Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election

Weer een bericht waarin Russische inmenging in de VS presidentsverkiezingen als propaganda en verdoezeling van feiten wordt neergezet. De schrijver stelt echter dat hiermee niet het bewijs is geleverd, dat de Russen niet betrokken zouden zijn, echter gezien alle eerdere publicaties over dit onderwerp, kan je niet anders concluderen dan dat de VS zelf verantwoordelijk is voor het gebeurde.

Zo werden de Hillary Clinton mails, ten tijde van de democratische voorverkiezingen gelekt door Seth Rich, een medewerker van haar team….. De ‘dader’ Rich was terecht pissig over de manipulaties door het Clinton team, manipulaties die Sanders zijn kandidaatstelling hebben gekost……. Rich werd korte tijd later dood gevonden, hij zou zich twee maal door het hoofd hebben geschoten, zoals u begrijpt is dat onmogelijk……

Onder het bericht kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling:

By
Jeffrey Carr

Three
days ago, the Washington Post ran this article by Philip
Bump — “Here’s
the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in
the 2016 election”.

This
gist of the article was, since we can’t know what the classified
evidence is that supports the U.S. government’s finding in favor of
Russian government intereference, there is plenty of public evidence
which should convince us.

Bump
is wrong about that. The public evidence isn’t enough to identify
Russian government involvement, or even identify the nationality of
the hackers involved. That doesn’t mean that the Russian government
isn’t responsible. It means that we don’t know enough to say who
is responsible based solely on the publicly known evidence, including
classified evidence that’s been leaked.

Here’s
a recap:

The
X-Agent malware used against the DNC is not exclusive to Russia. The
source code has
been acquired by
at least one Ukrainian hacker group and one European cybersecurity
company, which means that others have it as well. “Exclusive use”
is a myth that responsible cybersecurity companies need to stop using
as proof of attribution.

The
various attacks attributed to the GRU were a comedy
of errors;
not the actions of a sophisticated adversary.

The
FBI/DHS Grizzly Steppe report was a disaster (here, here, here,
and here).

Crowdstrike’s Danger
Close report,
which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU
was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian
government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the
military app that they claimed was compromised.

The
Arizona and Illinois attacks against electoral databases that were
blamed on the Russian government were actually conducted
by English-speaking
hackers.

The
Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic
that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed,
analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected
the “actors” who sent out the spearphishing email to various
electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment)
and included the words “probably within”; meaning that this was
not a communications intercept.

There
are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the
fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It
was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and
an economic
incentive to
blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was
either flimsy or non-existent.

Does
any of this mean that the Russian government didn’t do it? No. It
only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it
did.

Click
for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load