
Soros, the Open Society Foundations, and the Continued Political Hacks - cwn
https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2016/08/soros-the-open-society-foundations-and-the-continued-political-hacks/
======
dpweb
There is alot at stake in blaming Russia for the breaches. This was
broadcasted, without evidence? and readily accepted by the public.

For this reason it's essential that some security experts outside the standard
government contractor "experts" validate or at least weigh the evidence
implicating the Russian _state_ as the attackers.

\- Security contractors have financial interests in going along with the
popular political line / pleasing the govt.

\- Groupthink

\- Russian actor involvement does not mean Russian state involvement

\- There's benefit in claiming, only a state actor could have done this, to
defend one's security system that is in fact weak enough that several non-
state actors _could have_ penetrated it

~~~
ting_bu_dung
1) Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment of more than $12
million. Which, I mean, seeing how good he is at running a campaign is clearly
money based on competence!

2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was
to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.

3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's
foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking
America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization
and fighting inequality "hypocritical."

4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is
responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm
Hillary Clinton's campaign.

5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they
could get their hands on.

6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped
up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were
calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was
working against American interests in the region.

7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader
than Obama.

8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.

~~~
TenOhms
Do you have a link to evidence in support of #4?

#5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the
Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones,
something FBI wants very much as well.

#7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the
left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense.

#8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone.
Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough
love if they're going to be resolved.

~~~
dave_sullivan
Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've
seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along
with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies
re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being
an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch
money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant.

What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite
literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying
to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management.
Selective paranoia apparently.

~~~
anjc
So just to be clear, you have zero evidence to back up your assertion.

~~~
lern_too_spel
It wasn't his assertion. The user who made the assertion posted evidence that
you can respond to if you like.

------
zby
The question we have now is can it be done by enemies of freedom and still
lead to more freedom?

There is the logic of polarisation, of fight - both sides use whatever comes
their way to weaken the opposite. Russia wants to weaken the USA, so they
expose the political dirt to destabilize, and that works in the short term -
but I like to think that in the long term it removes the dirt and makes the
free system stronger.

The same thing: [https://stopagitprop.com/2016/08/13/exposing-edward-
snowden-...](https://stopagitprop.com/2016/08/13/exposing-edward-snowden-the-
xxcommittees-john-schindler-offers-the-counterintelligence-perspective/) \- it
escapes them that sometimes to reform and to make the system better in the
long term you need to weaken it in the short term.

Update:

And yet the same thing with the ex-soviet spies (for example
[https://www.google.pl/search?q=ex-
soviet+spy+youtube](https://www.google.pl/search?q=ex-soviet+spy+youtube)) who
defected to the west - all they see is the destabilisation caused by the
western activists - they don't see how the whole value of the west is based on
the improvements that happen because of the activism.

And this is not to say that there is no danger of destabilisation - it is a
dangerous thing - as we have seen in the Near East recently. But we must face
the danger with courage - because giving up the freedoms would make the
western system the same as the other side. And it is probably not as dangerous
as the dictatorship agents thinks it is. The dictatorships have a lot of
internal tensions - if the dictator looses grip - it all goes boom - but in a
democracy the tensions are released in small portions - by the activism.

~~~
tigerBL00D
I wouldn't paint the world in such stark colors. The only reason you would
even consider these people "enemies" is because the respective governments
having chosen to be on collision course.

Technicalities aside, these "revelations" should serve as a reminder that when
it comes to politics (including every version of democracy), there is a shiny
veneer of righteousness, and underneath is intricate machinery that serves the
sole purpose of controlling and manipulating the population. Both the US and
Russia are extremely good at this in their own ways. The Cold War presented
plenty of opportunities to refine the craft.

------
godzillabrennus
Cyber war is much preferable to real war. Letting Putin throw the secrets of
his enemies into the light to influence an election is probably going to stoke
a retaliatory response but another generation of humans will grow up without
total war upon them.

Mutually assured destruction is a hell of a deterrent.

~~~
imglorp
A full on cyber war would be devastating if well orchestrated. Fortunately for
us, it's all been piecemeal so far.

Full on cyber war to me looks like a erased economy by zeroing every asset and
liability in the banks and funds, with pre-corrupted backups. It looks like
bricked firmware on every router, industrial process controller, police/fire
radio system, public utilities, even vehicles. It would be like an EMP hit.
With nobody getting paid, no emergency services or utilities, public unrest
would do all the work.

If they do it right, it's like Einstein's quote about world war IV will be
fought with sticks and stones.

~~~
ihsw
Why zero assets, and not fudge the numbers for your benefit?

Why brick routers and SCADA systems, and not spread malware or cause damage?

Why shut down the police/fire radio system, and not air false calls?

Chaos and misinformation is more useful than simply shutting it all down.

------
tomohawk
[https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/Clinton_Email_Septe...](https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/Clinton_Email_September_Release/C05778285.pdf)

I'm sure he's just a concerned citizen.

------
cinquemb
-Re: attribution

You'd think with the number of high profile cyber-sec wonks on here beating
the It Was Russia™ drum, I wonder what they would think of Binney's
statements, and technicalities he points out absent from such hollow saber
rattling?

Then again, if what took place in the shadows is coming to light is true and
can be cross verified, then you'd think that would ultimately be valuable to
the public…

------
nikolay
We, the people of Eastern Europe, already know this geopolitical Satan
intimately!

~~~
saiya-jin
yeah, he is well known a __hole, that 's for sure. don't look for any
altruism/good intentions in his actions, rather ice cold calculation on how to
make profit on it in longer term, regardless of consequences

~~~
andybak
It requires quite a leap to disregard all his public statements and
activities, the range of pro-democracy organisations that he has provided
financial support for, his advocacy of democracy and the concept of the open
society in general, his long-term advocacy for Karl Popper as a major voice in
political philosophy and all the other things that point towards a genuine,
coherent and consistent belief in the essential qualities a society needs to
preserve peace and a functioning civil society.

Most of the anti-Soros conspiracies I have heard have been obviously either
ideologically driven or transparent pieces of realpolitik. On balance I'd
still bet on the man being motivated by altruism even if you conclude he is
wrong-headed in the his beliefs or methods.

~~~
james-watson
So riddle me this, if there are no borders demarcating countries, what exactly
is the definition of a country?

The open borders zealots like Soros never seem to have a clear answer to this.

~~~
andybak
I'm not sure I believe in radically open borders. I'm certainly not saying I
agree with Soros on everything. I'm simply saying that people who believe he
has sinister intentions are staking out a fairly extreme position.

It comes back to a tendency that I feel more and more is the most pernicious
influence of all in the public sphere - the inability of people to believe
that those on the other side of a debate are reasonable, rational, intelligent
people who are doing their best to solve difficult problems. We (and I include
myself here) have a deep-rooted impulse to characterise the other side as
either charlatans, crooks or imbeciles.

Taking someone seriously who has reached different conclusions to oneself or
has a different worldview triggers such cognitive dissonance that we'd prefer
to ascribe to them either nefarious motives or else some kind of mental
deficiency.

~~~
james-watson
This isn't a morality issue. Soros is a very clever, rational, and self
serving individual. This is currently the model citizen, as we are all
supposed to rationally optimize our own individual utility within the free
market.

Soros is a financial speculator, so he literally makes money off chaos. He
made his billions by betting against the Bank of England. Everything he is
doing to destabilize Europe and the West makes perfect sense from his point of
view. He is simply rationally maximizing his own utility given the tools at
his disposal. This isn't immoral, its rationally amoral.

Soros is the perfect counterexample to libertarian fantasies of rational self-
interest-run societies. Because it becomes very clear very quickly that one
person's self interest is another person's dystopian nightmare.

Childish good and evil narratives don't apply here. It is just a very clear
case of good intentions causing immense harm. When there is profit to be made
off chaos, you are economically incentivizing it, and will receive more of it.

~~~
andybak
Again - you're making quite a leap here.

All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the
open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him
profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to
him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating
chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too
tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions.

So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere
motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer
in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-
term effects of his actions.

Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase
his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to
a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and
many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.

------
runn1ng
Nothing in this data leads me to believe Soros does anything more than he
states he does. There doesn't seem to be any hidden agenda or any evil master-
plan.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
The fact the agenda isn't hidden does not make it less evil.

I remind you that Soros (through his Open Society Foundations) supports
illegal immigration and people smuggling into the EU:
[http://news.sky.com/story/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-
mi...](http://news.sky.com/story/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-
migrants-10346437)

His organizations and owned media regularly attack every politician or
activist who is against uncontrolled immigration, all over the Europe.

His goal apparently is to induce religious and racial tensions, destabilize
Europe with them and finally break the EU (he already achieves that, see
Brexit). And who benefits the most on European countries problems and EU
dismantle?

Russia.

~~~
empath75
That someone supports a political agenda you disagree with does not make them
nefarious and this kind of rhetoric really spoils the whole political process.

There are a lot of humanitarian reasons why someone might support migration to
Europe from an active war zone, you know.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
> migration to Europe from an active war zone

What slowly turns Europe into active war zone itself...

It's not about 'political agenda I disagree', it's about actions and their
results.

~~~
empath75
Yeah, and it's totally okay to argue that there's too much uncontrolled
migration to Europe. I think there probably is, even though I'm a strong
supporter of more open borders in general. That's a big difference from
accusing someone who disagrees with you of actively trying to destroy the eu.

------
zzzeek
"Others have made the assertions that based on reading some of the DNC emails
published by WikiLeaks that George Soros is attempting to influence Hillary
Clinton."

"others have made assertions", wow that's some damning evidence! Such garbage
on HN

------
tim333
Kind of appropriate for the Open Society Foundations' info to be open to
society to look at. I doubt it worries them much.

~~~
codyb
Yea, I saw "to have Obama leave office with a more transparent and clear
targeted drone killing policy" (paraphrased) and I thought "hmm, I could get
down with that.", and I'm confident the vast majority of open society
supporters could as well.

We'll see if anything interesting comes out but it might just make Soros's
supporters further assured he's on their side and attempting to do what he and
his organization says they're attempting to do.

------
the0nly0ne
there is government employee testimony proving the true hackers are unknown.
It's easier to paint it as a known boogeyman. Have to keep advancing western
geo-political agendas and must continue building up the military industrial
complex.

------
fhrjchcjdnc
Can you even imagine the sorts of things Nixon could have gotten away with if
he has simple been able to say in his era "I-It was an attempt by the Russians
to defame me!"?

~~~
TenOhms
And there was a massive groundswell of support within the government to keep
'their team' from losing. Keep in mind the only reason Nixon is such a big
deal is because Republicans were equally outraged, at least morally, at what
Nixon did. I don't think that would happen today if Obama did something worse
and I have my doubts about Republicans too.

------
igivanov
Regarding the presumed meddling of Russia, what is conveniently left unsaid,
is that whoever made the leak possible should be awarded a US medal for
Advancement of Democracy or something along those lines.

