U.S. officials say Russian government hackers...

[Millhouse]

(07-09-2017, 09:00 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: This is a lie! Who are you going to believe US officials or Putin?

I want to say US officials. But based on history, particularly over the last 15 some years, I honestly dont know. Honestly wouldnt be surprised if another Snowden whistle blower comes out in a few years and says it was NSA or CIA doing all of this making it look like Russia did. 

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 12:14 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I want to say US officials. But based on history, particularly over the last 15 some years, I honestly dont know. Honestly wouldnt be surprised if another Snowden whistle blower comes out in a few years and says it was NSA or CIA doing all of this making it look like Russia did. 

What would be the motivation of thousands of employees of these separate agencies, members of both parties, coordinating to "make it look like Russia did"?

On the other hand, what might be the motivation of one political coterie to constantly present "alternative facts" and sow doubts about US intel agencies.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-10-2017, 03:20 PM)Dill Wrote: What would be the motivation of thousands of employees of these separate agencies, members of both parties, coordinating to "make it look like Russia did"?

On the other hand, what might be the motivation of one political coterie to constantly present "alternative facts" and sow doubts about US intel agencies.

Really don't want to feed into the conspiracy theory stuff, but I just wanted to point out that thousands of employees wouldn't have to coordinate.

If 2,000 people are involved in investigating a murder, and 1 of them plants a gun with fingerprints on it, all of a sudden those other 1,999 people have "evidence". They don't have to be in on any coordination if they truly believe it to be true.

***I'm not saying this is what happened*** I am just saying that by no means does every single person, or even the majority of people, need to be in on it in order to be perpetuating it.

To give a real world sports example, remember when Ryan Braun failed a drug test, but said it was a tainted sample and proclaimed his innocence to the world? His (at the time) buddy Aaron Rodgers backed him up because Braun told him the sample was tainted and he was innocent. Turns out he wasn't innocent and Rodgers was seriously pissed for being duped into being his public voice.

Or like "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was built upon 1 person lying, but before you know it hundreds of thousands of people were treating it as fact.

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 04:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Really don't want to feed into the conspiracy theory stuff, but I just wanted to point out that thousands of employees wouldn't have to coordinate.

If 2,000 people are involved in investigating a murder, and 1 of them plants a gun with fingerprints on it, all of a sudden those other 1,999 people have "evidence". They don't have to be in on any coordination if they truly believe it to be true.

***I'm not saying this is what happened*** I am just saying that by no means does every single person, or even the majority of people, need to be in on it in order to be perpetuating it.

To give a real world sports example, remember when Ryan Braun failed a drug test, but said it was a tainted sample and proclaimed his innocence to the world? His (at the time) buddy Aaron Rodgers backed him up because Braun told him the sample was tainted and he was innocent. Turns out he wasn't innocent and Rodgers was seriously pissed for being duped into being his public voice.

You make a valid point about some types of fraud, Leonard. And also you are referring to a REAL conspiracy. They do exist, but they tend to be very small, a cabal of a few people.  Grand conspiracies, like the claim Bush engineered 9/11 or that Navy Seals killed the children at Sandyhook, do not hinge on the activities of one or two people.

In this case, however, intel products are the work of dozens, sometimes hundreds of people. If one CIA investigator slipped an incriminating piece of evidence into an intel product, its significance would be immediately recognized up and down the chain of command, and it would be re-vetted and then re-vetted. The reputable news organizations that reported it would also do their own vetting.

Further, the fraud would have to be ongoing--not one piece of data one time, but month after month, and coming from different agencies, and from the intel services of different countries like Poland and the UK.

So the kind of fraud Millhouse is referring too would have to be on an epic, 9/11 conspiracy scale.  I ask, is it more likely that all these loyal Americans in intel agencies are suddenly working toward some shadowy end or is it more likely that Rush and Hannity are desparately throwing out counter narratives to maintain support for a political agenda which could be threatened if Trump is impeached?

[Millhouse]

(07-10-2017, 03:20 PM)Dill Wrote: What would be the motivation of thousands of employees of these separate agencies, members of both parties, coordinating to "make it look like Russia did"?

On the other hand, what might be the motivation of one political coterie to constantly present "alternative facts" and sow doubts about US intel agencies.

As I said wouldnt be surprised, even though chances are it probably was the Russians, or someone operating out of Russia. Also I didnt mention it, but I was mainly referring to the elections and hacking done that released Hillary info.

But just for the fun of a pure conspiracy theory if it was us, I would guess it would be a very small group to an individual or two. When it came to the election there could have been a few reasons why, but I would guess the main reason would be to help Trump win for their own agendas & $$$. (just for fun mind ya)

In terms of this, only legitimate theory I can think of would be our own nsa/cia keyboard warriors were testing the security of our power plants. Then make it look like it came out of a foreign country which they can do.

I guess my point was that after what the NSA/CIA were doing during the Bush & Obama eras, nothing will surprise me anymore. But that doesnt mean I dont think other countries like Russia are fully capable of similar things.

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 05:38 PM)Millhouse Wrote: As I said wouldnt be surprised, even though chances are it probably was the Russians, or someone operating out of Russia. Also I didnt mention it, but I was mainly referring to the elections and hacking done that released Hillary info.

But just for the fun of a pure conspiracy theory if it was us, I would guess it would be a very small group to an individual or two. When it came to the election there could have been a few reasons why, but I would guess the main reason would be to help Trump win for their own agendas & $$$. (just for fun mind ya)

In terms of this, only legitimate theory I can think of would be our own nsa/cia keyboard warriors were testing the security of our power plants. Then make it look like it came out of a foreign country which they can do.

I guess my point was that after what the NSA/CIA were doing during the Bush & Obama eras, nothing will surprise me anymore. But that doesnt mean I dont think other countries like Russia are fully capable of similar things.

Following up on Leonard's point, I think it always possible that some single individual, a Snowden type, can set up a chain of causes and effects that becomes conspiracy like. E.g., one person might have hacked the DNC or one person inside the DNC might have given others access to the files--and Russians operatives are waiting to use it.  I just don't think something like that can be maintained by multiple agencies.

The Iraq disaster was certainly a black eye on intel. But the more you know about that story, the more you realize that that one agency, the CIA, was pretty much hijacked by the White House to fit intel to policy.  That certainly supports your point. And at the time, like now, the average citizen had no way of knowing whom to believe--journalists and whistleblowers who claimed the Intel was "cooked" or THE PRESIDENT OF THE US. Most people sided with the president. Then the Congressional investigation afterwards made clear that boundaries had been crossed, the speculations of white house operatives mixed with actual intel product, etc.

So I understand you position. Not unreasonable at all.

[Rotobeast]

(07-09-2017, 02:35 PM)Benton Wrote: The operational networks should be less of an issue as presumably they have better security.

I can 100% assure everyone that the operations of a plant cannot be comprised, in that manner. It doesn't mean the grids can't be messed with, but plants are not accessible.
It is also near impossible to have terrorists cause a meltdown, via airliner.
I know a gal in the NRC.