which were the stated basis for George W. Bush's invasion. And other more recent examples, like Clapper's lie to Congress about bulk data collection, seem to indicate that the culture of US intelligence hasn't changed since then in any fundamental respect. It's your choice whether to take these guys at their word in any particular instance. But some of us don't take their word alone as evidence for much, unless it's backed up by evidence which stands up to independent review.

jobu 12y ago
US officials have lied so many times it's difficult to give credibility to anything they say: NSA lies to senate about surveillance on U.S. citizens living inside the country: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/... CIA lies about torture and it's effectiveness: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/the-senate-report-on-the-cias-torture-and-lies.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/the-senate-report-... FBI lies to U.S. courts about surveillance records: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/fbi-chastised-court-lying-about-existence https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/fbi-chastised-court-ly...
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  The problem with liars isn't that they lie, it's that sometimes they tell the truth.
- CHY872 12y ago
  I don't think that holds weight. The federal government employs nearly 3 million people, and of course some of them will lie to better serve their interests. You'd reasonably expect this. You see racists making similar arguments about random minorities - a few isolated cases expanded into a gross stereotype. To blanket dismiss any statement as untrustworthy is unwise and misguided.

revelation 12y ago

Because why exactly would anyone believe the US government after they have invoked the "secret evidence" trope for the billionth time? They will claim this to get out of some clerical error. They will claim this for anything. It's unverifiable, it's unbelievable, it's a wonder any publication with some journalistic integrity left would read anything into it. Here is attorney general Holder invoking state secrets to cover up what was eventually revealed as a lowly FBI clerk checking the wrong box: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder1.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder... This wasn't even an important case! Think what these people will do when the stakes are higher.

sonoffett 12y ago
But surely the military industrial complex has the incentive to have the public's best interest at heart when it come to defining cyber warfare doctrine?

mc32 12y ago

Schneier is a skeptic. And skepticism garners more page views and also street credibility. It's not a bad way for him to get into the news every once in a while. Moreover, basically what he's saying is there is more than one possible probable actor whereas the FBI discounted the rest. It's not that insightful. Schneier is a pretty smart guy, but like everyone else has biases (I mean, tendencies). Not saying he's wrong here as I, as most everyone, have no first or second hand knowledge about this incident. Just saying that just because it's Schneier does not give him any more credibility in this than anyone else, unless he knows something about this incident most people don't know.

DanBC 12y ago
I'd be really interested to hear from HN about "appeal to authority". When someone talks about security, and links to Schneier, I give their argumet more credit. If they link to GRC I give them less credit, and sometimes I dismess their comment. I realise this is a bad thing. Gibson is going to be right occasionally and Schneier is going to be wrong sometimes. But is this a generally sound policy? Find the experts and "not-experts" and decide how much time to spend investigating what they say accordingly; or should I be evaluatin arguments equally regardless who makes the arguemtn (with exceptions for obvious trolls and wingnuts)?
- mc32 12y ago
  Schneier himself makes a couple of appeals to authority (Allan Friedman, Jonathan Zittrain) by essentially saying I believe this because so and so told me something (and I think their logic and conclusions are sound). But in neither case provides opposing opinions (as though there might not be). But, to your question. I think we should question everyone one's assertions. Lots of experts, I mean true domain experts, will opine one way, just to be wrong down the road. So, maybe being an expert gives them an edge over a non expert but it does not make them automatically right.
- ahelwer 12y ago
  Appeal to authority (as a fallacy) refers to advancing the opinion of a prominent figure for something on which they themselves are not an authority. Citing Schneier on computer security is not an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is citing his opinion on the best way to prepare coffee.