But remember kids, "the russians" interfered with the elction.
And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...
All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...
Can you be more specific with your criticism?
So what?
2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening
This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence.
3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking
What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence?
4. Anonymous sources
The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are.
5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA
So fucking what?
6. The public won't get to see the evidence
Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians.
7. The article mentions MH-17
So fucking what?
8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs
So fucking what?
9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated
lolwut?
10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other
So fucking what?
2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian)
3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax.
4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists'
5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw...
6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work.
7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article.
8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking.
9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it.
10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
Nobody ever said the russians are genius master hackers, only that their operation is large and well funded and they're not particularly concerned about hiding it.
The fact that Mitch McConnel wants to keep his Russian connections secret does not disprove those russian connections.
You clearly haven't actually read the mueller report if you think it's "discovering nothing" and "pointless". It's free, you can read it today.
1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house
sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
As you [hopefully] know now - it was all fake. There was no WMD, there were no mobile biological weapon labs, there was nothing. The evidence was all fake. The footage we claimed was bio weapons labs was of trailers that produced hydrogen for usage in conventional artillery (as Iraq said all along). Even after we invaded and knew the labs were benign we constantly lied. Rather than repeat our neverending stream of lies, Wiki has them nicely cataloged here [1]. Our ultra secret inside source who revealed his remarkable tale after achieving refugee status in Germany, was actually a Taxi driver in Iraq who knew nothing and had no connection to the government whatsoever, but was apparently a great con man - or, more likely, was an idiot we knew was lying but gave us more "evidence" we could use to achieve the goal of starting a war we wanted.
And this was not just American intelligence. This was American, British, German, and more. Intelligence agencies pursue their own goals and will happily lie, fake, and manipulate people and society to achieve them. We're now aiming for war with Iran. At the same time that Japan's prime minister decides to visit Iran, Iran in an unprecedented act decides to attack a Japanese tanker? Look, our five-eyes intelligence agencies are here to give you all the hot evidence for something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet conveniently gives the US absolutely every thing it could possibly want. Amazing isn't it?
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Disc...?
Today, many Americans have never even heard of the Iran-Iraq War. Those that have often never heard anything other than unsubstantiated American propaganda, particularly the American accusation that Iran was using poison gas against Iraq. An accusation for which there has never been any evidence.
When it comes to the American government and international affairs, any position less than reserved skepticism is totally irresponsible.