5 ms·

“Russia tried, succeeded, and continues to do it to the US“? Source? Which computer system did they break into, and how is it attributed to the Russian governm

“Russia tried, succeeded, and continues to do it to the US“? Source? Which computer system did they break into, and how is it attributed to the Russian government? Every time in the past when someone says this to me or I search for it online, the “hack” is that US citizens voted for Donald Trump. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... Doesn’t show any convincing evidence of hacking into election systems, or what the result of the hack was. At best I can see that people suspect WikiLeaks is connected to Russian intelligence and that the Hillary email leak originated with them, but there’s little evidence to support that. Besides, that’s not hacking any computer systems related to the election.

CalChris 7y ago
This is well known. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacki...
- mistermann 7y ago
  Were any details on the mechanisms they used released? The article is paywalled for me, but any article I've read only states that it was "concluded". Like, what attack vector did they use, do all states use common voting machines? EDIT: Was able to read it, and they don't even suggest any evidence. As usual, we have to take it on faith. Sorry, my faith cup has runneth out.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    As usual, lots of downvotes, but no one is physically capable of posting an excerpt of actual substantial, detailed, purely fact-based evidence, but rather only narrative based conspiratorial stories and speculation built on top of some relatively minor facts, that relies heavily on the human mind's ability to invisibly fill in the gaps with "common sense" (aka heuristics) where actual factual information is missing. Reminds me once again of the recent HN article: Most of the Mind Can’t Tell Fact from Fiction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20976567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20976567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20977196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20977196
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  I can’t read the article. Which computer system was hacked, what was the result of the hack, and how it attributed to Russian intelligence?
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    Probably the most relevant part: >It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Targeted != hacked
  - CalChris 7y ago
    "Which computer system did they break into" From the NYTimes article: While details of many of the hackings directed by Russian intelligence, particularly in Illinois and Arizona, are well known,
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Don't you find it just a little odd that you are so sure of something you can't source?
      - Bendingo 7y ago
        Good question. But unfortunately evidence, facts, proof, logic etc are all irrelevant. At this stage, the anti-Russia narrative will never die.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Ah, the NYT. Totally just a newspaper /s https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-staff-joking-a-1713336525 https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-s...
  - xysut 7y ago
    Don't worry they will eventually find the WMDs.
pimmen 7y ago
Would you accept a Special Council investigation leading to indictments and sentences, or a joint investigation by the US intelligence community, as a good enough source?
- akvadrako 7y ago
  Of course not. You need physical evidence of some kind or something that the public computer experts can verify themselves isn’t faked for political gain. The US intelligence agencies are known to lie.

CalChris 7y ago

This is well known. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacki...

mistermann 7y ago
Were any details on the mechanisms they used released? The article is paywalled for me, but any article I've read only states that it was "concluded". Like, what attack vector did they use, do all states use common voting machines? EDIT: Was able to read it, and they don't even suggest any evidence. As usual, we have to take it on faith. Sorry, my faith cup has runneth out.
- mistermann 7y ago
  As usual, lots of downvotes, but no one is physically capable of posting an excerpt of actual substantial, detailed, purely fact-based evidence, but rather only narrative based conspiratorial stories and speculation built on top of some relatively minor facts, that relies heavily on the human mind's ability to invisibly fill in the gaps with "common sense" (aka heuristics) where actual factual information is missing. Reminds me once again of the recent HN article: Most of the Mind Can’t Tell Fact from Fiction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20976567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20976567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20977196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20977196
simplecomplex 7y ago
I can’t read the article. Which computer system was hacked, what was the result of the hack, and how it attributed to Russian intelligence?
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  Probably the most relevant part: >It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.
kortilla 7y ago
Targeted != hacked
- CalChris 7y ago
  "Which computer system did they break into" From the NYTimes article: While details of many of the hackings directed by Russian intelligence, particularly in Illinois and Arizona, are well known,
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Don't you find it just a little odd that you are so sure of something you can't source?
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      Good question. But unfortunately evidence, facts, proof, logic etc are all irrelevant. At this stage, the anti-Russia narrative will never die.
jakeogh 7y ago
Ah, the NYT. Totally just a newspaper /s https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-staff-joking-a-1713336525 https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-s...
- xysut 7y ago
  Don't worry they will eventually find the WMDs.

pimmen 7y ago

Would you accept a Special Council investigation leading to indictments and sentences, or a joint investigation by the US intelligence community, as a good enough source?

akvadrako 7y ago
Of course not. You need physical evidence of some kind or something that the public computer experts can verify themselves isn’t faked for political gain. The US intelligence agencies are known to lie.