[fweespeech]

> Sorry but this is pure speculation ( or fake news if you like the term ) by CNN, MSN and WaPo. Show the proof if you have any.

Are you kidding me? This has been known for months and is in declassified DNI reports.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

> Cyber Espionage Against US Political Organizations.

> The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.

> Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election represented a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations aimed at US elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US Government and other private data such as those conducted by WikiLeaks and others have achieved in recent years, and their understanding of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to maximize the impact of compromising information.

> We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts in the United States and worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. We assess the Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as at least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion.

> Russian Cyber Intrusions Into State and Local Electoral Boards.Russian intelligence accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards. Since early 2014, Russian intelligence has researched US electoral processes and related technology and equipment.

> Public Disclosures of Russian Collected Data. > We assess with high confidence that the GRU used > the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in > cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

> Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June

Btw this is the GRU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate

[azangru]

Pardon me, but this is not a satisfying answer to the request "show me the proof". Unless I am missing something, the paragraphs you cite are conclusions made by some authority bodies - based on evidence, perhaps, but without any demonstration of the process how such conclusions have been arrived at or of the evidence itself. Which makes these statements not independently verifyable. They can not therefore be regarded as proof - merely as an opinion.

[nl]

Actual evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620389

[shallot_router]

More: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/52uj5c/do_...

[fweespeech]

> Pardon me, but this is not a satisfying answer to the request "show me the proof". Unless I am missing something, the paragraphs you cite are conclusions made by some authority bodies - based on evidence, perhaps, but without any demonstration of the process how such conclusions have been arrived at or of the evidence itself. Which makes these statements not independently verifyable. They can not therefore be regarded as proof - merely as an opinion.

As you are a Russian, please provide me access to the GRU's classified intelligence and I'll happily enlighten you on what you want to know.

No?

Well, how delightfully odd that you cannot provide that information. It is almost as if intelligence gathering and the related evidence is frequently kept secret to protect methodology/sources while the end result of that intelligence is all that is made public for decades.

I'm curious, can you say anything negative about Putin in relation to his human rights violations?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukrain...

https://qz.com/336047/an-appalling-list-of-human-rights-abus...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/...

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/russi...

[azangru]

> As you are a Russian, please provide me access to the GRU's classified intelligence and I'll happily enlighten you on what you want to know.

This is wrong (I mean not morally wrong, but rhetorically, or logically wrong) on so many levels that I don't even know how to begin. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I totally agree with your point about intelligence being kept secret. Sadly, this is indeed the case. I do not invite US secret services to reveal their sources. I am only saying that if they choose to keep evidence secret, it is not reasonable then to expect people to believe them. In absence of evidence, there is no way of knowing whether you are being told truth, or deliberate lie, or anything in between. Like someone else in the comment above said, this is essentially a matter of trust. And frankly, secret services do not deserve our blind trust (no-one does, but especially not them, because misinformation is, by definition, part of their trade).

Let me be clear: I am not here to defend Russia, or Putin (I am sick and tired of our ossified, unchangeable government, but I prefer not to think about them too much; they are disgusting, like many other politicians, perhaps much more so). I am only trying to defend reason, and critical thinking, and the importance of making valid arguments.

[fweespeech]

> Let me be clear: I am not here to defend Russia, or Putin (I am sick and tired of our ossified, unchangeable government, but I prefer not to think about them too much; they are disgusting, like many other politicians, perhaps much more so). I am only trying to defend reason, and critical thinking, and the importance of making valid arguments.

And yet, the only time you demand proof is related to Russia and your account was inactive for over a month before that. You protest and deflect far too much for me to believe you are genuine.

Sorry.

> I totally agree with your point about intelligence being kept secret. Sadly, this is indeed the case. I do not invite US secret services to reveal their sources. I am only saying that if they choose to keep evidence secret, it is not reasonable then to expect people to believe them. In absence of evidence, there is no way of knowing whether you are being told truth, or deliberate lie, or anything in between. Like someone else in the comment above said, this is essentially a matter of trust. And frankly, secret services do not deserve our blind trust (no-one does, but especially not them, because misinformation is, by definition, part of their trade).

It isn't blind trust. Russia has an established pattern of behavior of such meddling in countries like Georgia, Ukraine, etc. as well.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hacking-in-america/timeline...

> May 2014: Three days before Ukraine’s presidential election, a Russia-based hacking group, took down the country’s election commission in an overnight attack. Even a back-up system was taken down, but Ukrainian computer experts were able to restore the system before election day. Ukrainian police say they arrested hackers who were trying to rig the results. The attack was aimed at creating chaos and hurting the nationalist candidate while helping the pro-Russian candidate. Russia’s preferred candidate lost.

> May 2015: German investigators discovered hackers had penetrated the computer network of the German Bundestag, the most significant hack in German history. The BfV, German’s domestic intelligence service, later said Russia was behind the attack and that they were seeking information not just on the workings of the Bundestag, but German leaders and NATO, among others. Security experts said hackers were trying to penetrate the computers of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic party.

> December 2016: Earlier this month, BfV head Hans-Georg Maasen warned "There is growing evidence of attempts to influence the federal election next year," referring to German parliamentary elections likely to take place in September 2017. Maasen specifically cited Russia as the source of the attacks, adding, "We expect a further increase in cyber attacks in the run-up to the elections." Experts believe the Russians are trying to damage incumbent Chancellor Merkel, who supported sanctions against Putin’s personal associates after Russia annexed Crimea.

Are you saying the entire Western world is engaged in a conspiracy to blame Russia for cyber attacks against multiple countries, some of which include elections?

Because, either this conspiracy exists or the fact that Ukraine, Germany, US, etc. all come to the same conclusion is based on actual evidence.

[sloppycee]

Depending on how the intelligence services determined it was Russia behind the attacks, it might not be very hard for a single country to masquerade as Russia to achieve their own political goals. It doesn't need to be a multi-nation conspiracy.

Taking the tinfoil off, Russia is probably behind the attacks but espionage is all about using misinformation; so who knows. Without the methodology behind how they've determined Russia was behind those attacks, we can never know.

[fweespeech]

> Depending on how the intelligence services determined it was Russia behind the attacks, it might not be very hard for a single country to masquerade as Russia to achieve their own political goals. It doesn't need to be a multi-nation conspiracy.

> Taking the tinfoil off, Russia is probably behind the attacks but espionage is all about using misinformation; so who knows. Without the methodology behind how they've determined Russia was behind those attacks, we can never know.

What would be the purpose in launching a cyberattack against Ukraine followed by essentially an invasion by another nation?

Who would benefit from Trump's election with nation-state like capability? Russia.

Who wouldn't benefit? Literally everyone else.

But sure, give me an alternative narrative that makes any kind of sense under your theory. I suspect you'll go with the China/TPP angle since its anything else. The problem with that is Clinton was also willing to drop the TPP. There isn't any other nation state with anything resembling a motive AND the capability.

EDIT due to rate limits:

> Do you know what the Russian defense was? It was the "who would benefit" argument.

Whatboutism. Thank you.

I'm well aware of what their defense was.

That doesn't change the fact this isn't one incident but a 10+ year pattern of behavior.

EDIT again:

> I have no political leanings, I'm neither American or Russian. Your biases are showing, w.r.t your hatred of Trump and your unfounded claim/assumption that Russia would benefit from a Trump presidency.

> Why does it matter so much who leaked the emails, rather than the content of them? If the DNC has nothing to hide...

1) That wasn't the only thing I mentioned. A list of war-like acts by a foreign nation isn't a partisan issue. (i.e. interfering with domestic elections is a war-like act)

2) Rather than meeting a challenge you know is impossible to meet (because there isn't an alternative villain that meets the scenario you propose) you chose to focus on attacking me. Cute but ultimately irrelevant.

3) Thank you for admitting the best defense you could compose was "WELL YOU ARE A DEMONRAT!" which is odd for a "Canadian". Good day.

4) As for the benefits, Trump wants to be friendly with Putin, keep NATO at arm's length, drop sanctions, etc. Its absurd to argue you he isn't a pro-Russian president.

[azangru]

> And yet, the only time you demand proof is related to Russia and your account was inactive for over a month before that. You protest and deflect far too much for me to believe you are genuine.

> Sorry.

It's funny. We don't know each other; yet you actually had enough interest in me as a person (not in my words related to this particular discussion) to examine my commenting history at Hacker News and to come to a conclusion. Which is based on circumstantial evidence (my commenting history). And which — whatever opinion you may have formed of me — is most likely wrong.

As a programmer (not a very experienced one), I've been reading Hacker News for quite some time. I have always found discussions here interesting and instructive, unlike on any other internet forum that I know of. I have never had a reason to jump in and leave a comment until I saw someone's criticism of someone else's example of functional programming, which sounded to me laughably wrong. This is when I decided to actually register and leave a comment to that person. I just couldn't resist.

And then, a day later, I saw a very similar discussion about Russia hacking the U.S. elections. I had been following the analysis of this story in the U.S. media since the story broke out. I have been annoyed by how easily this story got woven into the mainstream narrative; how easily the stories about DNC hacks, Podesta emails, and Wikileaks became to be regarded as acts of aggression of one country against another. I was dumbstruck by how easily political motivations of making Russia (which is not a lamb, by any standard) into a scapegoat get overlooked (believe you me, our media has a very similar tendency of blaming various events, including the Ukranian revolution of 2014, on the U.S.). That's why when I saw a comment of an intelligent human being that expressed an idea that so much irked me, I left mine. That people see it as evidence of my hidden motives, is both sad and amusing at the same time.

I am not qualified to talk about Georgia, or Ukraine, or Germany. I am not following their news. I do not follow Russian news, for that matter, either (they are depressing and sickening). I am not saying that Russia is innocent of anything, and that the whole world is in conspiracy against it. I simply do not know. I am only focusing here on the recent story regarding the U.S. elections, and on the quality of arguments surrounding it.

P.S.: > And yet, the only time you demand proof...

I was not even demanding proof :-) I was merely pointing out that the document you quoted cannot be regarded as such.