
Attributing the DNC Hacks to Russia – Bruce Schneier - Cozumel
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/attributing_the_1.html
======
rwallace
Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the
Iraqi WMDs all over again.

However, suppose for the sake of argument it was indeed the Russian
government. One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one
country in the world that cannot complain about interference in the political
process of another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's
the U.S. If you want a new world order where that's off the table, feel free
to propose such a rule henceforth and let it be debated, but you don't get to
retroactively say a new rule against X started to apply after the dozens of
times you did X yourself and just before the time someone allegedly did X to
you.

~~~
travmatt
> Given the absence of evidence that it was the Russians, this looks like the
> Iraqi WMDs all over again.

I always though this argument was a kind of ideological test - like it's
demonstrably terrible on it's face, but the people espousing it do so to show
they're willing to disregard logic and evidence in order to show their loyalty
to their 'side', like the Trump supporters who have told me with a straight
face that they believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. In
truth, plenty of evidence has been made available and public (most damningly
the report into the spearphishing campaign), and reasonable people can debate
whether the evidence is conclusive - but to say there is none is ridiculous on
it's face.

The second terrible part of this argument is the comparison to Iraq's WMD
program, because it boldly reinvents history. In truth the IC was very
pessimistic on the question, and the actual history is that Bush and Cheney
literally invented a new office to 'process' intelligence before it was
reported to them. But apparently, because a Republican President lied, we need
to believe a different Republican President and not believe the IC. Some
beautiful logic.

>One thing nobody seems to be pointing out is this: if there is one country in
the world that cannot complain about interference in the political process of
another country with the slightest shred of moral authority, it's the U.S.

Can't be a political discussion without an appeal to 'what-aboutism'.

~~~
rwallace
As it happens, I'm not on either 'side' \- not American, and if I were, I'd be
voting Libertarian, not Republican or Democrat.

My claim is that, just as people shouldn't have believed Republicans when they
invented stories to drum up support for starting a war, people shouldn't
believe Democrats when they invent stories to drum up support for starting a
war.

As for Trump supporters who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the
Chinese, I'll let you have that argument with them.

As for 'what-aboutism', are you going to start throwing that term around every
time someone points out you cannot with any shred of moral authority complain
about behavior in which you yourself have repeatedly and enthusiastically
indulged?

~~~
travmatt
>As it happens, I'm not on either 'side' \- not American, and if I were, I'd
be voting Libertarian, not Republican or Democrat.

You sure sound like you're quoting Trump almost verbatim.

> My claim is that, just as people shouldn't have believed Republicans when
> they invented stories to drum up support for starting a war, people
> shouldn't believe Democrats when they invent stories to drum up support for
> starting a war.

You're conflating several different parts of the United States government in
your attempts to make this a partisan issue, the United States Intelligence
Community (IC) aren't Democrat Party officials. Neither is Jim Comey, he's the
Director of the FBI, again not related to the Democratic Party. You're also
confusing McCain and Lindsey Graham for Democrats, they're actually
Republicans who've been the most outspoken on the issue. Again, we can
disagree on conclusions, but it's important to rely on some objectively true
facts as a starting point.

>As for 'what-aboutism', are you going to start throwing that term around
every time someone points out you cannot with any shred of moral authority
complain about behavior in which you yourself have repeatedly and
enthusiastically indulged?

No, I only throw it around when people tell me I should accept a murderous
foreign dictator seeking to weaken the established world order so that he can
successfully slaughter more of his neighbors in Ukraine and Georgia. I'm not a
big believer in appeasement, personally.

~~~
rwallace
> You sure sound like you're quoting Trump almost verbatim.

I'm making true statements. If Trump or whoever agrees with them, good for
him. If he doesn't, too bad. I'm not going to start supporting falsehoods just
because this or that famous person agrees or disagrees. Are you planning to
change your mind on any issue just because someone says you sound like you're
quoting Hilary almost verbatim?

> You're conflating several different parts of the United States government in
> your attempts to make this a partisan issue

Uh, there seems to be some confusion here. The only one in this conversation
who wants to make this a partisan issue is you. My point is that I don't give
a shit _which part_ of the United States government is doing this or that. I'm
opposing dangerous and hypocritical bullshit whoever it comes from.

> No, I only throw it around when people tell me I should accept a murderous
> foreign dictator seeking to weaken the established world order so that he
> can successfully slaughter more of his neighbors in Ukraine and Georgia. I'm
> not a big believer in appeasement, personally.

Ah, so now we get to the real point. It's not actually about the hack at all.
If that hadn't happened, you would merely be put to the trouble of looking for
another pretext. What you want is a war with Russia, on whatever pretext.

One of my favorite Terry Pratchett quotes is "the flipside of the coin of
which good and evil are on the same side." I use it for things that break the
abstraction that humans are agents, that turn us into Hofstadter's sphex
wasps, blindly executing behavior that an observer could see is obviously
maladaptive.

If you achieve your goal of starting a war with Russia, you yourself will die
along with the rest of us. You are intelligent enough to know this, but it
doesn't register in your brain. You are blindly executing behavior that was
adaptive in the stone age, but has become lethally maladaptive in the nuclear
age.

At that, I've said what I have to say. Have the last word if you like. All I
can suggest is to at least _try_ at some point to turn off the tribal politics
circuits of your brain, replace the labels with arbitrary symbols, imagine you
were looking at an alien species behaving like this and think what your
opinion of them would be.

------
dimitar
Schneier seems to focus a lot on a "smoking gun" type of evidence, which the
US intelligence community probably does have and it doesn't have an incentive
to publicize. Intentionally or not it appears he spreads doubt that Russia was
in fact involved.

However the leaking of the documents was done so sloppily there was a
significant _circumstantial_ evidence that private parties have used to
conclude that it was done by Russians or the Russian government. Arstechnica
can see some of the obvious signs that don't require any specialized training:
[http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-
dnc...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-
research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/)

Schneier mentions "techniques go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" \- well,
identifying motives is one of them and Kremlin definitely has an interest of
doing something like that and has done it before.

------
allthatglitters
The discussion of "Russian hacking' is a archetype of a "false narrative". The
"narrative" itself "hacks" the election.

------
ianai
What's sad is this discussion immediately falls along party lines.

------
draw_down
> Obama decided not to make the accusation public before the election so as
> not to be seen as influencing the election.

That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought
Clinton was going to win, i.e., that the hacking wasn't a big deal. Now it is.
This is one reason Dems do not have credibility on this issue- either it's a
problem for our democracy or it isn't, regardless of the winner.

Another reason is Dems poured cold water on the idea that the election's
outcome could be illegitimate, back when trump was saying he'd contest the
result if he lost. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are stuck trying
to declare the result illegitimate.

Personally, I doubt the strength of the effect this had on the result of the
election, and the Dems bungled it themselves by running a bad campaign and a
poor candidate. Now they want to point the finger elsewhere.

~~~
jeeva
>That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that he and others thought
Clinton was going to win,

If I see someone trying to do something shady, and don't think they'll
succeed, I'd surely care less than if I see someone doing it and they manage
to have an effect.

Also, hindsight is often said to be easier than predicting the future.

