Attributing the DNC Hacks to Russia – Bruce Schneier
schneier.com
schneier.com
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.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.