US Officially Blames Russia

[WilliamSeger]

Quote the part that contains the evidence.

I think people should provide evidence to back up their claims.

I'm pretty sure that showing you what's in the classified report would serve no purpose, but I'll put you down as strongly supporting a full Congressional investigation, right?

 

[caveman1917]

I'm pretty sure that showing you what's in the classified report would serve no purpose

You claimed it contained evidence, yet all I can see are claims and accusations. Feel free to quote the part containing the evidence.

ETA: nevermind, you are now talking about the classified report, my bad

but I'll put you down as strongly supporting a full Congressional investigation, right?

No.

 

[phiwum]

You claimed it contained evidence, yet all I can see are claims and accusations. Feel free to quote the part containing the evidence.



No.

Can you explain why you don't want elected officials, from both parties, to evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion?

The evidence is confidential. I more or less trust the intelligence agencies to determine whether it ought to be confidential (if I can see it, so can everyone else in the world) and I more or less trust a bipartisan committee to tell me whether it establishes the claim. What other options are there? Do you distrust the claims of the intelligence community in general, or only here?

There's no doubt that we've been fooled before when it comes to such reports. The Iraq WMD debacle was one memorable time, though I don't know how much the agencies were to blame, and how much the administration spun it. I surely don't think that the agencies would have an interest in lying about their best evidence regarding Russian involvement.

 

[caveman1917]

Can you explain why you don't want elected officials, from both parties, to evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion?

As far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they want.

The evidence is confidential.

Evidence? For all we know it doesn't exist, it could have been fabricated, pulled out of context, or any other number of possibilities.

I more or less trust the intelligence agencies to determine whether it ought to be confidential (if I can see it, so can everyone else in the world) and I more or less trust a bipartisan committee to tell me whether it establishes the claim.

You keep saying "bipartisan" as if that means anything. All you're really saying here is that you've chosen a bunch of individuals and assigned "trust" to them.

What other options are there? Do you distrust the claims of the intelligence community in general, or only here?

I don't trust any claim which the claimant is refusing to back up with evidence.

Especially if the evidence which does get through came down to a bunch of IP addresses which were claimed to be "associated with Russia" but turned out to be Tor exit nodes, and a piece of malware "used by the Russians" which turns out to be publicly available to anyone wanting to buy it.

There's no doubt that we've been fooled before when it comes to such reports.

Apparently there's an old saying in Tennessee: "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

I surely don't think that the agencies would have an interest in lying about their best evidence regarding Russian involvement.

I'm going to venture a guess here and say that's probably the exact same thing you would've said about the Iraqi WMD's as well.

 

[phiwum]

You keep saying "bipartisan" as if that means anything. All you're really saying here is that you've chosen a bunch of individuals and assigned "trust" to them.

That is part of the nature of being governed, you know.

The "bipartisan" thing matters precisely because it minimizes the probability of bias. If Democrats alone were to look at the evidence, then we'd have good reason to be suspect. If both parties look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion, then we have better reason to believe that conclusion.

You seem to think that unless you personally see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim. But this isn't how we actually live our lives. I haven't seen evidence of the Higgs Boson, but I accept the testimony of authorities who I deem to be trustworthy. And I won't be able to see the evidence of Russian hacking, since I stand no chance to get a security clearance. But I'll accept the words of those I deem reasonably trustworthy. After all, that's the best I'll get.

 

[phiwum]

I'm going to venture a guess here and say that's probably the exact same thing you would've said about the Iraqi WMD's as well.

It has been a long time since the WMD story, so my memory is fuzzy. I don't recall a clear publication by the intelligence community (rather than the administration) that asserted confidence that Iraq had WMDs.

The administration clearly had aims and intentions for going into Iraq, for reasons which puzzle me to this day. I was sorry to see Powell sully his good name supporting these allegations.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Some reactions to the "report". Seems like nobody's buying Clapper's claptrap.

 

[caveman1917]

That is part of the nature of being governed, you know.

No it isn't, you're substituting ideology for objectivity. If anything it's the opposite, power corrupts, therefor people with power should be less trusted rather than more.

The "bipartisan" thing matters precisely because it minimizes the probability of bias.

No it doesn't. It lowers the probability of bias, I'll give you that, but it doesn't minimize it. What would come close to minimizing the probability of bias would be publishing the evidence so that everyone can have a go at it.

If Democrats alone were to look at the evidence, then we'd have good reason to be suspect. If both parties look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion, then we have better reason to believe that conclusion.

Still indistinguishable from having zero reason to believe that conclusion.

You seem to think that unless you personally see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim.

No, I think that unless anyone can, at least in principle, see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim.

But this isn't how we actually live our lives.

Not sure who this "we" is you're talking about, but if you mean "Americans" live their lives by assigning "trust" to their government then you'd be wrong.

I haven't seen evidence of the Higgs Boson, but I accept the testimony of authorities who I deem to be trustworthy.

Actually, if you were doubtful of the Higgs boson, you could easily find publications on the evidence, you could get the dataset and do your own analysis, or you could do the entire experiment again yourself.

You are using a faulty analogy, since scientific "authority" is clearly based on other principles (independently verifiable, for one, but also others) than governmental "authority".

And I won't be able to see the evidence of Russian hacking, since I stand no chance to get a security clearance.

We haven't even established yet that there is any evidence in the first place.

How do you know that, specifically, not getting a security clearance is the reason you won't be able to see the evidence of Russian hacking? In what way have you eliminated the possibility of, even having a security clearance, still not seeing evidence because what is there has *insert flaw*?

But I'll accept the words of those I deem reasonably trustworthy. After all, that's the best I'll get.

It could also be the worst you'll get, depending on who exactly you deem "reasonably trustworthy".

 

[phiwum]

No it isn't, you're substituting ideology for objectivity. If anything it's the opposite, power corrupts, therefor people with power should be less trusted rather than more.



No it doesn't. It lowers the probability of bias, I'll give you that, but it doesn't minimize it. What would come close to minimizing the probability of bias would be publishing the evidence so that everyone can have a go at it.



Still indistinguishable from having zero reason to believe that conclusion.



No, I think that unless anyone can, at least in principle, see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim.



Not sure who this "we" is you're talking about, but if you mean "Americans" live their lives by assigning "trust" to their government then you'd be wrong.



Actually, if you were doubtful of the Higgs boson, you could easily find publications on the evidence, you could get the dataset and do your own analysis, or you could do the entire experiment again yourself.

You are using a faulty analogy, since scientific "authority" is clearly based on other principles (independently verifiable, for one, but also others) than governmental "authority".



We haven't even established yet that there is any evidence in the first place.

How do you know that, specifically, not getting a security clearance is the reason you won't be able to see the evidence of Russian hacking? In what way have you eliminated the possibility of, even having a security clearance, still not seeing evidence because what is there has *insert flaw*?



It could also be the worst you'll get, depending on who exactly you deem "reasonably trustworthy".

This seems to be an unreasonably naive view of skepticism. If a bipartisan group of senators, roughly half of whom have a vested interest in denying the claim, agree that the evidence is there, then it seems to me more plausible than not. You won't see the evidence with your own eyes, and it might take some time to even understand what you're seeing, if you aren't trained in computer security. (In this respect, the analogy with the Higgs Boson was apt -- it would take years of study to determine whether or not the evidence was there.)

So long as you require personally reviewing the evidence, there are many claims made by the intelligence community which falls short of your standard. So it goes.

 

[caveman1917]

This seems to be an unreasonably naive view of skepticism.

Yours is the unreasonably naive position, as well as the ideological one.

If a bipartisan group of senators, roughly half of whom have a vested interest in denying the claim, agree that the evidence is there, then it seems to me more plausible than not.

A few senators in the US does not constitute an oracle, no matter how "bipartisan" they may be.

You won't see the evidence with your own eyes, and it might take some time to even understand what you're seeing, if you aren't trained in computer security. (In this respect, the analogy with the Higgs Boson was apt -- it would take years of study to determine whether or not the evidence was there.)

This is irrelevant. Besides, then why not show the evidence to a bunch of computer scientists rather than some senators in the US?

So long as you require personally reviewing the evidence, there are many claims made by the intelligence community which falls short of your standard.

I don't require that.

 

[phiwum]

Yours is the unreasonably naive position, as well as the ideological one.



A few senators in the US does not constitute an oracle, no matter how "bipartisan" they may be.



This is irrelevant. Besides, then why not show the evidence to a bunch of computer scientists rather than some senators in the US?

Because a bunch of computer scientists have not been elected to represent us. It is part of the role of senators to investigate matters like this, being shown evidence that isn't available to you and me. I expect that the evidence will be explained to them as clearly as one can, and I also worry that they're not the most qualified to evaluate it, but that's really how these things work.

I don't require that.

No? Perhaps I misunderstand you. I thought that you demanded to see evidence here before agreeing that the conclusion was correct.

 

[caveman1917]

Because a bunch of computer scientists have not been elected to represent us.

Well that's hardly my problem, no?

It is part of the role of senators to investigate matters like this, being shown evidence that isn't available to you and me.

They will be shown something, that's for sure. Whether that something is, in fact, evidence has yet to be established.

I expect that the evidence will be explained to them as clearly as one can, and I also worry that they're not the most qualified to evaluate it, but that's really how these things work.

They don't really seem to work at all. You're picking the statistically least likely to be trustworthy people and making them into an oracle. What would really make these things work is something called evidence.

No? Perhaps I misunderstand you. I thought that you demanded to see evidence here before agreeing that the conclusion was correct.

No, I think that unless anyone can, at least in principle, see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim. I've already said this.

 

[phiwum]

No? Perhaps I misunderstand you. I thought that you demanded to see evidence here before agreeing that the conclusion was correct.

I don't require that.

So long as you require personally reviewing the evidence, there are many claims made by the intelligence community which falls short of your standard. So it goes.

No, I think that unless anyone can, at least in principle, see the evidence, there's no reason to accept the claim. I've already said this.

Okay, fair enough. Your demand is even more extreme than I suggested. But that's not really a realistic demand. The fact is that sometimes, evidence is classified and the people who've been chosen to represent our interests (either in the intelligence community or elected to the Senate) evaluate the evidence and give their assessment.

That's how it works. Maybe you dismiss such reports each time, but intelligence gathering is not the same thing as science, and sometimes the evidence is hidden from the general public because the means used to gather it are sensitive.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This thread is an example of why they hysteria over Russia is being pushed instead of the CONTENT of the Podesta emails and other wikileaks material.

Look over there! Look over there! The Russians! The Russians!

But a lot of us are just reading the Wikileaks tweets every day because in ten years not one document they have released has ever been proven false. We get real content this way and have plenty of online researchers helping organize it in various themes for us.

While the mainstream media continues to blow its horns and sirens, clanging gongs and beating drums, trying to manipulate us into a stupor.

You can tell instantly whether someone gets their information from the idiot box, boob tube, or whatever you want to call it. The fact they can watch it says a lot about them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This thread is an example of why they hysteria over Russia is being pushed instead of the CONTENT of the Podesta emails and other wikileaks material.

This point is really really dumb. We have discussed them endlessly. Some had their own threads. We had threads about the content. This thread is about the process of releasing them.

 

[LSSBB]

This thread is an example of why they hysteria over Russia is being pushed instead of the CONTENT of the Podesta emails and other wikileaks material.

Look over there! Look over there! The Russians! The Russians!

But a lot of us are just reading the Wikileaks tweets every day because in ten years not one document they have released has ever been proven false. We get real content this way and have plenty of online researchers helping organize it in various themes for us.

While the mainstream media continues to blow its horns and sirens, clanging gongs and beating drums, trying to manipulate us into a stupor.

You can tell instantly whether someone gets their information from the idiot box, boob tube, or whatever you want to call it. The fact they can watch it says a lot about them.

Say, what was in the content of the Republican and Trump campaign emails, that didn't get released?

 

[zorro99]

This was already linked to, it contains no evidence.

As stated, the declassified report does not contain specific evidence as doing so would compromise intelligence sources and methods.

However, I suspect that President Obama will declassify portions of the report prior to his leaving office.

In the meantime, here's a good article from the NYT providing a pretty good case using publicly-available information that the Russians successfully phished Podesta's email credentials. I suggested reading it in full prior to commenting:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-hack-evidence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

BTW: Mr. Trump asserted that a 400-pound man from his bed hacked the DNC. Are you aware of any evidence that would support his contention?

 

[caveman1917]

Okay, fair enough. Your demand is even more extreme than I suggested.

What is extreme is your demand that a few random people should be considered an oracle, apparently because your ideology requires this. How is this different from some religious cult?

That's how it works.

It doesn't work at all.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As stated, the declassified report does not contain specific evidence as doing so would compromise intelligence sources and methods.

Then we should ignore the claims

 

[phiwum]

BTW: Mr. Trump asserted that a 400-pound man from his bed hacked the DNC. Are you aware of any evidence that would support his contention?

It is not my habit to defend Trump, but no, he didn't assert any such thing.

He said, more or less, for all we know, it was our mythical behemoth. Not quite the same thing as asserting it was this guy.