Comment by alva | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alva | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Last time I will post this as have linked to this all over the shop in the last week.

At no point in the official statement [0] is Russia EVER blamed for the DNC hack and subsequent leaks. This statement has given the media carte blanche to make the accusation themselves.

When previously posted, numerous people have said it does accuse the Russians of this. I would urge you to read the statement extremely carefully. The amount of intelligence and man-hours that go into crafting something like this is huge. There is a reason why at no point, is any current official coming out and explicitly accusing Russia of the DNC hack. Note that at no point has POTUS, Earnest during press briefings of Clinton ever accused the Russians of the DNC hack. Every time they refer to the matter they take great time and care to get their wording right.

[0] https://www.dhs.gov/node/23199

edit: What I am saying is not far-fetched or crazy. For those down-voting I hope you get a lawyer before signing any important legal document.

Do not forgot Bill Clinton during his trial at the Grand Jury :"It depends upon what your definition of is is."

  At no point in the official statement [0] is Russia EVER 
  blamed for the DNC hack and subsequent leaks

(click)

  We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these 
  efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could 
  have authorized these activities.

Hmm.

That could easily refer to the previous sentence if this was in a courtroom

"Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there"

I have my doubts as well, but this seems pretty direct:

> The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

"the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations"

which recent compromises are they referring to?

They're referring to all recent compromises leaked "on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona".

You interpret it to be referring to the following sentence. In a court, a lawyer could extremely easily say this was not referring to the accusation in the previous sentence. It stands alone.

Each statement can be proved to be correct individually. They do not have to refer to each other from a legal standpoint.

"are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts"

The methods can be anything referring to hacking. Anyone who hacked the DNC would have been using methods (hacking) consistent with previous Russian hacking attempts.

Motivations? Motivations can be defined as someone wanting to take private information and making it public.

Read it like a lawyer. There is a reason why these statements are carefully crafter.

I am a lawyer. Reading it like myself, it's quite clear they're blaming Russia.

Additionally, why are you bringing in all this courtroom talk? This, and the many other statements by officials, have been directed to the general public. If the matter ever made it to court it would be the layperson's interpretation that would be key.

I fear you may not be well-versed in this area and I think it's really dangerous to be spreading such egregious misinformation.

Keep in mind the American public won't look at that statement with the same care (if at all). People (even Hillary, last debate) have no problem pointing fingers:

"[The hack] has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly from Putin himself, in an effort – as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed – to influence our election."

This infuriates me to no end -- misrepresenting the issue and making an enemy out of Russia with a single bold-faced lie. The problem is not Russia airing dirty laundry, it's that our politicians have dirty laundry to air.

I have a fundamental problem with this. Someone working on an election campaign still has as much of a right to private (professional and personal) communication as you or I do.

Good, then it should make you angry as well -- Hillary's repeatedly shown herself to be in favor of weakening encryption. Out of all the possible responses to the leak hers was the absolute worst.

If that someone is working for the campaign of a politician/party which supports NSA spying on Americans, he or she has no right to privacy in my eyes. The way I see it, if you want me to respect your privacy, you have to respect mine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com