The Reds Under the LED's

Sorry. It's Saturday and I'm recovering from a cold. That's the best computer pun I can come up with at the moment.

Both outgoing US President Barack Obama and nominated successor Hillary Clinton have long been a cause for alarm. Not only are they amongst the founders of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) they both seem to be true believers in ISIL's cause. You could almost say that they both constantly hear voices in their heads telling them they must support ISIL.

As with all extremists neither Obama nor Clinton can really not understand that not everybody shares their beliefs. After all that would require the type of critical thinking that would make clear to them that their beliefs are in fact insane.

So in order for Clinton to replace Obama as President all both Clinton and Obama thought they needed to do was claim that Russia was out to get them. The thinking being that because everybody shares Obama's and Clinton's love for ISIL they would be equally outraged by Russia's longstanding opposition to ISIL.

The big clue that the Democrats accusations of Russian interference in the US election are not what they seem are the sheer number of the accusations.

In the course of the past year it's been claimed that Russia hacked the Democrats computers, the computer systems of numerous companies that manufacture and maintain voting machines and numerous states voting registers. Then of course there have been all the accusations of fake news and Internet trolls.

The sheer volume of the accusations makes it hard to keep track of which specific accusation is being discussed and then critically assess whether that accusation is true or not. Instead you get this sort of low hum of background noise that Russia is out to get America and only Hillary Clinton can save us.

This Democrat election strategy of course failed and Donald Trump was elected as America's next President.

Since then Obama has rather been abusing his position by amplifying the accusations in an attempt to shift the public mood to bind Trump to Obama's own anti-Russian, pro-ISIL policies.

A key part of this effort has been to task the US intelligence community to produce evidence of Russian hacking during the election. Rather than to, say, investigate the accusations.

A declassified version of that report was released yesterday (6/1/17) and can be read here; https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

For those familiar with this type of intelligence report it certainly makes for interesting reading.

The key part of the report is that it presents absolutely no evidence to support any of the accusations of Russian hacking.

Obviously I appreciate the need for secrecy means that the US can't go into too much detail about what it knows about someone else's intelligence capabilities. In fact in writing about ISIL I often myself hold things back for exactly that reason.

However much of the technical aspects of these alleged Russian hacks is already in the public domain.

This is particularly true of the claimed hack on the Democrat National Committee (DNC). At the time the DNC made these accusations the private computer security firm they were employing - Crowdstrike - made many of what they claim were the technical aspects public.

Crowdstrike's accusation is that the hack was carried out using a piece of malware containing code featuring the Russian alphabet. They also concluded that this code had been written on a keyboard set up to use the Russian alphabet.

However that it very far from proving that the malware was Russian in origin.

It could just as easily been written by a programmer in any one of the former Soviet states including nations which are now part of NATO such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

It is also possible that it was written by a programmer who was working with someone who was fluent in the Russian language - say someone working for a spy agency.

Also if you take even a quick glance at some of the http addresses you use you will see that in programming languages letters and symbols do not automatically mean the same thing they do in a human language.

Crowdstrike also claim that the timezones and IP addresses featured in the malware code relate to eastern European timezones and Russian locations. Again this is very far from conclusive proof.

You only need to go and change the timezone on the phone, tablet or other device you're using to read this to see how easy it is to establish a false timezone. Although it's harder than changing the timezone on your phone it is relatively easy to spoof an IP address to give a false location. This is actually a problem I had setting up my new router in the days after the US election.

The other problem is that this particular piece of malware has been available for sale on the darkweb since the end of 2014/early 2015. Therefore its presence merely limits the suspect pool to anyone with basic programming skills and access to a computer.

In fact it doesn't even demonstrate that a hack has taken place.

It is entirely possible the Crowdstrike purchased the malware from the darkweb and installed onto the DNC's computers themselves.

Either to cover up the fact that the DNC had simply emailed the data to Wikileaks or to direct the information to Russian based hackers. They would then be able to use the information as a sort of barium tracer to identify the links between those Russian based hackers, the Russian intelligence services and Wikileaks.

The fact that this report does not even acknowledge the information in the public domain let alone confirm that it has inspected the DNC's computers rather than simply taking Crowdstrike's word for it seems intended to undermine the credibility of the report.

The report's core piece of 'evidence' is that Russia would have wanted to influence the US election in retaliation for the US repeatedly using computer hacking to embarrass Russia and influence Russia's 2012 election.  That puts the reader in something of a logical bind.

In order to believe the report's claim of Russian involvement you must first acknowledge that the US has systematically distributed false information in an effort to embarrass and materially damage Russia. Having accepted that you then need to question whether rather than being truthful and accurate this latest report and its unsupported conclusions are in fact just the latest part of that campaign.

Having spent less than a page on the hacking accusations the report then concentrates on what it terms "Russian Influence Operations." This refers to the discussion of US politics both on conventional media and on social media.

This is something that is not - by any stretch of the imagination - related to computer hacking or something that is in any way illegal. It is no more an espionage technique than the "FOR YOU ONED" hashtag that is trending on Twitter as I write this or the #BestFanArmy that the iHeartRadio awards and Taco Bell are currently asking people to participate in.

I will agree though that Obama's decision to grant legitimacy to Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan's frequent pro-ISIL social media campaigns such as #AleppoIsBurning does raise serious concerns.

In discussing this topic the report does - seemingly intentionally - proceed to take another massive whack at its own credibility. It cites as evidence that some of these social media users must be working for the Russian government the fact that many of them also denied that Russia had sent troops to Ukraine.

That Russia sent troops to Ukraine has possibly been the most obvious lie the US has told about the situation there. If you were paying any attention to the Opening Ceremony of the 2014 Sochi Olympics that took place around that time you would know that Russia's Black Sea fleet was established by Prince Potemkin in 1783. As such Russian troops weren't sent to Ukraine. They were already there when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government.

If you start talking about a world where only certain people are allowed to report on US politics or discuss the topic on social media you are getting dangerously close to the Soviet Pravda system whereby the only news is the news that has been approved by the party. That is very much anti-democratic and the fact that Hillary Clinton and CNN clearly support that worldview has itself done more damage to the credibility of the US democratic process than the Russians or anyone else could hope for.

In what seems like an effort to highlight the normality of this situation the report then gives a brief 50 years history of foreign influence over US elections. It pays special attention to the traditionally close relationship between the Democrats and the Soviet Union citing Jimmy Carter's 1970 bid for the part nomination as an example.

At around 17:00 on 7/1/17 (UK date) I'll probably pick this up tomorrow.

Edited at around 12:15 on 8/1/17 (UK date) to add;

The report then goes on to dedicate 7 of its 13 pages to a report it prepared in 2012 on the Russian based news broadcaster RT which used to be known as "Russia Today." Primarily this is because the US intelligence community clearly don't understand RT and are looking for more information.

Unlike the Telegraph Office of the Socialist States (TASS) or RIA Novosti (now; Sputnik) RT is not an official news agency owned by the Russian government. Instead it is a private news network that is based in Russia.

However it turns out establishing and then running a global news network is hugely expensive. As a result RT does receive some funding from the Russian government. In return the Russian government looks to RT help it to use the private sector to refine its own soft-power efforts.

That Russia engages in soft-power is not in itself any way sinister. The UK does the same thing with the BBC as the US does with CNN. Don't even get me started on aspects of the US entertainment industry such as Rihanna. In fact in the form of the Eurovision Song Contest Europe holds an annual competition to test out each others soft-power efforts.

Those familiar with the Song Contest will know that Russia often has trouble finding its sweet spot. It tends to come out with things that are of such high quality and so complex they can't be understood by mere mortals. Alternatively Russia comes out with things that are so dumbed down they're impossible to be taken seriously. Through shows like; "The Keiser Report" RT is constantly trying to find that middle-ground.

In it's long discussion of RT the report mentions Georgia. This nation of course gave the World possibly the most spectacular example of fake news ever seen.

At 19:59 local time on March 13th 2010 (13/3/10) the Georgian broadcaster Imedi TV broke into its normal programming with what appeared to be a breaking news flash.

It reported that a protest organised by the opposition Democratic Movement for a United Georgia Party had been attacked by unknown gunman who killed several people. The opposition party blamed this attack on the government and called on the international community to act to protect them from the tyranny of the government of Mikheil Saakashvili.

It went on to report that almost immediately afterwards that the President of neighbouring South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity had been killed in an ambush. In response Russia had invaded Georgia bombing the capital Tbilisi killing the President Saakashvili. This coincided with the shooting down - by Russia - of a plane carrying Polish President Lech Kaczynski - an important Georgian ally.

This report was illustrated with shaky amateur footage from the scene, live footage of Russian tanks rolling into Georgia and reporters filing reports both on camera and over the telephone.

It was however all entirely fake.

Unfortunately though enough people wanted to believe it that they did believe it and chaos reigned. Georgian military units mobilised, bank machines were emptied of cash and several people died.

In apologising for the stunt Imedi TV claimed that they had been influenced by H.G Wells' 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcasts.

However a lot of people still think this was done on purpose by Saakashvili in order to damage the Democratic Movement for a United Georgia Party in upcoming local elections in a clumsy attempt to link them to Russia.

In a bizarre coincidence a month later Polish President Lech Kaczynski was killed in a plane crash in Russia.

So although everybody seems to be talking about it now fake news is not a new topic. I don't think any discussion of the subject is really complete without mentioning the 1994 BBC series; "The Day Today."

If you are familiar with its history you can easily see how fake news has grown organically in eastern European nations such as Georgia and Macedonia as the Internet has expanded.

At around 13:10 on 8/1/17 (UK date) I've still got a little more to add later.

Edited at around 16:25 on 8/1/17 (UK date) to tidy up and add;

Mainly though the report seemed to be a massive advert for RT. It's as if the US intelligence community are encouraging more Americans to watch it because they've acknowledged that US broadcasters like CNN and NBC have become biased to the point of being beyond satire.

The report lays out a number of examples of the "smears" RT levelled against Hillary Clinton.  The main one of these was pointing out that the US media was hugely biased in favour of Hillary Clinton. Rather than being a smear or a lie that was a simple statement of fact.

My father isn't particularly interested in US politics. Nor is he particularly good at telling when people are lying to or trying to manipulate him. However even he would sit there watching CNN pointing out that it was clear that they wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

I think the prize though really has to go to CNN anchor Kate Bolduan who presented a daily show called "State of the Race" summing up the day's events in the election campaign.

In one particular episode she was surrounded by the usual panel of five Hillary Clinton supporters and one token Donald Trump supporter. At one point the Trump supporter asked Bolduan why CNN wasn't covering all the scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton. Bolduan snapped back; "We decide what voters talk about."

One of the other "smears" against Hillary Clinton the report cites is her links to Islamist terrorism.

The US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) has itself detailed how as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one of the key founders of ISIL. The Clinton campaign itself made Saudi lobbyist Khizr Khan a major part of it's campaign and invited the father of the Pulse nightclub attacker Omar Mateen to a Hillary Clinton campaign rally. 

Another example of a "smear" the report cited was concerns about Hillary Clinton's health.

Since 2012 Hillary Clinton has been treated with drugs to prevent stroke following a stroke-like fall. On the campaign trail there were numerous incidents where Hillary Clinton seemed to momentarily lose consciousness - most notable at the September 11th memorial.

However if you paid attention to the 2016 Rio Para-Olympic games Opening Ceremony you would know that even before the September 11th memorial nations with their own doctors were already openly discussing the red flags regarding Hillary Clinton's health.

So again rather than being smears or lies these were simply facts that RT was reporting on while US broadcasters like CNN were refusing to cover them.

The report also talks extensively about RT coverage of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.

These of course were sponsored by the Democrat Party and represented during the primary by Bernie Sanders. Although this part of the report was written back in 2012 Occupy Wall Street went on to become "Black Lives Matter."

If you want to talk about "Post-Truth Politics" the Michael Brown case and the; "Hands Up. Don't Shoot" slogan have got to be a prime example.

So it sounds as if the report was claiming the main element of Russia's attempts to discredit Hillary Clinton were in fact the policies of President Barack Obama.

In this particular conspiracy theory I think that makes Obama a Russian spy.

Also traditionally the intelligence community do like to get the measure of their next President. This report seems to have provided them with an opportunity to do so.

Just before the public report was released President-elect Donald Trump sat down with the intelligence community to discuss the full report.

That version of the report no doubt included the technical aspects of the investigation. Donald Trump's first test would be whether he understood any of it.

Also before being presented with the report Trump had claimed on Twitter that the intelligence community hadn't bothered examine the DNC's servers instead choosing to just take Crowdstrike's word for it. So Trump's second test would be whether he would leak any of the classified aspects of the report.

The report also used what is termed; "Estimative Language" which talks about the likelihood of an event and the confidence in the assessment. This is a common technique but one that is particularly used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce their assessments.

Obama's legacy and the Paris Agreement are almost entirely separate from the battle against Climate Change.

However as I'm sure people in Alaska will tell you if Trump truly does not believe that Climate Change is both real and manmade then that is going to be a serious problem.

17:20 on 8/1/17 (UK date).

Edited at around 11:10 on 11/1/17 (UK date) to add;

I think we've found John McCain's new codename.

Yesterday (10/1/17) the US Senate intelligence committee held a session on this intelligence report. The key detail revealed was that the DNC had repeatedly denied requests to have their servers inspected to verify Crowdstrike's claim. As a result this is not the US intelligence community's report into Russian hacking. It is the DNC's.

I suspect though that is not the part of the story that anybody is going to remember.

It was also revealed that Crowdstrike are not the only private contractor the DNC employed in their efforts to have Hillary Clinton elected. They also employed a former member of Britain's intelligence service MI6 to assemble a dossier of smears against Donald Trump.

Obviously confirming the identity of a former intelligence officer let alone the circumstances by which they came to leave the service requires a high level of insider knowledge. However although this person has not formally had a burn notice issued against them it's important to remember that they were not working for British intelligence at the time they complied this dossier.

Instead they were employed by the DNC with the specific purpose of compiling a smear campaign against Donald Trump in order to get Hillary Clinton elected. They have not disappointed. No doubt for various reasons this person's various sources have fed them the most elaborate conspiracy theory.

Initally it was alleged that Vladimir Putin personally hacked the DNC's computers to help Donald Trump win. This dossier now goes much further than that claiming Donald Trump is in fact a Russian agent and there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian intelligence services.

With the 2018 Football World Cup coming up in Russia the dossier alleges that Trump was being paid for his work for the Russians with corrupt construction contracts to build World Cup stadiums. Obviously the dossier goes on to claim that Trump turned down these offers neatly explaining why there is no evidence to support the claim.

The big allegation is that Russia has video of Trump employing a dozen or so prostitutes to urinate on the hotel bed that was slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama while they were visiting Russia. The so-called "Golden Showers."

Obviously these claims are far too outlandish to be believed. However if you were trying to get the measure of Donald Trump watching his face for his poker tells while you presented such embarrassing accusations to him from across a meeting room table would be a good way to go about it.

The real worry though is Republican Senator John McCain. He appears to have not only believed this dossier but believed it to the extent that he has ordered the FBI to investigate to see if Trump can be prosecuted.

So I should probably point out that when I endorsed McCain for President back in 2008 it was on the understanding he would retire back in 2012.


11:40 on 11/1/17 (UK date).