zlacker

Since you are Dutch, here's a wonderful act of public service done by your countrymen, getting voting machines to play chess: http://hackaday.com/2006/10/06/voting-machine-chess/

My country, Ireland, briefly flirted with the idea of voting machines areound the same time, and decided to scrap them at enormous expense and go back to paper ballots: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/opposition-condemns-e-voting-...

> The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.

I'm not convinced the "Russian hackers" angle is correct, it seems like a convenient cover story for the DNC, to draw a distinction between Hillary and Trump with regard to Putin. They know many older voters don't understand this stuff (no offense to older HN readers!) and will likely buy it. It's just like the North Korean hackers story for the Sony hack. It could just as easily have been disgruntled DNC insiders, and Wikileaks is happy to have the real source of the leak disguised.

>>patric+(OP)
Why assume 'disgruntled' insiders when the established forces are the ones profiting from the hack? Or are you saying that they did it because Sanders would never have gotten through national convention anyways, but they could hurt Hillary by blackening her?

>>m_muel+Rg
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying it's a possibility. The Russian hacker story just seems bizarre and made up, just like the Sony North Korea story.

Here's an interview with Julian Assange when asked about the source of the leaks, with direct quotes from Clinton's campaign manager, quoting unnamed experts: https://youtu.be/axuJfX3cO9Q?t=12m50s

"On Sunday morning, the issue erupted, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump” citing “experts” but offering no other evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-r...

I mean anyone can quote anonymous "experts" to craft a narrative. Doesn't make it true.

>>patric+en
My point is, at some point you have to assume that the easiest way of all this happening is that either DNC or Hillary's staff is rotten from the top. At this point it seems to be a pattern to me.

>>patric+(OP)
The attribution of the DNC hack to a Russian APT group has some backing from security professionals. Crowd Strike, based on analysis of the malware used, came to this conclusion (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...). This conclusion has been corroborated by Fidelis (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html) and Threat Connect (https://www.threatconnect.com/tapping-into-democratic-nation...). It's early days, but the evidence is there.

FYI, the Sony hack was very likely not committed by an insider (https://www.operationblockbuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016...). DISCLAIMER: I worked with the team who did operation blockbuster.

>>patric+(OP)
It is very clear to anyone who wants to look into it that Russia is the culprit. There were two attackers; one used the same tradecraft, malware, and command-and-control servers as the Sofacy group, [0] which we have known to be Russian intelligence over dozens of large attacks all the way back to 2007. The other attacker used the same tradecraft, malware, and command-and-control servers as the "Cozy" group [1] which we know less about but reuses the same technology as other Russian intelligence actors and attacks Russian targets. As far as perpetrators, we definitely have the right people.

Motive is less clear. In reality, they probably hacked the DNC because everybody hacks everybody; that's the reality of modern cyberespionage. America hacks the Russian political parties, they hack us back. But this time someone screwed up and they got caught, so now we need a cover story.

The coverstory of trying to manipulate the election is basically convenient for all involved. It is far fetched enough to sound unbelievable, so it provides diplomatic cover. It also provides cover for why there's no similar story at the RNC, which is better than admitting either the Russians couldn't do it, or they could and they got away with that one. It provides cover to Clinton who can now claim the Russians want to elect Trump so please focus on that instead of anything to do with email, and it provides cover to Trump who would like to keep the word email in the news. This is the story that all our characters are happy to go with.

But the Russians being the perpetrators? That part is definitely true. There is way too much evidence over way too many years. The DNC did not create a Russian intelligence organization in 2007 in order to cover up their email leak in this election.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofacy_Group

[1] http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/36195/cyber-crime/cozydu...