On 01/17/2017 04:49 PM, Bruce Schneier wrote:
CRYPTO-GRAM
January 15, 2017
The Obama administration has been more public about its evidence in the DNC case, but it has not been entirely public.
To date I have seen many assertions, but nothing resembling evidence, in support of the allegation that Russia "hacked" the DNC and released damaging (but never disclaimed) DNC documents in an effort to influence the Presidential election.
The constellation of evidence attributing the attacks against the DNC, and subsequent release of information, is comprehensive.
I believe the Bruce must have meant to say something to the effect that "The constellation of evidence attributing the attacks against the DNC, if any, has not been disclosed to the public." Or was he asserting that he has been read into the programs that developed this evidence, and shown relevant documentation?
Obama decided not to make the accusation public before the election so as not to be seen as influencing the election.
Excuse me? Obama decided to make the accusation public in a press release, a.k.a. propaganda placement dated October 7, 2016. Its content was attributed to the "USIC" by the Department of Homeland Security. This press release was distributed with clear intent to influence the election. Read it here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-secu... The key allegation: "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks .com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." In keeping with propaganda best practices, this statement does not actually accuse Russia of anything - not if you read it closely and interpret it according to strict rules of grammar. The source of the statement is not identified: There is no such agency as the United States Intelligence Community (USIC per the press release), so it can not be attributed to any responsible authority or formal reporting process. This is the safest way to tell a Big Lie. The preceding sentence is not a statement by me that it WAS a Big Lie - so if I get dragged into Court for saying so, my hands are clean. The inflammatory pre-election press release from the Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security was followed up by numerous placements in the U.S. press, a constellation of assertions consistent this template: A reporter says an anonymous source claimed an unnamed senior intelligence official told them that unspecified secret information confirms Russian involvement in releasing incriminating DNC e-mails to Wikileaks. The timing, context and follow-on promotion of the DHS press release blaming the leak on Russia indicate it was a component of a larger campaign by the DNC on behalf of the Clinton campaign, intended to demonize Trump by depicting his stated willingness to negotiate with Russia as proof of collaboration with a foreign enemy. Post-election, the DHS press release became the rarely-cited but always referenced cornerstone of a separate campaign asserting that the election was stolen by Russia and Trump. This was the keynote of an apparent attempt to persuade the Electors to install Hillary Clinton as President.
Now, afterward, there are political implications in accepting that Russia hacked the DNC in an attempt to influence the US presidential election. But no amount of evidence can convince the unconvinceable.
To the best of my knowledge - and I have been following this story closely - no evidence of "Russian Hacking" has been presented to date. We have been treated to a few code names of "hacking groups" allegedly involved, and a couple of textbook diagrams of how hostile parties penetrate network servers. That is all. If no evidence can be released due to legitimate concerns for protecting sources and methods, and no substantial national security mission is advanced by partisan accusations, it would be nice if the "USIC" would stop exposing their super-secret capabilities to the world by asserting what they knew and when they knew it.
The most important thing we can do right now is deter any country from trying this sort of thing in the future, and the political nature of the issue makes that harder. Right now, we've told the world that others can get away with manipulating our election process as long as they can keep their efforts secret until after one side wins. Obama has promised both secret retaliations and public ones. We need to hope they're enough.
Would these retaliations include, perhaps, the murder of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, the downing of a Russian plane carrying an irreplaceable cultural and diplomatic delegation to Syria, the rapid deployment of a battalion strength U.S. armor force to the Russian Federation border, and a missile attack on a Syrian airport by friendly Israelis? And if so, should we presume that all-around security expert Bruce Schneier approve of these actions? I could interpret the Obama Administration's 11th hour provocations against Russia as an effort to create a massive foreign relations crisis for the incoming Trump Administration, intended to overwhelm its underqualified foreign policy contingent and deliver early control of Trump Administration foreign policy to the U.S. intelligence establishment and other Deep State actors. Whether this might have been a "wise" course to take, is a matter of opinion. As would be the legality of such a maneuver. It may also be possible that the Obama Admninistration's pre-election propaganda placement blaming the DNC leak on the Russian Federation simply started a domino effect that ran out of control and nearly caused World War III.
This essay previously appeared on CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/opinions/proving-source-of-dnc-hacks-difficult...
CNN? I will not here repeat the propaganda slogan presently saturating U.S. media, two words that malign the veracity of certain press outlets. But the shoe fits and Mr. Schneier will have a hard time taking it back off. That makes me sad. :o/