Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 12:32 AM
200 online now:
PaulK, RAZD, Tanypteryx (3 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,524 Year: 15,347/29,783 Month: 1,291/1,502 Week: 48/241 Day: 1/47 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
57585960Next
Author Topic:   The 2016 United States Presidential Election
Modulous
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 826 of 892 (796985)
01-09-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 822 by Riggamortis
01-08-2017 11:52 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
So is there any actual evidence being presented of Russia doing the hacking or are we just to accept it on faith that the CIA wouldn't lie?

Well the CIA lies, pretty sure that's in their job description

I believe the evidence is the signatures that point to the groups performing the hack that the CIA has been monitoring as probably RIS, and one of the key figures is suspected of being a Russian agent. But the bulk is spies talking to contacts on the ground, and for obvious reasons that isn't likely to come out for a good long time.

The CIA is unlikely to deceive the world as a means to support the DNC and there probably isn't overt profit in upsetting Russia but then - they are sneaky bastards and they may have a completely different game plan in mind.

Or they may be making mistakes or falling for evidence someone wanted them to find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by Riggamortis, posted 01-08-2017 11:52 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 827 of 892 (796986)
01-09-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 824 by vimesey
01-09-2017 4:08 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
Solid like the evidence of WMD in Iraq? It seems pretty clear to me that the US govt will release whatever information will serve their current agenda, in the case of WMD's, to justify a war. Thousands of US lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, a trillion dollars and a destabilised ME. And after all that? Turns out their evidence wasn't that solid.

Just sayin'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by vimesey, posted 01-09-2017 4:08 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by vimesey, posted 01-09-2017 8:54 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 828 of 892 (796987)
01-09-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 827 by Riggamortis
01-09-2017 8:47 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
But as jar has pointed out, it was the politicians who ran out the argument that WMD's existed. The intelligence agencies themselves were very quiet.

In this case, the CIA itself is publicly stating that Russia sought to influence the elections. That is an extremely big claim, with almost no upside for them, and huge downsides. If they are simply lying, then my point is that it is a far more stupid lie to go public with, than I would give them discredit for.

As a result, on balance, I don't think they're lying. Wrong, maybe - duped, possibly - but not stupid enough to be lying.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by Riggamortis, posted 01-09-2017 8:47 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 01-09-2017 6:48 PM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 830 by Riggamortis, posted 01-09-2017 8:37 PM vimesey has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 829 of 892 (797012)
01-09-2017 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by vimesey
01-09-2017 8:54 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
John McAfee, known for his work in cybersecurity, says the supposed evidence given in the CIA report for Russian hacking shows such a low level of intelligence competence that alone proves it false: that is, the evidence they give is that a Russian Cyrillic keyboard was used, the time/date stamp indicated an origin in Moscow, the IP number was from Russia, and something else I can't remember. There were four pieces of evidence, which McAfee says would show such incompetence no intelligence agency could operate that way. They would dissemble everything, use a foreign keyboard, a foreign language, a computer that couldn't be traced to them, etc. etc. etc.

ABE: Here's a video of McAfee talking about this:


/abe

There's another category of proof that the report is bogus that I can't find now. The gist as I recall is that half the report is based on articles in the Russian media that go back many years and have nothing at all to do with this election.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by vimesey, posted 01-09-2017 8:54 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by Riggamortis, posted 01-09-2017 8:48 PM Faith has responded
 Message 834 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2017 12:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 853 by Percy, posted 01-10-2017 3:15 PM Faith has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 830 of 892 (797019)
01-09-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by vimesey
01-09-2017 8:54 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
Just to clarify, I am not of the opinion that Russia had nothing to do with it, I was just curious about the evidence.

How is it stupid to lie about something when the evidence that you lied will be classified for decades? What consequences did those who lied about WMD have to face? From where I sit, it looks as though they lied through their teeth to get the war they wanted and then suffered no repercussions for any of it. That's evil genius, not stupid.

A couple of reasons for them to lie off the top of my head:
1. Distraction, instead of talking about their own corrupt politicians, Americans are talking about how the Russians tried to influence your elections. You don't want your plebeians losing faith in the plutocracy.
2. Public support for aggression against Russia in the Syria proxy war.
3. The threat of hacking by foreign govts would give the CIA a need for more funding to counter these threats.

Again, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other I'm just very sceptical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by vimesey, posted 01-09-2017 8:54 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2017 5:34 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 831 of 892 (797020)
01-09-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by Faith
01-09-2017 6:48 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
That is a good point, any decent hacker can cover their tracks pretty well. Especially so, you would think, of a trained intelligence agent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 01-09-2017 6:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 01-09-2017 9:44 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 832 of 892 (797021)
01-09-2017 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by Riggamortis
01-09-2017 8:48 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
Seems like good evidence to me too. Wish I could find the stuff about how so much of the report was from RT and years old. If so, what on earth are they trying to do? What misinformation are they determined to get us to believe and why?

I don't know if it's clear (and I have to admit not a whole lot is clear to me about this either), but the CIA report was not claiming that Russia hacked the election itself, as in, hacked the voting machines, but the public has been under that impression for some time and there doesn't seem to be much effort to correct it, as if that's what they want people to think.

The true claim is that Russia was responsible for exposing Clinton's emails (and other similar things I can never keep in mind) and in that way influenced the election by turning people against her.

Even that is seriously in doubt, however. I'm still waiting to see if Assange has anything to say about it since he SEEMED to promise to reveal the actual source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by Riggamortis, posted 01-09-2017 8:48 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2017 12:15 AM Faith has responded
 Message 842 by Taq, posted 01-10-2017 10:49 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 833 of 892 (797024)
01-10-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
01-09-2017 9:44 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
but the CIA report was not claiming that Russia hacked the election itself, as in, hacked the voting machines

No Faith. It has been pretty clear in the press that the hacking involves breaking into DNC computers and not hacking voting machines. The statements by Trumps spokeperson that 1) The CIA says that such hacking did not influence the election, and 2) that no voting machines have been hacked are all smoke screens. Claims about tampering with voting machines have not been applied to Russians, and the relevance of those claims has not been news since the recounts those claims prompted were stopped. But of course that is not suspicions, right?

Seems like good evidence to me too.

Further, Riggamortis did not cite a single piece of evidence. Instead he explained why he thought folks might get away with lying. It's okay that he and you consider such things in informing your opinion. But there is zero evidence indicating that the Russians did not interfere in the political process, and at least some evidence suggesting that they did.

I'm still waiting to see if Assange has anything to say about it since he SEEMED to promise to reveal the actual source.

citation please. I don't see any way Assange could actually know such a thing. Maybe the evidence will come out in five or six months along with that "proof" that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary you claimed to be waiting for. For some reason unevidenced statements about things you want to believe are fine, but rigorous evidence for things against your world view are required.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 01-09-2017 9:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 01-10-2017 2:50 AM NoNukes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14419
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 834 of 892 (797025)
01-10-2017 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 829 by Faith
01-09-2017 6:48 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
John McAfee is nuts. You should take anything he has said with more than a pinch of salt. Granted the report is pretty bad, but we don't know why that is (or what evidence is being kept back)

To the best of my knowledge everyone who has investigated (not just the security services) says that the Russians did it (two known groups are identified) based on the way they worked. The only people who disagree - and might actually know - are Wikileaks who might very well not want to admit being given information by the Russians.

At this stage I am inclined to accept the attribution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 01-09-2017 6:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by Faith, posted 01-10-2017 2:47 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 835 of 892 (797027)
01-10-2017 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 834 by PaulK
01-10-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
And here we have the time-honored EvC-tested ad hominem argument. McAfee is nuts. That's all. McAfee is nuts. Terrific.

No matter that his statements made perfect sense and related to the actual evidence offered in the report. No matter at all. We can dismiss his perfectly reasonable statements because

McAfee is nuts.

I'm inclined to give weight to his points that it would take an incredibly stu/pid intelligence operation to leave such obvious clues to its identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2017 12:24 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2017 3:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 836 of 892 (797028)
01-10-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 833 by NoNukes
01-10-2017 12:15 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
I was responding only to Riggamortis' agreement that it would be sttupid for a hacking operation to leave such blatant clues to its identify, that's all.

Assange said it in the Hannity interview, mentioned earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2017 12:15 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2017 5:00 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14419
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 837 of 892 (797030)
01-10-2017 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 835 by Faith
01-10-2017 2:47 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
McAfee IS nuts - and hasn't investigated the hack either.

He is also known to say things that don't make sense

Why quote him rather than Bruce Schneier or Brian Krebs ?

quote:

No matter that his statements made perfect sense and related to the actual evidence offered in the report. No matter at all.

That his assessments seem reasonable to you doesn't make him a reliable source. Especially when he's a determined self-publicist who doesn't have access to all the evidence.

quote:

I'm inclined to give weight to his points that it would take an incredibly stu/pid intelligence operation to leave such obvious clues to its identity.

I'm inclined to give more weight to people who have actually investigated the hack and know all about the dangers of false leads. The people who know rather more of the evidence than has been released.

Don't forget that even law enforcement can be very secretive. Prosecutions have been dropped because they won't reveal how evidence has been obtained. A recentexample


This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Faith, posted 01-10-2017 2:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 838 of 892 (797031)
01-10-2017 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by Faith
01-10-2017 2:50 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
I was responding only to Riggamortis' agreement that it would be sttupid for a hacking operation to leave such blatant clues to its identify, that's all.

That's right. Except that you referred to his agreement as evidence. I think pointing out that it was no such thing was appropriate. Do you have a rebuttal?

Assange said it in the Hannity interview, mentioned earlier.

People say a lot of things.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 01-10-2017 2:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 01-10-2017 11:14 AM NoNukes has responded

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 839 of 892 (797032)
01-10-2017 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 830 by Riggamortis
01-09-2017 8:37 PM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
Again, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other I'm just very sceptical.

Skepticism is healthy, where it refers to a process of questioning received wisdom and not accepting it without question.

When skepticism becomes cynicism, then I have greater concerns. I have recently heard someone say "I don't believe a word any so-called expert says" (ironically, a few days before they were due to go into hospital for an operation). That person is not someone whose opinion I value.

My own experience of experts is that I have never had one lie to me that I am aware of; in broad terms, they get paid well to look after my interests in ways I don't properly understand; they are well trained in their field; and always willing to try to explain things to me.

I think healthy skepticism is indeed to question expert opinion - but not to believe it to be false at the very outset, without good evidence, directly connected to the opinion (or at least to a well established pattern of behaviour).

For me, any complicity the CIA may have had in the Bush administration's lies as to WMDs, is not sufficient evidence for me to dismiss their assessment as to Russian involvement in the election.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by Riggamortis, posted 01-09-2017 8:37 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2017 6:38 AM vimesey has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14419
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 840 of 892 (797033)
01-10-2017 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 839 by vimesey
01-10-2017 5:34 AM


Re: Evidence of Russia hacking
Do you believe Crowdstrike when they say that the Russians hacked the DNC ? If not, why not ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2017 5:34 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2017 7:14 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
57585960Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018