Schneier on Russian Hacking - deconstructed

[Steve Kinney]

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-security-and-office-director-national

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-opinion-schneier/index.html

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/