Talking Paradox games, I played Europe Universalis II a lot, I agree with assessments that US practically seems to be almost deliberately destroying its own empire, but that was my assessment since Obama did the "surge" in Afghanistan.
The surge started in 2007, under George W. Bush.
You're thinking Iraq. Afghanistan had its own under Obama.
An "argument from authority" is logically speaking not a "proof."
The logical fallacy "argument from authority" is committed when someone cites a person's authority in a matter unrelated to the person's authority.
Which is not the case here. If you are hung up on the fact that they aren't revealing specific proofs in the unclassified statement released to the public, then I suggest you do some thinking about the very real and practical reasons why intelligence agencies might not make public how they are able to prove Russian involvement. Like, oh I don't know, the fact that saying how they knew just tells Russia what tactics to change?
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
In any event, US intelligence is offering reports that have been widely mocked as sloppy and confused even by security experts who believe Russia did commit the hacks in question, reported by sources that themselves take for granted the accusation as true: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/how-the-u-s-enabled-russian-hack-truthers.html So it is hard to call US intelligence agencies legitimate authorities on computer security specifically.
The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information – built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.
But the case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses” – as in the U.S. intelligence community “assesses” that Russia is guilty – suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.”
The DNI report admits as much, saying, “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”
Regarding computer security researchers, they seem completely mixed as to whether they believe there is any ironclad case against Russia on this matter, just looking through accounts of leading security professionals and hackers on twitter shows ambiguity and sometimes outright skepticism. (Kim Dotcom for example overtly says the claims about Russia are "lies".) The tech press is not repeating the same line on this as the rest of the US media, certainly, as the piece by Dan Goodin (widely respected tech journalist who attends BaySec in San Francisco which is a regular gathering of leading security professionals globally) displays.
Talking Paradox games, I played Europe Universalis II a lot, I agree with assessments that US practically seems to be almost deliberately destroying its own empire, but that was my assessment since Obama did the "surge" in Afghanistan.
Hahahaha. Goodin rarely shows up to Baysec (though when he does it's always a pleasure to chat with him) but calling it a gathering of globally respected security researchers is fucking ridiculous. It used to be more diverse in attendance but these days it's 90% scary good crypto and chip design people. I don't think there's even anybody who's done offensive security that shows up regularly other than me at this point.
The group is small these days, like 5-10 regulars. It's a great little gathering though.
Citation: Show up next Tuesday at 7:30 at the Holding Company I guess?
With regards to the consensus of the community, it has about as many naysayers as Climate Change. Can't really cite that without fully outing myself, but I attend 4-5 security focused events every month, have a well curated Twitter feed of professionals I've met over the years, and I'm on staff at a relatively major infosec conference (think just below DEF CON/BlackHat/RSA).
fancy dinner conversation is going to be very diverse this year
Talking Paradox games, I played Europe Universalis II a lot, I agree with assessments that US practically seems to be almost deliberately destroying its own empire, but that was my assessment since Obama did the "surge" in Afghanistan.
The surge started in 2007, under George W. Bush.
You're thinking Iraq. Afghanistan had its own under Obama.
They were very different in terms of effect. The 2010 Afghanistan surge was a redistribution from Iraq to Afghanistan, while the military underwent force shaping procedures to reduce their manpower. The 2007 surge was not just a redistribution of forces, but involved a massive increase in total manpower from 2005 onwards. The 07 surge didn't just increase boots on the ground as the 2010 surge did, it also increased the number of boots total to accomplish it.
An "argument from authority" is logically speaking not a "proof."
The logical fallacy "argument from authority" is committed when someone cites a person's authority in a matter unrelated to the person's authority.
Which is not the case here. If you are hung up on the fact that they aren't revealing specific proofs in the unclassified statement released to the public, then I suggest you do some thinking about the very real and practical reasons why intelligence agencies might not make public how they are able to prove Russian involvement. Like, oh I don't know, the fact that saying how they knew just tells Russia what tactics to change?
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
In any event, US intelligence is offering reports that have been widely mocked as sloppy and confused even by security experts who believe Russia did commit the hacks in question, reported by sources that themselves take for granted the accusation as true: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/how-the-u-s-enabled-russian-hack-truthers.html So it is hard to call US intelligence agencies legitimate authorities on computer security specifically.
The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information – built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.
But the case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses” – as in the U.S. intelligence community “assesses” that Russia is guilty – suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.”
The DNI report admits as much, saying, “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”
Regarding computer security researchers, they seem completely mixed as to whether they believe there is any ironclad case against Russia on this matter, just looking through accounts of leading security professionals and hackers on twitter shows ambiguity and sometimes outright skepticism. (Kim Dotcom for example overtly says the claims about Russia are "lies".) The tech press is not repeating the same line on this as the rest of the US media, certainly, as the piece by Dan Goodin (widely respected tech journalist who attends BaySec in San Francisco which is a regular gathering of leading security professionals globally) displays.
Talking Paradox games, I played Europe Universalis II a lot, I agree with assessments that US practically seems to be almost deliberately destroying its own empire, but that was my assessment since Obama did the "surge" in Afghanistan.
Assess does not mean guess. Assess refers to a specific confidence interval based upon empirical evidence.
The intelligence community is highly specific in it's word choice for a reason. Citing the usage of assesses as a reason that the classified information is less than conclusive has no basis in reality and contains no understanding of the intelligence community' analytic methodology.
Talking Paradox games, I played Europe Universalis II a lot, I agree with assessments that US practically seems to be almost deliberately destroying its own empire, but that was my assessment since Obama did the "surge" in Afghanistan.
The surge started in 2007, under George W. Bush.
You're thinking Iraq. Afghanistan had its own under Obama.
They were very different in terms of effect. The 2010 Afghanistan surge was a redistribution from Iraq to Afghanistan, while the military underwent force shaping procedures to reduce their manpower. The 2007 surge was not just a redistribution of forces, but involved a massive increase in total manpower from 2005 onwards. The 07 surge didn't just increase boots on the ground as the 2010 surge did, it also increased the number of boots total to accomplish it.
He didn't mention the date. He might not have realized there were two different and that they were qualitatively different. But he didn't specify the Iraq surge as Obamas
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
Also it's kind of insulting to compare the on-the-nose sardonic responses to your points (nobody really thinks you're a Russian plant, just bizzarely generous to Trump) to some sort of McCarthyism.
Prohass on
+9
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited January 2017
Also, dude, if you have bulletproof evidence of who actually did the hack I would strongly recommend you tell someone other than us forumers - go to the press, your government... whomever, and let this evidence withstand the crucible of being challenged and see if it holds up.
Or you can just keep registering new accounts on forums where people disagree with your worldview and try to sow doubt, but lemme tell you, that's a fools game.
I have convinced very few of these folks that Mac is, in fact, the best.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Also, on the use of the term McCarthyism here and other places. No, people deriding you for positions you openly state is not McCarthyism. McCarthyism is when individuals are penalized professionally and privately for their political views in ways unrelated to politics (so someone not getting a job in a political position because of their political views is not a victim of McCarthyism). Nobody here is threatening to dox you. Nobody here is calling for you to be fired from your job. Somebody teased you a bit, I'm sure you're a big boy and can take it. Trying to referee the debates you participate in with this type of bullshit is a pathetic way to debate.
There has been a rash of pro-trump alts that register, and then immediately get to posting bizarre propaganda pieces. Though at least you're trying to engage in arguments, of just doing not-for-profit hit and run shit posting
+11
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
I know who Weev is too bro. :rotate:
+2
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The funny/scary thing is, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some brand new poster arguing stridently against an interpretation of available knowledge as a preponderance of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacks and waged a specific influence campaign to impact the results of the US election with intent to damage Hillary Clinton and promote Donald Trump ordered at the highest levels of the Kremlin, because we know that Russia pays trolls to sow confusion and chaos in online discussion spaces to achieve certain propaganda goals
It makes it quite difficult to graciously afford the benefit of the doubt
I doubt those paid trolls are going to niche forums. In general, I doubt those stories of paid trolls. Don't underestimate how prone larges swathes of the public are to internalizing political hackery.
I doubt those paid trolls are going to niche forums. In general, I doubt those stories of paid trolls. Don't underestimate how prone larges swathes of the public are to internalizing political hackery.
Uh just to point it out, we're technically part of an organization that has multiple gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people on multiple continents.
+10
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Also, just a friendly piece of advice @Anti-Climacus , if you were palling around with Weev in an IRC channel doing things that could get you in trouble with the law delete your posts now. If you're lucky they aren't cached anywhere you silly goose.
That feeling you get when someone accuses the (currently powerless, politically) left of McCarthyism when Trump is literally asking for ideological purge lists and reviving 140-year old congressional rules to punish civil servants working on projects he doesn't like.
There has been a rash of pro-trump alts that register, and then immediately get to posting bizarre propaganda pieces. Though at least you're trying to engage in arguments, of just doing not-for-profit hit and run shit posting
Shit and run posting. :P
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Do find funny that people are seriously talking about "paid Russian hackers" on a low-effort troll from a Weev fanboy, sorry to say.
Ooh to be clear I'm not suggesting anyone is specifically a paid troll in here, I'm just saying we shouldn't sell our selves short on how visible our forum might seemingly be.
That feeling you get when someone accuses the (currently powerless, politically) left of McCarthyism when Trump is literally asking for ideological purge lists based and reviving 140-year old congressional rules to punish civil servants working on projects he doesn't like.
That is some serious goosery, there.
This is more like if USSR spies pretty openly did some shit with the flimsiest plausible deniability that the USSR barely pretends to hold and the openly pro-USSR president was refusing to acknowledge that USSR spies did anything at all.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject. Consider it relating an anecdote with as much as that carries.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject.
Nah, that's to vague a complaint to brush off a legit government agency's word, especially when it's backed up by other organizations. Every government branch and agency has some bad things in its past, and yes the CIA has done some bad shit, but just because they did something bad in the past doesn't mean their word means nothing now. To verify this we need to do this on a case-by-case basis, what periods are less trustworthy than others (I'd trust the CIA under Obama's guidance more than W's or Trump's*), use other sources to verify their opinions with government organizations etc. And understand the context for where they work - which is in the shadows, they're not the police. They're not going to share anything with the public even if it would be in their best interest. That's not what intelligence agencies usually do, for good or ill.
* assuming he doesn't dismantle or cut it back it some ways, and Trump better hope he isn't that stupid because they're the CIA. You have to be very careful handling those people or they might turn on you. It will take a lot of political might to reform that group, they're not the FBI.
+1
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject. Consider it relating an anecdote with as much as that carries.
Being mocked doesn't make it wrong. Especially if they agree with their conclusions. Indeed, should the experts that you are putting so much more credit towards agree with its conclusions that should leave no doubt concerning its veracity.
You can still say "people do not need to take my word on the subject" when making an appeal to authority. Especially when following it with the word but. It doesn't matter what you say beforehand. If you genuinely don't think people should put any faith in to something you're saying then don't post it.
Finally, you keep using statements like "lots of experts" and "often wrong" without any quantification. That only makes for empty arguments. If there's a significant number of security experts that think the report is wrong, cite the number and how it compares to those that support it. If the IC, a seventeen branch organization, is often wrong or dishonest then cite how often as compared to their proper conduct. But don't simply make vague claims without proof. It doesn't result in anything productive.
Quid on
+10
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject. Consider it relating an anecdote with as much as that carries.
who is then?
edit: What organization would have to come out and say "Russia was behinds the hacks and the fake news and the propaganda" for you to believe it?
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
+12
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Re: some analysis I have read of the unclassified report, specifically the difference between the CIA and FBI's "high confidence" assessment vs the NSA's "moderate confidence" assessment: can be explained by the different types of intelligence the different agencies primarily rely on, specifically FBI/CIA use of human assets, informants, spies, CIs, to gather evidence, vs the NSA's use of interrupted electronic/digital communications. It implies that most of the classified evidence supporting the case is from the former type of intelligence (human sources).
On the one hand, human intelligence can be subjective, humans can lie, humans can be "on the take", maybe there's an elaborate double crossing mole situation where Russia WANTS the CIA to believe this narrative like this is fucking Homeland or some shit. But that seems less likely than the scenario we are presented with, which is that various human intelligence sources, analysis of Russian motivation and modus operandi in past influence campaigns and hacks, analysis of known Russian propaganda arms and the timing of their narrative introduction/pivots in response to current events, IN COMBINATION with limited hard evidence such as electronic signatures, hacker "fingerprints", etc, support a fairly strong conclusion that Russia knowingly and deliberately waged an influence campaign within the USA to deliver an electoral result that serves its self interest.
Plenty of computer experts can credibly say, well, this hard evidence does not on its own prove the conclusion. But the report does not say that the computer hacking signature alone conclusively take us to their assessment. It says that three major intelligence agencies collecting different types of evidence from different sources, some covert, some "hard" and some "soft", TAKEN TOGETHER, lead to a confident conclusion that Russia was behind he hacks, and their motivation was clear.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+6
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject. Consider it relating an anecdote with as much as that carries.
who is then?
edit: What organization would have to come out and say "Russia was behinds the hacks and the fake news and the propaganda" for you to believe it?
Douchebag white nationalist hackers with a long and well documented history of lying for self aggrandizement and the lulz I guess.
I heard on the radio that there's supposed to be another senate hearing with the IC today. Does anyone know when? I'm failing at finding anything online.
Re: some analysis I have read of the unclassified report, specifically the difference between the CIA and FBI's "high confidence" assessment vs the NSA's "moderate confidence" assessment: can be explained by the different types of intelligence the different agencies primarily rely on, specifically FBI/CIA use of human assets, informants, spies, CIs, to gather evidence, vs the NSA's use of interrupted electronic/digital communications. It implies that most of the classified evidence supporting the case is from the former type of intelligence (human sources).
On the one hand, human intelligence can be subjective, humans can lie, humans can be "on the take", maybe there's an elaborate double crossing mole situation where Russia WANTS the CIA to believe this narrative like this is fucking Homeland or some shit. But that seems less likely than the scenario we are presented with, which is that various human intelligence sources, analysis of Russian motivation and modus operandi in past influence campaigns and hacks, analysis of known Russian propaganda arms and the timing of their narrative introduction/pivots in response to current events, IN COMBINATION with limited hard evidence such as electronic signatures, hacker "fingerprints", etc, support a fairly strong conclusion that Russia knowingly and deliberately waged an influence campaign within the USA to deliver an electoral result that serves its self interest.
Plenty of computer experts can credibly say, well, this hard evidence does not on its own prove the conclusion. But the report does not say that the computer hacking signature alone conclusively take us to their assessment. It says that three major intelligence agencies collecting different types of evidence from different sources, some covert, some "hard" and some "soft", TAKEN TOGETHER, lead to a confident conclusion that Russia was behind he hacks, and their motivation was clear.
Also taken with the evidence that Putin has come out directly and said he wanted Trump to win.
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
"I find it really concerning that the intelligence agencies are relying on arguments of authority."
*makes even sketchier argument of authority about some dude he knows that totally hacked Podesta*
Try harder comrade.
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
Trump cites the national fucking enquirer as a source for his "facts"
Anyone who supports him should admit that sources and what's true doesn't matter to them, they're painting their reality as they go
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
As being browbeaten with the facts for like a straight month they half-assedly conceded the point. Should they get a cookie for only being like 5 months late to the party?
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
For the sake of clarity, even if they hadn't (they have) I don't give a fuck and your schtick is still over. My moderating decisions are a third thing that is not up for debate.
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
"While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee," he said in his statement, "there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines."
That does not sound like Trump stating Russia specifically did the DNC hack specifically.
From a European perspective the idea almost everyone here is taking a leap of faith in ascribing so much credibility to US intelligence reports is somewhat laughable, as we kind of just assume these things are politicised and far from "infallible". If we had not faced recent-term past tragedies on the basis of such faith, maybe I would be more understanding.
A. The subject of this thread is not "the intentions of other posts". Unless this guy is Vladimir Putin it's not particularly relevant that you think he's an astroturfer or whatever. Give it a fucking rest with the hot takes, none of you actually have any of the information that allows us to determine that.
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee,
doesn't quite acknowledge that Russia was behind the hacks.
Reince has apparently stated it more plainly on his behalf, which lets the true believers maintain their implausible denial.
Posts
You're thinking Iraq. Afghanistan had its own under Obama.
fancy dinner conversation is going to be very diverse this year
They were very different in terms of effect. The 2010 Afghanistan surge was a redistribution from Iraq to Afghanistan, while the military underwent force shaping procedures to reduce their manpower. The 2007 surge was not just a redistribution of forces, but involved a massive increase in total manpower from 2005 onwards. The 07 surge didn't just increase boots on the ground as the 2010 surge did, it also increased the number of boots total to accomplish it.
Assess does not mean guess. Assess refers to a specific confidence interval based upon empirical evidence.
The intelligence community is highly specific in it's word choice for a reason. Citing the usage of assesses as a reason that the classified information is less than conclusive has no basis in reality and contains no understanding of the intelligence community' analytic methodology.
He didn't mention the date. He might not have realized there were two different and that they were qualitatively different. But he didn't specify the Iraq surge as Obamas
Calling me a Soviet agent kind of proves the point that there is a type of McCarthyism happening here where accusations against Russia are assumed true and anyone who questions them is assumed to work for Russia.
I was stating that those who cite US intelligence agencies as "proof" Russia committed the hacking were making an appeal to authority (in this case, illegitimate authority on the issue of computer security). The report itself is, in literal terms, a conspiracy theory in that it literally reads as "We believe Russia wanted these things to happen so they must be directly responsible." Citing a single security firm also would qualify as appeal to illegitimate authority in a context in which the industry as a whole rejects the idea that there is "consensus" on this.
What I can say about the Podesta emails is that what I know gives me a direct reason to doubt the whole story, then even other circumstantial evidence about the DNC hack is consistent with what I already know about the Podesta hack. Nobody needs to take my word on this and if I revealed how I know that could involve self-incrimination of a sort. But I am personally aware the Podesta hack was not committed by Russia (the hacker is anti-Russia and pro-Trump, and appears to work for the Ukraine government in an intelligence capacity but generally to do a lot on his own initiative including aiding neo-Nazi movements globally -- his sympathies for Trump are a result of racism -- this person is not unknown and has received media attention for crimes in the past), or somehow a lot was faked in real-time before media even got to this subject which I don't believe. People don't need to take my word on this but I believe it will all eventually come out and the narrative on Russia will seem silly in hindsight.
I meant the Obama surge in Afghanistan, as I specified. US forces increased by 50%. Almost all Google results for Afghanistan surge on early pages of results refer to Obama's policy.
Citing the intelligence report is not an appeal to authority. You continue to use that phrase incorrectly. The IC did provide their sources and methodology, just not to you or me. But given Trump, who railed against the idea of Russian hacking at all, has the most to lose from it being proven, and has shown time and again that he'll weasel word his way in to whatever new version of the facts that suits him, given he of all people does not contest the sources and methodology I continue to see no reason to do so. Unless you would now contend that Trump and Republicans are also in on the conspiracy to discredit Trump.
Your second block of text most definitely is an appeal to authority. It's you saying we should trust you because you personally totally know who's really to blame. And I don't buy that.
Or you can just keep registering new accounts on forums where people disagree with your worldview and try to sow doubt, but lemme tell you, that's a fools game.
I have convinced very few of these folks that Mac is, in fact, the best.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I know who Weev is too bro. :rotate:
It makes it quite difficult to graciously afford the benefit of the doubt
NNID: Hakkekage
Uh just to point it out, we're technically part of an organization that has multiple gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people on multiple continents.
That is some serious goosery, there.
Shit and run posting. :P
- John Stuart Mill
Ooh to be clear I'm not suggesting anyone is specifically a paid troll in here, I'm just saying we shouldn't sell our selves short on how visible our forum might seemingly be.
This is more like if USSR spies pretty openly did some shit with the flimsiest plausible deniability that the USSR barely pretends to hold and the openly pro-USSR president was refusing to acknowledge that USSR spies did anything at all.
The intelligence report has been mocked by actual experts in the field who even agree with its conclusions. US intelligence agencies are not legitimate authorities regarding computer security. Even if they were -- Citing their report as proof would be inconsistent with recent past showing them to often be wrong or dishonest.
If I were myself making an "appeal to authority" regarding direct knowledge about the Podesta hack (which I did not participate in) I would not have said people do not need to take my word on the subject. Consider it relating an anecdote with as much as that carries.
Nah, that's to vague a complaint to brush off a legit government agency's word, especially when it's backed up by other organizations. Every government branch and agency has some bad things in its past, and yes the CIA has done some bad shit, but just because they did something bad in the past doesn't mean their word means nothing now. To verify this we need to do this on a case-by-case basis, what periods are less trustworthy than others (I'd trust the CIA under Obama's guidance more than W's or Trump's*), use other sources to verify their opinions with government organizations etc. And understand the context for where they work - which is in the shadows, they're not the police. They're not going to share anything with the public even if it would be in their best interest. That's not what intelligence agencies usually do, for good or ill.
* assuming he doesn't dismantle or cut it back it some ways, and Trump better hope he isn't that stupid because they're the CIA. You have to be very careful handling those people or they might turn on you. It will take a lot of political might to reform that group, they're not the FBI.
I said "not outside the realm of possibility," not "likely"
NNID: Hakkekage
Being mocked doesn't make it wrong. Especially if they agree with their conclusions. Indeed, should the experts that you are putting so much more credit towards agree with its conclusions that should leave no doubt concerning its veracity.
You can still say "people do not need to take my word on the subject" when making an appeal to authority. Especially when following it with the word but. It doesn't matter what you say beforehand. If you genuinely don't think people should put any faith in to something you're saying then don't post it.
Finally, you keep using statements like "lots of experts" and "often wrong" without any quantification. That only makes for empty arguments. If there's a significant number of security experts that think the report is wrong, cite the number and how it compares to those that support it. If the IC, a seventeen branch organization, is often wrong or dishonest then cite how often as compared to their proper conduct. But don't simply make vague claims without proof. It doesn't result in anything productive.
who is then?
edit: What organization would have to come out and say "Russia was behinds the hacks and the fake news and the propaganda" for you to believe it?
B. At the point at which even the Trump administration admits that the hacks are the result of Russian state actors, I am officially declaring that fact the First Principle of this thread and anyone still interested in debating the most basic facts involved can go to fucking Quora with all the other lunatics.
tldr: neither the identity or TRUE MOTIVES of other posters nor the fact that the hacks were down to Russian state actors are up for debate in this thread.
On the one hand, human intelligence can be subjective, humans can lie, humans can be "on the take", maybe there's an elaborate double crossing mole situation where Russia WANTS the CIA to believe this narrative like this is fucking Homeland or some shit. But that seems less likely than the scenario we are presented with, which is that various human intelligence sources, analysis of Russian motivation and modus operandi in past influence campaigns and hacks, analysis of known Russian propaganda arms and the timing of their narrative introduction/pivots in response to current events, IN COMBINATION with limited hard evidence such as electronic signatures, hacker "fingerprints", etc, support a fairly strong conclusion that Russia knowingly and deliberately waged an influence campaign within the USA to deliver an electoral result that serves its self interest.
Plenty of computer experts can credibly say, well, this hard evidence does not on its own prove the conclusion. But the report does not say that the computer hacking signature alone conclusively take us to their assessment. It says that three major intelligence agencies collecting different types of evidence from different sources, some covert, some "hard" and some "soft", TAKEN TOGETHER, lead to a confident conclusion that Russia was behind he hacks, and their motivation was clear.
NNID: Hakkekage
Douchebag white nationalist hackers with a long and well documented history of lying for self aggrandizement and the lulz I guess.
Also taken with the evidence that Putin has come out directly and said he wanted Trump to win.
Has the Trump administration actually directly stated that they believe Russia specifically committed the DNC and/or Podesta hack?
Yes.
Trump cites the national fucking enquirer as a source for his "facts"
Anyone who supports him should admit that sources and what's true doesn't matter to them, they're painting their reality as they go
As being browbeaten with the facts for like a straight month they half-assedly conceded the point. Should they get a cookie for only being like 5 months late to the party?
For the sake of clarity, even if they hadn't (they have) I don't give a fuck and your schtick is still over. My moderating decisions are a third thing that is not up for debate.
That does not sound like Trump stating Russia specifically did the DNC hack specifically.
From a European perspective the idea almost everyone here is taking a leap of faith in ascribing so much credibility to US intelligence reports is somewhat laughable, as we kind of just assume these things are politicised and far from "infallible". If we had not faced recent-term past tragedies on the basis of such faith, maybe I would be more understanding.
everyone else knew it months ago
Reince has apparently stated it more plainly on his behalf, which lets the true believers maintain their implausible denial.