UK defence secretary: Russian hacks are destabilising Western democracy The UK defence secretary has accused Russia of using hacking to destabilise the West. Sir Michael Fallon said the Kremlin is "weaponising misinformation" as part of a sustained campaign that goes beyond alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. NATO needs to do more to combat the threat, the senior cabinet …
"Hacking of political figures in an attempt to influence elections is likely to be the new normal."
Well, OK. I suppose that gives us the green light to expose Putin as a repressive, authoritarian thug who murders his political enemies and interferes militarily abroad, so that at the next election the Russian people can... oh.
I doubt the Russian people will ever get the information, Putin having destroyed any independent-media.
Cognitive dissonance?
Politicians and the media are almost uniformly regarded as liars but what they say is still treated as truth when it panders to ignorance and tribal bias.
I would be interested to know what proportion of the comments in this thread are based upon first-hand knowledge and what proportion is based just upon what the politicians and media are claiming.
I suspect that only a very small proportion of the commentators here are in a position to have first-hand knowledge and that the majority are just responding to propaganda crafted to achieve exactly those responses.
Some pertinent questions to ask would be:
Is the alleged* behaviour of Russia something new; are they doing something new and different or is this something that has always happened?
If this is something that has always happened then what are the reasons for highlighting it now but not before?
Alternatively, if this has not always happened then what occurred to result in it starting now?
Do our governments not also do this, and if not, why not? It would seem remiss of them if they do not.
* Alleged, because it is being asserted by people and organisations we already regard as liars.
Retaliation and manipulation are probably easier now with the Internet and with "social media" and then the news orgs (including El Reg) getting stories off other social media (like Twitter and Facebook).
I would suspect that it's easier to do in the "free" and "democratic" countries than in places like Russia, China, etc. where the news and even the Internet are controlled.
The link below provides a clear, simple example of what is going on. It could be multiplied hundreds of times; a Western government (usually the USA) or NATO makes a claim, which is "stenographically transcribed" by all the media. Nobody in the West asks any questions or does any checking. But the claim is subsequently found to be utterly untrue. Remember Tony Blair's "dodgy dossier" - much of it copied without acknowledgement from someone's thesis on the Web? Remember the WMD that could be ready to fire within 45 minutes? Remember how Colonel Qadafi was preparing to "slaughter" thousands of civilians in Beghazi? (Some of those "civilians" later killed the US Ambassador - they were Al-Qaeda terrorists). The Russian "invasion" of Crimea? (No Russian soldiers entered Crimea - they were already there under the terms of the agreement with Ukraine). The photos of Russian tanks "crossing the border into Ukraine"? (They were actually photographed in Georgia in 2008, and were even copyright by an Israeli photographer). The poison gas allegedly used by the Syrian armed forces (a year after UN experts had formally certified that all Syria's chemical weapons had been destroyed)? The hospital in Kunduz that was destroyed "by mistake" in an attack that went on for two hours? The 100-plus Syrian soldiers who were "accidentally" killed by NATO bombing, immediately after which ISIS terrorists swarmed forward to complete the job? And on and on and on...
https://www.rt.com/usa/376275-pentagon-video-yemen-10-years-old/
"The Pentagon’s website no longer shows an “important intelligence” video obtained in a fatal Yemeni raid, since officials realized the footage has been available online for a decade.
"On Friday, the Pentagon posted a video to the Defense Video Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) website they said justified the operation in Yemen which cost the life of one US Navy SEAL and several Yemeni civilians...
"The video released by the Pentagon depicted a man in a white robe and black mask demonstrating how to make Triacetone Triperoxide, an explosive used in the attempted “shoe-bomber” attack in 2001 and the London attacks in 2005.
"Only problem is, the video clips, titled, "Lessons in How to Destroy the Cross," were first posted to the Site Intelligence group website in 2007.
"Several hours after its posting, the material was removed from the DVIDS site".
Oh, and the BUK missile that was supposed to have shot down MH17 - although no one saw it from the ground or took a photo of it, even though its plume would have hung in the air for an hour after the launch? While all Ukraine's radars - both civil and military - had been shut down for unspecified reasons, MH17 had been arbitrarily rerouted over the fighting zone, and all Ukrainian air traffic control records have apparently been lost.
Protesting and mobilizing against establishment and the democratic process is destabilizing democracy.
Wall Street, anti Trump rallies, etc etc. I don't need to like my democratically elected leader, in fact I am rarely quite fond of any, but to value democracy is to cast your vote and accept the outcome, or we all risk a far worse outcome than a disappointing election result.
Millenials have adopted a dangerous methodology for starting a conversation.
I hardly think Russia is to blame. Social Media is likely a better candidate.
This post has been deleted by its author
"liberal fascists"!!! Oh, my acheing sides!
Yes, Russia is certainly and undeniably trying to influence the German and French votes, just as they did the US and the Brexit vote (and who knows, maybe the 2015 GE as well?)
The full -- well, fuller story about Russia and the Referendum is nowhere near told yet. [1] Presumably apart from unknown facts, and facts that are known but can't be revealed without jeopardising sources, it's considered too risky to put that news out yet when people are still in a shouty ranty CAPSLOCK sort of mood. By 2020, as the economic benefits of Brexit are really starting to kick in, people will be a lot more receptive to hearing that actually they were helpless playthings of a highly successful Russian disinformation campaign assisted by the sewer press. Well, remember where you heard it first!
[1] Even the TV station that was pwned by Fancy Bear for a year has only been muttered about in dark corners. Funny, really, cos you'd think "British TV station was controlled by Russia for a year" would be front page news; Paul Dacre and Murdoch seem to disagree though. I'm sure they know what they're doing, though, and it's all for the good of the country.
'"liberal fascists"!!! Oh, my acheing sides!'
To make things a bit clearer for you, the intended meaning would be "people who call themselves 'liberals' but are in fact fascists". Apparently many of the political leaders who identify themselves with the Democratic Party like to call themselves liberals, although in fact people like Ron Paul are much closer to genuine British 19th century liberals. (They are often called cranks in the USA, because they have become so very rare).
Then there are the American "conservatives", generally associated with the Republican Party. Rather oddly, they too behave exactly like fascists.
Who knew? But among the most distinctive features of a fascist state are the cult of personality, identity politics, extreme militarism, a tendency to attack, invade, and destroy other countries for the fun of it, and an increasingly tight death-grip betwen the corporations and the corporate state. Hmmmm, now which country in the world does that remind you of?
"Of course we will have fascism in America but we will call it democracy!"
- Huey ‘The Kingfish’ Long (governor of Louisiana 1928-1935)
This 'lefty media' thing is a canard, certainly so in the US. The most watched cable news -- by a wide margin -- is Fox, the Murdoch outlet. AM radio is dominated by right-wing talkers which have to be heard to be believed (and you still wouldn't believe it if you did if you weren't American).
Its true that a lot of people are fed up with the status quo because the got sold a lie. Many of you won't be old enough to understand what you lost and how it came about but suffice to say that the post war consensus of a job, a place to live, decent health care and a safety net to take care of you if you couldn't -- a deal paid for by the sacrifices of millions in WW1 and WW2 -- was sold out for the promise that everyone was to be rich. Thirty five years ago the promise wasn't realized for many (entirely predictable) so people are not surprisingly very annoyed. This is where things get tricky; there's no point in dumping a bunch of corporatists for a bunch of fascists, you're get just as well screwed with the only compensation of having an endless stream of enemies -- foreign and domestic -- to threaten you and keep you focused.
The Russian hacking thing is a good example of this. We all know the NSA is the world leader in this game (and its worth reading the history of MI6 to get the British perspective). Sure, its likely that the Russians are in there somewhere, but seriously? I'd just a big 'Squirrel!', diverting attention, providing a bogeyman and potentially softening up the public for a more Chinese approach to managing the Internet.
I do remember freedom, privacy, the promise of a good life, etc. Most younger than me, don't take these things seriously as they've not seen them. Or at least been old enough to appreciate them when they did.
Yes, I've heard some of the drivel on AM Radio that passes for "talk radio". Same for Fox and the other networks as all of them have an agenda and shouty people.
Pity that we've sunk this low. This not the USA that I went to war for back in the 60's.....
"'Protesting and mobilizing against establishment and the democratic process is destabilizing democracy'.
"I would argue the ability to actually do these things is the sign you are in a democracy".
So you are actually saying that, in your opinion, "protesting and mobilizing against... the democratic process" is the sign you are in a democracy.
When you are in Boots, do you protest and mobilize against it too? What an exciting life you must have.
But then for the hacking to have any influence there has to be dodgy dealing to be uncovered.
As a novel proposal how about having elected members that aren't dodgy crooked bastards for a start.
By not being a crooked bastard you run a good chance of rendering Russian hacking ineffectual.
If you'd ever got up off your sofa or gaming chair and got involved with a political campaign you'd find that actually there are many, many sincere, honest and well-intentioned MPs of all parties who want to do their honest best job for their constituents, working 80 hour, six day weeks for pay that, frankly, is laughably low. But of course it's much easier to get a few easy upvotes repeating the tired, boring cliched line that they're all fat lazy super-rich crooks only in it for themselves.
Give it a go some time, you might be surprised.
If you'd ever got up off your sofa or gaming chair and got involved with a political campaign you'd find that actually there are many, many sincere, honest and well-intentioned MPs of all parties who want to do their honest best job for their constituents, working 80 hour, six day weeks for pay that, frankly, is laughably low. But of course it's much easier to get a few easy upvotes repeating the tired, boring cliched line that they're all fat lazy super-rich crooks only in it for themselves.
Nobody doubts that there are many sincere, honest, and well-intentioned MPs around (you also forgot to mention that many of them are rather pleasant people to chat and have a beer with). The problem is that with the party discipline system and whipped votes in the Parliament, it really matters little what an individual MP or her constituents want or think: the party leadership calls the shots, and woe betide any MP who goes againts it.
From the point of veiw of an ordinary citizen, it is not material whether his or her MP works 5 hours a week or 80[*]. It also does not matter much whether that MP is honest, a crook, a church-goer, a boozer, a woomanizer, or a saint. What matters is whether the said MP acts in the best interests of all his/her constituents (and not just the constituents who voted for him/her) and follows through on the promises made at the election time [**]. With MPs expected to vote with their party most of the time, this is clearly an impossibility.
As far as MPs being laughably underpaid, that's only true by the banking standards. A back-bencher gets £74K p.a. plus fairly generous (but not lavish) expense allowance for maintaining a second residence and travelling between the constituency and London. There is also a pension plan, and what in effect is a termination allowance in case of a lost reelection. I agree that you won't get rich on this kind of salary - however, it is well in excess of what a software engineer (again outside of the banking sector) or a GP would make in London, and is about the same as a London salary for a full professor at a top-tier university. I hope you will agree with me that any of these occupations require at least as much qualification, intelligence, and hard work as what a back-bencher MP does.
[*] Incidentally, nobody can remain productive for 80 hours a week, week after week; the experience of the Royal Ordnance factories in WW II was that increasing the work week past 60 hours does not increase production per worker - and that is for a repetitive task, which requires concentration, but not much intellectual involvement. I hope that MPs are rather expected to use their brains, and not their hands!
[**] Funnily enouth, it is usually impossible to achieve both these goals. Which is yet another reason why single-mandate, first-past-the-post electoral districts are a terrible idea for the electors, but a terrific thing for the political players.
"By not being a crooked bastard you run a good chance of rendering Russian hacking ineffectual."
Mr. 0laf: While I totally agree with what you wrote, I'd add an important caveat: Russian hackers, other state sponsored hackers and hackers in general are also capable of changing the data already present in the victims machines. This would still allow the victims to prove their innocence -e.g. by providing recent backups of the data to forensic investigators-, but this is a time consuming process and wouldn't by itself prevent the bad guys from fabricating a scandal, say, a week before the election, in such a way that the hacking/fabrication couldn't be proved before causing harm, i.e, before the affected election's date.
Fighting this kind of issue is not an easy task, and would take important efforts, but the good part is that these efforts would not only protect democracy, but also help protect the general public and private companies from these and and other related problems.
A few examples of measures that would help here would be:
- First and foremost: Make IT companies responsible for exploits in their software that cause their customer's systems to be hackable. It could start with a small fine and a stern warning for a first offence, and escalate from there into 1% of the IT company's turnover, then a 2%, then... .This way, IT companies would have a real incentive to do things right from the start and designing their software and systems with security in mind.
- Take similar measures regarding breached companies and organizations that jeopardize their customers data by not exerting due diligence in the protection of said data.
- Boost the adoption of OSS programs and operating systems, and finance/support OSS.
- Make damn well sure that ISPs and phone companies can't profit from third parties hacking end customers systems.
- Add your own suggestions here :-)
I humbly posit that it is the lying, scheming, and thieving schumbags we tend to place in the elected office who destabilize what's left of our democracies. I am sure Russians in general and Putin in particular do not like us too much (after all, we did not give them many reasons to, did we?). I am also quite sure they would not be overly saddened by another example of our ineptitude and inefficiency, but blaming them for anything and everything what's wrong with our societies is just plain silly.
More to the point, this blame-the-russkies game just makes sure our real problems (like pervasive surveilance, disintegration of the middle class and reemergence of the indentured masses in its stead, the collapse of the meaningful democratic institutions, to say nothing of the environmental deterioration, the impending health-care and pension shortfalls) will get ignored until they can no longer be resolved without a massive social upheaval.
«More to the point, this blame-the-russkies game just makes sure our real problems (like pervasive surveilance, disintegration of the middle class and reemergence of the indentured masses in its stead, the collapse of the meaningful democratic institutions, to say nothing of the environmental deterioration, the impending health-care and pension shortfalls) will get ignored until they can no longer be resolved without a massive social upheaval.» Indeed. But blaming the Russians is cheap and provides the opportunity to channel more funds to the military (not so cheap), from which great profits can be made, while seeing to it that public investments which actually benefit people are derailed, leaving needs either unmet or subject to the vagaries of the so-called «market». A win-win for those who run things, and their mouthpieces in, e g, the media....
Henri
Actually we really didn't give them many reason. We funneled a lot of money there to buy gas, oil and other resources and made Putin and his oligarchs rich. And they came happily here to spend their money. Sure, we would have object in a re-invasion of the Baltic Republics, Poland and Ukraine - but Russia is still very large without them - and if money didn't go into buying champagne, expensive cars, foreign villas and palaces, UK football teams and megayachts but invested to create a real Russian economy, they would have had even less reason. Just, nationalism, imperialism and inventing fake external enemies is the best practice in Russian politics (from the tsars times) to keep consensus while avoiding to improve citizens life (and keep the money in a very few hands) - something Trump has just copied. Just like Puting, they have a pure lust for power - which makes them dangerous.
Actually we really didn't give them many reason.
Really? Having short memory much?
Forgotten this picture?
Let me refresh your memory, we financed it. We financed the non-Russian side, provided it with logistics and support and diplomatic coverage all the way to the UN level.
Russia showed restraint for 5+ years before acting. Same as they do now.
Oh yes, poor Putin, poor Russia... they were forced to make that havoc in Chechenya... just like they were forced to invade Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic.... also Russia never financed North Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Arab states against Israel, many African "revolutions", etc. etc...
"...just like they were forced to invade Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic.... also Russia never financed North Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Arab states against Israel..."
The last bit about 'many African "revolutions' is too vague to respond to, so I won't. Although I think you will find that the number of revolutions financed (and, indeed, organized) by Washington far exceeds any inspired by the USSR.
Are you seriously complaining about the USSR (not Russia) having "invaded" Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (actually Czechoslovakia in those days)? Really??? Do you think it would have been better for the Soviets to stay within the borders of the USSR, and leave those nations to be part of Hitler's Grossdeutschland? Honestly?
No doubt you are also angry that the USA and Britain invaded France - yes, and Italy, Germany and Japan. (The last two of which are still virtually occupied by the USA to this day).
Were you aware that Czechs, Hungarians and Poles (not to mention Bulgarians and Romanians) fought alongside Hitler's Wehrmacht when it invaded the USSR (including Ukraine) in a determined effort to conquer it and exterminate or enslave all its peoples? (As the USSR won the war, it only lost 27 million dead plus countless wounded and bereaved, and incredible damage to infrastructure).
When the Soviets began to push the Wehrmacht back, do you think they should have politely stopped when they got to what *had been* the borders of Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary and said, "Well now, jolly good, that'll teach you not to invade other people's countries. Don't do it again!"
As for "Russia never financed North Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Arab states against Israel...", that is technically true. That was the USSR as well - and don't forget, for many years it was under the close personal supervision of Stalin, who was Georgian.
But what of it? Have the USA and other NATO members never financed other nations? Has the USA ever exported weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq, Iran (yes - in the days of the Shah) and many, many other countries? Not to mention ISIS and other terrorist organizations.
And while the USSR did supply weapons, technical advisers and other help to North Korea and North Vietnam, why shouldn't it have? Those nations were desperately fighting for their very existence against US forces that cynically carpet-bombed and defoliated their land, leaving literally millions dead. Indeed, the USA may well have killed more people in Korea and Vietnam alone than died in the Holocaust.
And I humbly posit that you're talking crap about something you know nothing about.
Sorry for the intemperate language but it's the laziness of this sort of garbage that really pisses me off. Go join a party and get out there pushing leaflets through some doors, then come back in ten years time and tell us what you think of politicians.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am old enough to remember when the Internet was referred to as the greatest weapon of Western Democracies against totalitarian regimes. I am also old enough to remember that one of the factors in the decision to open it to civilian use taken by the Pentagon and DARPA was exactly that - to use it as a weapon to break information blockades in totalitarian regimes and to spread "our information".
Rule number one of handing weapons out: Never give a loaded gun to a man unless you are bloody well sure where he will point it
Rule number two: Have a bigger gun ready
We violated both and we are reaping what we sowed. Yet another blowback, just not one we can manage at all under the circumstances (in a hindsight - continuing to transmit rabid tripe via Radio Free Europe and slightly less rabid tripe via BBC Russian Service was a better idea).
Quite true. Dissolving a populace so they flow, and then being surprised everything's going downhill.
China have already installed kidneys to filter waste from their bloodstream, although we'll probably disagree over their definition of 'waste'.
Previously our cultural cardiovascular interconnections were simple - faces, phones, mail, media, and you could pretty much choose which you exposed yourself to, and they could be cleaned up to a reasonably high quality, to pump a culture uphill.
Now, 'clean' sources compete directly (and poorly) with untold numbers simply appealing to base instincts. The tide has risen, and anything unanchored has floated out to sea. And they aren't coming back.
The current state of the lawless sea isn't even that bad yet. If someone actually properly maps another culture (better than that culture mapped itself), and has the manpower to co-ordinate a realtime assault, you could probably fry/poison/suppress all the critical cultural nodes and harvest the severed connections with a 'quick and easy solution to the sudden problem'. Or just poison it to death. Making nodes not want to reconnect is as easy as cruelty is free. Just ask any girl gamer.
I'd start with a kindergarten Internet, an inland sea. Re-establish a controlled area with entropy pumps. At least you could keep the kids clean.
Seems to me that there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides. It used to be that we'd park a gunboat in their front yard - nowadays we just send a few packets where it hurts. Nice centrifuge you've got there son, be a shame if something happened to it etc., ad infinitum.
Hot on the heels of "GCHQ cyber-chief slams security outfits peddling 'medieval witchcraft'"
At the Enigma 2017 conference this week, Dr Ian Levy said world-plus-dog were trying to flog security defenses to tackle "advanced persistent threats," usually using photos of hoodie-cloaked blokes poised over a keyboard with Matrix-style green lettering in the background. But such figures – seen as untouchable, unbeatable, and untraceable – are chimeras, and it’s just “adequate pernicious toe-rags” who are doing the hacking, he argued.
Do they want to drive us crazy by cognitive dissonance?
Tell you what, whenever a western worthy is mouthing off about "the democracy" (especially one "threatened by Putin"), democratic process is being hollowed out behind the scenes and there sure is somebody who is going to be shafted soon (generally people recruited into "activism" with unclear objectives). First a little color revolution (currently "pink" seem to be the next color of choice), "our guy" getting installed because of his/her extreme democratic potentialhaving been an insider of the hourse of cards for a long time, then the well-connected consultants move in to seize or sell off assets while the the specter of an external enemy is kept alive ... Sorted!
Guardian.com Nov2016 "Why is MI5 making such a fuss about Russia?"
summary (from a foreign correspondent):
1) blaming Russia carries little cost & is/(used to be) aligned with USA policy
2) UK population seems to be getting more sceptical
"for all MI5’s warnings, maybe Russia’s time as the UK’s all-purpose fall guy is nearing its end."
Disclosure: I visited Moscow in 1975, it was grey, smelly & scary.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
