Hacker News Reader

Comment by openasocket | Hacker News Reader

People seem to be very upset at both WaPo and the US government, more than a few calling this "propaganda." However, it should be noted that it wasn't the government that said this was Grizzly Steppe, it was the utility company (Burlington Electric). It wasn't the government making exaggerated statements to the press, it was this private company. I think this is more likely a case of someone handling security for this company over-reacting after hearing about the Russian hacks of the DNC than overt propaganda.

View on HN

> It wasn't the government making exaggerated statements to the press, it was this private company.

Can you source this claim? Here is text from the original WaPo article - http://archive.is/8AEHq -

While it is unclear which utility reported the incident, there are just two major utilities in Vermont, Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric.

If BE was "making exaggerated statements to the press", then why is it "unclear which utility reported the incident"? The only statement I see from BE is the one they released on their site:

On Thursday night, the Burlington Electric Department was alerted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of a malware code used in Grizzly Steppe, the name DHS has applied to recent malicious cyber activity. We acted quickly to scan all computers in our system for the malware signature. We detected suspicious Internet traffic in a single Burlington Electric Department computer not connected to our organization’s grid systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding.

There is no indication that either our electric grid or customer information has been compromised. Media reports stating that Burlington Electric was hacked or that the electric grid was breached are false.

EDIT: One of the posters here linked to a much better analysis - http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-new...

>> after hearing about the Russian hacks of the DNC

Fictions built upon fictions. Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. It wasn't any 'state' actor.

    "Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months
     that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party."

The same people that took the fantastic and easily debunked claims of a power company and amplified it into a diplomatic dispute with Russia will not emphasize this; if they can't somehow discredit it then they'll bury it.

He's stated that, but why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite?

Russian intelligence are presumably quite capable of laundering it through an intermediary, which would make his statement literally true but misleading.

Because unlike the US government, WikiLeaks has a more accurate/transparent track record?

That argument only works if you trust WikiLeaks and a lot of people don't.

Alot of people also do trust wikileaks.

When reasoning with incomplete information, things like history of credibility have to be taken into account. US Intelligence services have been caught in lie after lie. Wikileaks has never been caught lying.

Trust is not binary. You don't have to "trust" WikiLeaks to wonder if there's something sketchy going on.

Since I don't trust anyone on this issue, my only conclusion is that I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not going to pretend to be an instant expert.

(In particular, I don't trust Wikileaks to know whether they are being played or not. Attribution seems difficult.)

It's by design that you don't know what's going on here.

Yes, that's how it works. It's still the right conclusion, particularly when you're not paying close attention.

What track record does Wikileaks have of positively ID'ing their sources? To my knowledge the opposite is true.

I suspect that is precisely the line that WaPo will adopt should they bother to address what Assange has said. They'll scrutinize his ability to know and verify what he is saying and they'll point out all the opposing arguments.

If only WaPo had applied this sort of scrutiny and skepticism to their 'Russians hacked the power system' story; millions of people wouldn't be misled today and perhaps the White House wouldn't be harassing Russian diplomats.

Does that timeline add up? The announcement about the diplomats was made Thursday, and I believe the original WaPo article was published on Saturday. You could blame the WaPo for being hasty, but they certainly aren't the reason Russian diplomats are being expelled.

> why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite?

because he might actually know? it was his organization that received the documents, after all.

is he lying about it? possibly, but what incentive does he have to lie about it?

was he deceived himself? possibly, but if that's the rabbit hole you're going down than what would establish confidence that _any_ claim on this subject is a truthful one?

because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda that is consistent with the narrative they have been aggressively promulgating through a complicit media? Assange isn't the one trying to start a new cold war. the Clinton faction of the state department and the CIA on the other hand...

> because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda

What is CrowdStrike's "clear political agenda" and where is evidence of it?

> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. It wasn't any 'state' actor.

I'm old enough to remember when a Russian disinformation campaign also said that MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian military...

I'll trust the experts in this case, thanks.

> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia.

After it came out from a number of sources, starting with CrowdStrike and later including the US intelligence community that the leaks were a Russian intelligence operation, WikiLeaks has proffered a shifting set of explanations, including for a while intimating that there was no hacking involved and that their source was an insider leak.

Obviously, WikiLeaks has an interest in not being seen as a pawn or dupe of Russia's intelligence services; OTOH, there's no shared common interest between the various parties that have attributes the hack to Russia in so doing if it is false.

Assange has no idea where the info came from--that's the whole fucking point of Wikileaks, to create a layer of anonymity so that information can be leaked without endangering whistleblowers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com