
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections [pdf] - uptown
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
======
jcriddle4
Dear lord a dozen countries could use this style of "evidence" to support the
notion that the BBC(British Broadcasting) is deeply involved in nefarious
election influencing. I believe in freedom of speech including Russia's
ability to talk and influence. All the evidence not directly related to
hacking is just completely inappropriate. This "proof" doesn't help their case
against Russia. They should be focusing a narrow remit on the like's of
Gucifier and Wikileaks. What a mess.

~~~
salimmadjd
As a kid growing up through the 1978-79 Iranian revolution, I can tell you BBC
played a crucial role. We use to gather an listen to Farsi BBC broadcast in
short-wave radio. That experience has made me to be distrustful of any major
media outlet.

~~~
eternalban
I remember it. They used to announce demonstration schedules. And the line
from the Foreign Office was "BBC is independent". What a crock of shit. And
the New York Times was calling the Ayatollah Khomeini a "saint". (Let that
sink in.)

[https://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/khomeini-was-
pr...](https://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/khomeini-was-praised-as-a-
moderate-by-the-new-york-times/)

RT is clearly a propaganda organ and Russians are old hands at propaganda.
That much is clear. But the germinal issue, the elephant in the room, is that
corporate media in our nation serves such a thin gruel of "news" that outfits
like RT or (earlier) Al-Jazeera gain a foothold and establish "credibility"
simply by publishing what our media refuses to cover. Didn't they get the memo
that we have thing called the internet these days and other sources are a
click away?

The biggest nugget in this report, imo, is that NSA is not so hot about this
assessment. Which reminds me, did the former CIA employee cum whistle blower
dish out CIA's dirty secrets as well or did he just dump on the NSA?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Well then, the issue is to establish good journalistic sources, which publish
the important stories, while remaining independent of propaganda motivations,
including corporate ones.

How do we do that?

~~~
jwtadvice
Thank you for asking the right questions!

This should be it's own topic. Can you run an "Ask HN"?

My thought would be an information system that is jointly published in by all
nation states - like a broadcast Wikipedia. The idea is that out of the chaos
in the reporting the facts that every nation agrees on will get through
clearly, whereas the opinions, unfounded accusations and the rest will bury
themselves in a quagmire of costly effort.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yeah that's gonna run about as effectively as the UN, which is to say barely
at all. I do have a scheme I'm developing for this problem but I'm not sure
how practical it is.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Go ahead and contact me personally. We _need_ to do something about this, and
if algorithms can, algorithms must.

~~~
eternalban
Train it on this - a great resource:
[http://www.gdeltproject.org/](http://www.gdeltproject.org/)

I remain skeptical that merely flagging individual content as 'probable
disminformation' will the address issue.

Propaganda is, at its core, a form of _psychological manipulation_. It doesn't
necessarily have to involve overt lies. Omission of facts, tone, phrasing and
choice of words, etc. are all effective tools.

There are _patterns_ to propaganda. /That/ is their achilles heel.

------
Veratyr
The report seems to present lots of conclusions to controversial issues (like
the hacking) but it provides zero evidence for these conclusions.

The little that's backed up by evidence in there is Russia's public propaganda
efforts, like Russia Today, which aren't really anything new (though certainly
interesting).

What's controversial is the hacking and I haven't seen anything that
attributes the hacks to Russia beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence was
taken to a US court and put before a judge and jury, I don't believe a
prosecutor could get a conviction.

I understand that the US wouldn't want to give up its intelligence sources but
I also don't think that the people of the US should let the government make
foreign policy decisions based on hidden evidence. That's how Iraq happened.

~~~
cloudwalking
Isn't that how most foreign policy works? The WoMD fiasco was a problem for
sure, but the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust. When the
White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must be acted on,
the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is enough evidence
to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see fit.

~~~
Veratyr
> Isn't that how most foreign policy works?

It's how foreign policy has worked in the past but I think it's demonstrated
that it's not how foreign policy should work in the future.

> the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust.

That seems incredibly unlikely to happen. US elections seem to be mostly
decided by who has the most political capital and media support rather than
trustworthiness or merit.

> When the White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must
> be acted on, the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is
> enough evidence to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see
> fit.

I'd agree that this is the case but I don't think that the agencies themselves
can be trusted anymore. The head of the NSA told a blatant lie in front of
Congress and worse, got away with it. There's no accountability anymore so I
don't think trust is wise.

I think the US as a country can only function when the people trust the
government, the government respects the people and the people within the
government trust and respect each other. None of these things are currently
the case and I suspect things are only going to get worse. What that will
cause I have no idea.

------
tps5
Unfortunately there isn't any new evidence here.

First, there's no doubt that RT is Russian propaganda. That's not news, and
I'm unsure why it's in this kind of report. Paid russian internet trolls is an
old accusation too. I think it's probably true but I don't see any concrete
evidence in this report.

The real question here centers on the emails: did some Russian intelligence
agency leak the DNC emails to wikileaks? The report asserts that this
occurred, but again offers no concrete evidence. Instead it focuses on
establishing motive.

We do have concrete evidence (published by crowdstrike) that Russian intel
hacked the DNC. But we don't have concrete evidence linking the leaked emails
to that hack.

I'm trying to remain objective here. I don't think it's unlikely that Russian
intelligence was the source of the emails. I just don't see anything new here
to conclusively prove that assertion.

Maybe I'm being too picky about what constitutes concrete evidence.

~~~
idm
This report provides conclusions, not raw data.

If you are being honest with your comment, then you are unwittingly committing
several logical fallacies:

\- burden of proof: demanding confidential information that will never be
provided ensures you will never receive "proof"

\- moving the goalposts: this report includes several new analyses, but by
moving the goalposts it will never be "enough"

\- straw man: the issue is not restricted to DNC emails; at a minimum it
includes manipulation of US social media platforms.

~~~
tps5
Respectfully, I don't think I'm committing any of those fallacies.

-The idea that some information is classified and some isn't is silly. There's just information that you're willing to divulge and information you're unwilling to divulge. I see no reason to assume evidence that would implicate Russia must be so sensitive that the government would never divulge it.

-I'm not moving any goalposts. There's only one piece of this puzzle I'm interested in: evidence linking Russia to the leaked emails. I accept that Russia has a broad propaganda network that often attempts to undermine US interests. I don't see that as an extraordinary thing.

-See above. I accept the astonishing amount of propaganda. But the emails are the key piece here, and there's no concrete information in this report.

I don't dismiss the DNI's claims, I just don't see the extraordinary evidence
generally required for extraordinary claims.

~~~
idm
Thanks for your reply - I'm not accusing you of malice.

I would love to see more of their raw data. I research social media and I have
specifically investigated 2016 US election memes, so those data are extremely
interesting to me. However, the DNI PDF states:

> This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its
> conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but
> this version does not include the full supporting information on key
> elements of the influence campaign.

So, irrespective of yours or my assessment of what the raw evidence might be
like, DNI already stated that they think it's too sensitive. This probably
isn't going to change for 10-20 years (which is a common lifespan for
classified information) so you've just got to figure out a way to analyze this
situation without the specific evidence used to create this report. It doesn't
mean there isn't other evidence out there. Like I said: I research social
media and I have my own evidence stack. Some of it is here:

[https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-
memes/](https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-memes/)

I am considering the events of the past 2 months as "moving the goalposts" \-
and this isn't a personal thing against you or any individual. Originally, we
had statements from certain officials, but that wasn't enough. Then we had
consensus among intelligence agencies, but again that's not enough. Then we
had a statement from the president, but that's not enough. Now we have this
report and it's still not enough.

On the straw man, the emails are not the entirety of the DNI argument, so
reducing it to that creates the straw man, and dismissing the whole report on
the basis of the emails is just how the straw man fallacy works, in practice.
I am focused on social media, but you're focused on emails. It's okay to care
more about one thing than another, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the
rest of the report because you're not satisfied with the part you care about.

Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian
intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit, Facebook,
Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would be shocked to
learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims in the report
are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible.

My (sortof expert) opinion is that I think the DNI social media conclusions
are plausible.

~~~
jwtadvice2
> Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian
> intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit,
> Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would
> be shocked to learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims
> in the report are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible.

Perfectly agreed. The United States and China also have these sock puppets, as
do other countries. I think this is one of the reasons why people get into a
tiffy whenever I insist on working with the facts and not US propaganda and
rumors. Get accused of being a shill for Greece, Turkey, Russia, China, etc
all the time.

Social media is swarming with sockpuppets, and now the game has escalated
more, with H.R. 5181 passing in NDAA 2017, the Center for Global Engagement
will be empowered to experiment with the techniques for social media
propaganda developed by DARPA's SMISC program.

Don't know if the clock is moving toward midnight, or if just reddit is going
to choke on itself.

~~~
idm
> experiment with the techniques for social media propaganda developed by
> DARPA's SMISC program.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of SMISC - thanks!

------
SirensOfTitan
Gleen Greenwald from the Intercept has published some decent pieces on the
lofty "evidence" for Russian hacking, his latest being:

[https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-
rewar...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-
false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/)

~~~
philangist
Glenn Greenwald has already stated his opinion on this report:
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/817479125707399168](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/817479125707399168)

~~~
threeseed
You can always tell those who have little to contribute when they fall back on
the "there is no evidence" line. It's a declassified report. The sources and
methods that the US intelligence community uses is never going to be made
public nor does anyone reasonably expect it to be.

So instead of complaining about evidence. Assume that the Obama administration
is not trying to make their last big story before leaving a lie and refute the
motives etc.

~~~
SirensOfTitan
Show me evidence of your claims suddenly isn't a reasonable ask in the face of
an accusation? Don't complain about lack-of-evidence, just put your trust
blindly in someone. This argument feels quite weak.

------
maverick_iceman
I think a legitimate public service was served by the release of Podesta and
DNC emails. We wouldn't have known about DNC's stacking the decks against
Sanders otherwise. I wonder why all the liberal outrage hardly address this
point.

~~~
brown9-2
because only one party had their inner communications released

~~~
Lawtonfogle
I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no
foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost
if that had happen.

/s

Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how
this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.

------
hacker_9
So the extent of it is, Putin told Russia Today to bias their news in favour
of Trump? I don't care for Trump (or US politics, for that matter), but this
has gone so far into the realm of pettiness I cannot even believe what I am
reading.

~~~
kafkaesq
That's not at all what the report says, of course.

------
idm
> Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that
> blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt
> efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party
> intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”

I think social media have been undermined for some time, although previously
it was aggressive advertisers who were the culprits. "Astroturfing" is an old
word by now. During the US election, this was simply taken to another level,
and in a way that had a measurable impact on people's beliefs.

~~~
mtgx
Also, it's a well known fact Clinton paid "trolls" to change opinions online.

Isn't that "influencing the election" as well? The U.S. needs so many new laws
and changes to make its elections more fair (including media regulations
during electoral campaigns), I wouldn't even know where to start.

~~~
totally
Can you cite something to show that it is well known? I do not know this.

~~~
pessimizer
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record)

[http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-
record/](http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20160421163946/http://correctreco...](http://web.archive.org/web/20160421163946/http://correctrecord.org/barrier-
breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/)

[http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-
trolli...](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-
trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html)

edit: Insufficiently neutral sources?

~~~
totally
Thanks! It's still a stretch to say that "Clinton paid trolls" since PACs
(hybrid-PACs?) offer a layer of indirection.

~~~
colordrops
How is it a stretch? They were clearly and obviously working for Clinton.

~~~
totally
"working for" as in aligning their cause, but not necessarily "working for" as
in being paid by.

There's no indication that Clinton gave them money, is there?

~~~
colordrops
You can't be serious.

------
chvid
A lot of this report is about RT - Russia Today - the English language TV
channel run by the Russian government.

How is this different than "Voice of America" or the BBC for that matter;
those media give a lot of space to political opposition in places like China
or Russia.

Sure RT have an opinion and a bias wrt. US politics; but it is not like the
people watching would be in any doubt that this channel was sponsered by
Russia and had "an Russian perspective" on things.

~~~
mtgx
Ironically, the U.S. will now fund a "counter-propaganda" agency to do more of
this, too (I imagine with a more domestic focus).

[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/29/obamas-christmas-
gift...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/29/obamas-christmas-gift-to-
trump-a-ministry-of-truth/)

[http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-
release...](http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-
releases?ID=F973E46B-AA8C-4F3E-91B4-8EC0FC7F2F3E)

~~~
totally
Well of course. Nobody likes asymmetrical warfare.

------
stephenitis
page 21. It was definitely eye opening to see the quantitative graphs showing
how much Russian funded RT media's youtube views stacked up vs the major new
media. RT's subscriber base was similar and it's social media footprint was
much smaller but it's views were so much higher.

Were they gaming Youtube? Did the major news media decide not to engage and
invest in their youtube content? Red Herring?

~~~
someuser001
There's quite a few Russian accounts on Youtube with suspicious views counts.
Like the guy who cuts things in half with his glowing knife. Lots of Russian
spam and click-bait content too. Type in something about Ukraine, Russia or
NATO and scroll through all the Russian 'WW3 Illuminati' garbage that comes
up.

------
totally
"ProKremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on
election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory,judging from
their social media activity."

~~~
digler999
thats proof right there they didn't think their methods were going to work, so
maybe they didn't intend to "hack" the election in the first place ?

~~~
kevinh
So if I make backup plans, I don't think there's any chance of my primary plan
working? Don't be absurd.

------
noobermin
After watching HyperNormalization 2016, what the Russians probably sook to
accomplish has already been, a large fraction of the population is already
doubtful of the system as we have it.

Reminds me of this[0]

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316027](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316027)

------
rinon
Why was this discussion removed from the front page? Seems like relevant news
of interest to a tech audience to me.

~~~
idm
I hope it will be un-removed. This report is important.

------
totally
I really feel like it's harder to know what to believe and who to trust than I
remember it ever being.

Are there any good resources about how to vet truth in whitewash propaganda
situations?

~~~
alexandercrohde
This.

My go-to is wikipedia, which isn't perfect, but when you want to answer
something like "How much foreign cyber-warfare has America participated in?"
and get just the raw data you can trust it to not have an agenda.

~~~
ENOTTY
Raw data itself can be biased by the selection of which raw data to present.
That is why in court, one swears to tell the _whole_ truth.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Well then you are free to edit wikipedia, add new information if you have
objective sources.

------
alexandercrohde
My feelings on this issue are complex. Though I had previously been vocally
skeptical about attributing hacking to Russia, I'm a little more middle-of-
the-road now.

It's inconsistent for a foreign government expressing opinion on American
politics to be called "propaganda" while we allow corporations to spend any
amount of money trying to change peoples opinions via super-pacs. The line
between propaganda and political dissent is very blurry.

I suppose I'd say Russia didn't do anything "wrong," (after all Americans
foreign interventions are much more heavy-handed than anything described
here), but I do now think it's likely Russia did want Trump to win and that
Russia would potentially use more advanced meddling techniques if it thought
it could get away with it.

------
s_m_t
Well.... did they say anything untrue?

Our media stations are propaganda outlets as well. I get my 'news' from many
different propaganda sources because I've found that it is very easy to tell
when they are outright lying so I can just ignore that, but typically they say
something that is close to the truth. The thing is that there is so much truth
out there so each propaganda outlet will tell some portion of the truth that
fits their narrative the best. If you grab all these different portions of the
truth you can begin to piece it all together and have the biggest piece of the
truth possible.

~~~
colordrops
If you listen to interviews with any politicians or intelligence officials
it's pretty obvious that they are dancing around the truth and never answering
any questions. This is a partisan hit job.

And I can't tell if the DNC is supposed to be a private or government entity.
If you complain that they cheated and screwed over Bernie, people respond with
"well it's a private organization, they can do what they want". But now it's a
matter of "election rigging" and "national security" that they've supposedly
been hacked.

And if the information released was true, who cares if it was a hack? If the
information is true, which it appears to be, then it was a service to our
country that it was released.

~~~
totally
This report was commissioned with bipartisan support from congress. So, is it
a "bipartisan hit job"?

~~~
colordrops
"Partisan" is a more generic term. It's one set of groups going after another.

------
totally
"We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign
aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide,
including against US allies and their election processes."

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Well, honestly, it's not _that_ hard to avoid voting for Kremlin-backed
candidates. Just avoid voting for authoritarian right-wing nationalists or
supposedly far-left "radicals" who spurn international cooperation and cozy up
to Russia, and you're set.

------
dgudkov
Looking at the charts in the report it's impressive and worrying at the same
time to see that the media influence of RT is in the same league as BBC,
despite nobody heard about RT just a few years ago, while BBC has existed for
decades.

------
cypherpunks01
Seems like this was erased from the frontpage? Any idea why?

------
wonderflpancake
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Trump had RT and Fox News. Clinton had MSNBC, CNN,
Politico, NY Times, Washington Post, and most other MSM.

------
jwtadvice
It would be interesting to hear the take from the other fourteen intelligence
agencies. I thought they were going to be in the report?

------
avoutthere
Can anybody say with a straight face that this is not a politically motivated
report?

~~~
raverbashing
No. But this is an Ad Hominem fallacy.

~~~
jessaustin
When dudes be like "just trust us", and they've lied before, and they have
obvious interests in lying again, no it ain't everybody's favorite fallacy.

------
jwtadvice
Interesting bits of analysis:

1\. "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or
compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

2\. "When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the
election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining
her future presidency."

3\. "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency."

4\. "Moscow also saw the election of Presidentelect Trump as a way to achieve
an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL). "

5\. "Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on
election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from
their social media activity."

\-- Full stop -- Do they mean Americans who are "Pro-Kremlin" like many
progressives and conservatives that are anti-war? Or do they mean paid/covert
bloggers? It seems to me they mean Americans? In which case how is that in the
report at all?

6\. "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

7\. "RT and Sputnik—another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin
radio and online content in a variety of languages for international
audiences—consistently cast president-elect Trump as the target of unfair
coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient
to a corrupt political establishment. "

\-- I actually believe this to be true. I absolutely hate Trump and think he's
a despicable man and unfit for the presidency. However, I thought that the
media coverage of him was absolutely brutally skewed and over-the-top clearly
politically aligned. Anyway I saw this kind of reporting across international
media outlets and friends and family and other news media outlets in the US
said the same thing.

8\. "RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United
States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that
highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil
liberties."

\-- I think these speak to me because American media will not cover civil
rights abuses and curtailments in a non-apologetic fashion. It seems typical
to me that state-propaganda criticizes their adversaries' civil liberty
abuses, as the US does to Russia and China and as Russia and China do to the
US.

The whole section on RT seemed to be completely off topic and distractionary.
I only got half way through it.

I did not see any assessment that Podesta's emails were hacked by Russia or
shared by Russia. I was hoping to see that because people keep grouping it
into the DNC hacks.

------
youdounderstand
Dear lord, either Hacker News has a surprisingly large Trump-supporting crowd
or it's part of the Russian social media campaign.

Keep sowing that uncertainty and doubt on a report that is backed by
classified information. Do you want them to reveal the names and locations of
all our spies and detail our sigint methods? The end of the report says what
"High Confidence" means.

~~~
maverick_iceman
So we're to believe the government without any evidence? That's the classic
case of argument from authority.

~~~
youdounderstand
"the government" is made up of a shit ton of people. I don't think there's
some grand conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies, the Obama
administration, and even Republican Senators to make all this up.

~~~
pessimizer
You're right. There must be WMD in Iraq.

~~~
youdounderstand
You're being intellectually dishonest. You have no way of knowing about
correct reports that the intelligence community provides the military on a
constant basis.

~~~
3131s
Intellectually dishonest? You're the one who started this comment chain with
the false dichotomy that anyone asking for concrete evidence is either a
Russian shill or Trump supporter.

------
jwtadvice2
And spied, infiltrated and disrupted emerging political groups (Tea Party,
Occupy, BLM, etc) around the country with Federal Surveillance programs.

~~~
dang
Creating new accounts to get around HN moderation is not allowed. We've banned
this one.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13341032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13341032)
and marked it off-topic.

------
FLUX-YOU
[deleted]

~~~
RobAtticus
>Russia conducted an "influence campaign" at least from the time that the race
was only between Clinton and Trump, yet we only find out about it after the
upset?

Other than the time the US government pointed the finger at Russia a month
before the election?[1] It came up numerous times in the debates. Newsweek had
an article about Russia's motives a few days before the election[2].

This is not something that is brand new, why are you acting like it is?

[1] [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-
departme...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-
homeland-security-and-office-director-national)

[2] [http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-
russia-h...](http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-
hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895)

~~~
FLUX-YOU
I guess I hadn't followed as closely as I thought I had.

I'll delete this silly rant.

------
havetocharge
A synonym of 'propaganda' is 'information'.

------
dominotw
"this document does not include the full supporting information, including
specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. "

tl;dr : More of 'trust us folks' because KGB, Soviet Union, Emails , Putin ,
Youtube page views.

~~~
totally
Do you doubt that the conclusions are different in the Classified versions of
the document?

~~~
dominotw
Do you doubt that North Korea was behind sony hacks ? [1]

1\. [https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/update-
on-s...](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/update-on-sony-
investigation) \- the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the
North Korean government is responsible for these actions.

~~~
losvedir
Are they now believed not to have been? As far as I can tell it's still just
as open of a question now as it was then.

~~~
dominotw
> it's still just as open of a question now as it was then.

that still makes the 'conclusion' wrong.

------
maverick_iceman
What percentage of US electorate would change their voting preference by
reading Russia Today?

