Schneier on Russian Hacking - deconstructed

[John Newman]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 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.

There has been some speculation, as I'm sure you know, that the NSA
was involved, e.g. using XKeyscore or something similar, to track
the attribution. See -

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/


I agree the whole thing stinks of a big lie propaganda move. But it's a
fucking crazy world out there.


> 
> > 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
John