On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote: > On 01/17/2017 04:49 PM, Bruce Schneier wrote: > > > > CRYPTO-GRAM > > > > January 15, 2017 > > > > > The Obama administration has been more public about its evidence in the > > DNC case, but it has not been entirely public. > > To date I have seen many assertions, but nothing resembling evidence, in > support of the allegation that Russia "hacked" the DNC and released > damaging (but never disclaimed) DNC documents in an effort to influence > the Presidential election.
There has been some speculation, as I'm sure you know, that the NSA was involved, e.g. using XKeyscore or something similar, to track the attribution. See - https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/ I agree the whole thing stinks of a big lie propaganda move. But it's a fucking crazy world out there. > > > The constellation of evidence attributing the attacks against the DNC, > > and subsequent release of information, is comprehensive. > > I believe the Bruce must have meant to say something to the effect that > "The constellation of evidence attributing the attacks against the DNC, > if any, has not been disclosed to the public." > > Or was he asserting that he has been read into the programs that > developed this evidence, and shown relevant documentation? > > > Obama decided not to make the accusation public before the election so > > as not to be seen as influencing the election. > > Excuse me? Obama decided to make the accusation public in a press > release, a.k.a. propaganda placement dated October 7, 2016. Its content > was attributed to the "USIC" by the Department of Homeland Security. > This press release was distributed with clear intent to influence the > election. Read it here: > > https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national > > The key allegation: > > "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks > .com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent > with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These > thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election > process." > > In keeping with propaganda best practices, this statement does not > actually accuse Russia of anything - not if you read it closely and > interpret it according to strict rules of grammar. The source of the > statement is not identified: There is no such agency as the United > States Intelligence Community (USIC per the press release), so it can > not be attributed to any responsible authority or formal reporting > process. This is the safest way to tell a Big Lie. The preceding > sentence is not a statement by me that it WAS a Big Lie - so if I get > dragged into Court for saying so, my hands are clean. > > The inflammatory pre-election press release from the Obama > Administration's Department of Homeland Security was followed up by > numerous placements in the U.S. press, a constellation of assertions > consistent this template: > > A reporter says an anonymous source claimed an unnamed senior > intelligence official told them that unspecified secret information > confirms Russian involvement in releasing incriminating DNC e-mails to > Wikileaks. > > The timing, context and follow-on promotion of the DHS press release > blaming the leak on Russia indicate it was a component of a larger > campaign by the DNC on behalf of the Clinton campaign, intended to > demonize Trump by depicting his stated willingness to negotiate with > Russia as proof of collaboration with a foreign enemy. > > Post-election, the DHS press release became the rarely-cited but always > referenced cornerstone of a separate campaign asserting that the > election was stolen by Russia and Trump. This was the keynote of an > apparent attempt to persuade the Electors to install Hillary Clinton as > President. > > > Now, afterward, there are > > political implications in accepting that Russia hacked the DNC in an > > attempt to influence the US presidential election. But no amount of > > evidence can convince the unconvinceable. > > To the best of my knowledge - and I have been following this story > closely - no evidence of "Russian Hacking" has been presented to date. > We have been treated to a few code names of "hacking groups" allegedly > involved, and a couple of textbook diagrams of how hostile parties > penetrate network servers. That is all. > > If no evidence can be released due to legitimate concerns for protecting > sources and methods, and no substantial national security mission is > advanced by partisan accusations, it would be nice if the "USIC" would > stop exposing their super-secret capabilities to the world by asserting > what they knew and when they knew it. > > > The most important thing we can do right now is deter any country from > > trying this sort of thing in the future, and the political nature of the > > issue makes that harder. Right now, we've told the world that others can > > get away with manipulating our election process as long as they can keep > > their efforts secret until after one side wins. Obama has promised both > > secret retaliations and public ones. We need to hope they're enough. > > Would these retaliations include, perhaps, the murder of the Russian > ambassador to Turkey, the downing of a Russian plane carrying an > irreplaceable cultural and diplomatic delegation to Syria, the rapid > deployment of a battalion strength U.S. armor force to the Russian > Federation border, and a missile attack on a Syrian airport by friendly > Israelis? And if so, should we presume that all-around security expert > Bruce Schneier approve of these actions? > > I could interpret the Obama Administration's 11th hour provocations > against Russia as an effort to create a massive foreign relations crisis > for the incoming Trump Administration, intended to overwhelm its > underqualified foreign policy contingent and deliver early control of > Trump Administration foreign policy to the U.S. intelligence > establishment and other Deep State actors. Whether this might have been > a "wise" course to take, is a matter of opinion. As would be the > legality of such a maneuver. > > It may also be possible that the Obama Admninistration's pre-election > propaganda placement blaming the DNC leak on the Russian Federation > simply started a domino effect that ran out of control and nearly caused > World War III. > > > This essay previously appeared on CNN.com. > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/opinions/proving-source-of-dnc-hacks-difficult-opinion-schneier/index.html > > CNN? I will not here repeat the propaganda slogan presently saturating > U.S. media, two words that malign the veracity of certain press outlets. > But the shoe fits and Mr. Schneier will have a hard time taking it back > off. That makes me sad. > > :o/ > > > > > -- John
