For strategic and trade purposes, isn't Norway tightly aligned to the EU despite non-membership? I interpret this as corralling both internal and EU support.
Norway does not need the region. Norway is part of the NATO pact. Russia knows it. Sticks and stones will eventually come into play, aka realpolitik. The US will intervene as long as that dipshit president does not manage to stumble into the way.
NATO is realpolitik. It might be that you don't know its origins, what it represents and what its mechanisms are. I recommend you study it. And by the way: It goes both ways. The defence pact is reciprocal. When the US is attacked, all members of NATO are obliged to contribute for its defense and offense as well. It is not a one way thing where the US only contributes one direction.
It is most certainly NOT braindead. You Sir, are wrong.
Above commenter is quoting Emmanuel Macron.[1] Macron called the alliance "brain dead" after Turkey, a NATO member, invaded Syria, attacking Kurdish forces backed by Turkey's NATO allies.
There's also the simple fact that nobody wants to set a strong precedent because everybody is doing it. The US was spying on Merkel, Germany's BND was caught spying on Turkey, Turkey was caught spying in Germany (and pretty-much-caught assassinating Kurdish French citizens in France) etc pp, Norway spies on Russia, Russia spies on Norway.
That's normal. Of course each one is unhappy when it's done to them, but nobody wants to do anything about it, because it might be done to them as well.
That's true, but I believe this incident was espionage, not an attack with destructive intention. Spies usually don't want your email server to stop working, because they'd lose access to your emails and you'd notice something is up.
It’s easy to say no one has balls for it, especially when it might mean that German people freeze during winter because they lose access to Russian gas.
Attempts to circumvent Russia and get access to other pipelines usually escalate things Georgia was at least partially due to the Caspian pipelines and Ukraine was also due to Russia not being particularly fuzzy about the possibility of the Ukraine getting closer to the west.
The EU and NATO have been expanding eastward and like it or not it does makes Russia nervous.
Moscow used to be 1000’s of miles from the border now the distance can be covered by mechanized infantry in a day.
Russia is essentially a landlocked country they don’t have access to the open seas, their airspace is also heavily restricted by less than friendly nations.
Actually enforcing and expanding the sanctions rather than have opportunistic political operatives immediately undermine them before they've even taken office and then have the administration who benefitted from the meddling water down the sanctions when actually inaugurated.
These new sanctions are for interfering in the 2020 elections, on behalf of the Trump campaign, who didn't adequately punish them for their interference in the 2016 election. Which might go to motive for why those first sanctions were so unevenly enforced.
Well, the Western intelligence agencies all have data sharing agreements, so it's not "tolerance", it's collusion. Funny how the US is the big bad evil one but even is in bed with the ideas and behaviors.
It's just a game Europe plays with its electorate. Points fingers at the US while making backdoor deals.
Because this is run-of-the-mill espionage, which is as old as nation states. Older than nation states, in fact.
And because we do it too.
The better question is - why does your question get asked every single time that <some country> spies on <some country>. Is it because the question-asker is against espionage in general, or is it because they are fine with the concept, but are against espionage being directed at them?
I have to ask the same question: why do we tolerate this Russophobia, where "Russia" is used as a boogeyman to solve the internal political problems, and redirect the outrage away from the real issues facing our societies?
This whole issue has been so old, it's been one of the story plots in a popular 1980s British TV show called Yes, Prime Minister:
- Why don't you expel 76 Soviet diplomats? That has been our practice in the past, when we wished to ensure that the press lose interest in something?
Looks like russophobia nowadays is everything that uncover Putin's actions. Invading Ukraine - russophobia. Shooting down MH-17 - russophobia. Trying to overthrow government in Montenegro - russophobia. Cheating in Olympics - russophobia. Hacking foreign governments - russophobia. Using forbidden chemical weapons - RUSSOPHOBIA!
This line of defense looks ridiculous, though.
Everything must happen in-person on paper, typed by computers, offline. I've already gotten in the habit of having friends leave their phones in the house and go on a walk when talking about sensitive information (tech IP)
For propaganda/astroturfing, stop using websites that don't require verification. There should be a real person behind every comment. Anonymous websites still will exist, but that's less trustworthy than someone putting their reputation on the line.
Edit-added emphasis on having anonymous websites since it wasn't being read.
I like proposition A, but proposition B is not good. Real names policies mean people who are at risk of violence or job loss (e.g. domestic abuse, transgender, religious and ethnic minorities, poor people) must either conform or risk themselves for having a political voice. Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs, real names don't even help with trustworthiness! Look at the President.
Instead, I would advocate that you should read everything critically and that any news you accept must meet some evidence threshold and logically make sense in a coherent narrative. Learning real history helps.
I strongly suspect that we were lied to about the rationale for real names policies on Google, FB, etc. They wanted data for their advertising business and to help enforce political conformity (their businesses benefit from a politically stable base of operations). It clearly didn't help suppress hate speech or insane conspiracy theories.
>Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs....
This would stop. This is what we want to stop.
I don't think "real name" policies are enough. FB, Google, and Twitter need to collect credit cards and take deposits that are lost when you use your account to spread lies and hate.
I rather enjoy seeing people furious that they cannot hold people accountable for some perceived sleights. Makes me happy, especially in these times, we should never give that up again. I don't see this as a problem, I see it as a feature.
There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.
Who defines lies and hate. Hint: is the the republicans and democrats who lie and spread hate the most. While the lies and hate are somewhat different neither side is willing to give up anything.
Yeah, I'm arguing for monumental shift in our entire society. Some things will have to change.
>Who defines lies and hate.
I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.
Except that who did the analysis is part of the analysis, which allows you to select and trace based on qualifications that you think are important. This above proposal sounds like a bunch of random people off the street, which is not at all going to result in the same quality of analysis. If the proposal is to create a board of qualified information judges and a process for selecting those judges, I could get behind that.
If you make public comments often real names don't really matter. My coworkers know who I am here even though I've never told them - it isn't hard to sort out what I say here and conversations in the office.
In short, if you really are in a at risk group you need to stay off the internet, everything you do adds to your risk that you are tracked. It doesn't matter much effort you take to hide your tracks (which everyone should take anyway...), if you have a reason to worry you need to get off the internet.
This is wrong thinking. Nobody can really control when someone takes a nefarious interest in them. Public identity is only fine if there's nobody out there who wants to harm you. But since you can't control who wants to harm you, you can't really decide in advance if having a public identity is OK or not. The answer isn't "stay off the Internet" which is tantamount to "don't leave your house." This is why Facebook tries to put controls in the hands of the tagged; they only did that after a string of teenage suicides related to cyber bullying. Surely these kids thought they had no reason to be so concerned. But it turned out they did, they couldn't control the damage done to their reputation, and killed themselves.
Instead, I would advocate that you should read everything critically and that any news you accept must meet some evidence threshold and logically make sense in a coherent narrative. Learning real history helps.
I don't have a real problem distinguishing real from fake news, research and verification come naturally to me. But although I hear this recommendation frequently, it offers nothing to help with the tidal wave of gullible/dishonest people who spread false information. I would like to ignore them, but a) that requires additional effort, much like filtering spam and b) ignoring them is unwise to some degree, as such people can have a significant impact in the real world by spreading misinformation.
When I first expressed worries about the 'qanon' thing several years ago, friends and family asked me why I wasted time studying such nonsense. Now it's an international phenomenon with electoral leverage; and it's still hard to get people to give their time to study and understand it as a strategic problem rather than simply mocking or belittling the adherents. It's a bit like trying to explain to a clever developer that a brilliant architectural design can be compromised by idiots and that the user interface requires artificial friction or safety rails.
It's not that your preference for an educated polity full of critical thinkers is wrong, it would be delightful. The problem is that stupid and mean people are indifferent or outright hostile to such a long-term goal and are perfectly willing and capable of wrecking things in the short term for their own selfish ends.
>The problem is that stupid and mean people are indifferent or outright hostile to such a long-term goal and are perfectly willing and capable of wrecking things in the short term for their own selfish ends.
Watching Attenborough's new netflix film [0] last night, I think I said [1] almost exactly the same thing.
It's not that I think critical thinking is an insanely effective approach, I just don't think there are non-political solutions (i.e. requiring organizing people for a more hopeful future). Getting people to join political groups and getting them to feel less alone on a non-conspiracy basis would do wonders. I just don't think technocratic solutions will work because either they restrict political speech, abuse people into staying politically conformist when that is clearly failing, or are ineffective and harm people.
For example, you might demand FB and Youtube stop using their divisive engagement strategies, but that would violate their profit motive so they won't. The only solutions are political organizing.
Flat earth started from YouTube recommendations. They had a whole non-annonymous conference where they were happy to talk to the guy from All Gas No Brakes on camera.
Pizzagate and QAnon started because many people understand something is fucked up but lack the correct tools to understand the systemic problems of society (of which you and I would probably disagree as I blame capitalism and imperialism) so they invent conspiracies to explain the world around them. In many cases, their conservative, libertarian, or liberal ideology does not permit them to critique the systems around them, so they must find some other way to explain the situation, which revolves around (non-system challenging) elite conspiracies. It's difficult to disabuse people of the fake conspiracies because real conspiracies against the public are routine. Some are boring (such as the SV conspiracy to depress software engineer wages). Some are exciting, such as what the CIA is publicly documented to have done overseas by selling cocaine to fund their black operations in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Also, there was a kernel of truth to Pizzagate and QAnon. Look at the Clinton's relationship to Jeffery Epstein. However, the right was unable to metabolize real existing issues and started fantasizing about a fascist coup executed by the president (whom they say rejected Epstein after he found out what he was up to... but didn't do anything about it). They make up concepts like he's tagging and bagging hollywood celebrities and subjecting them to military tribunals but replaced them with clones.
You can't beat a political problem with a technocratic solution, especially one that is proven not to work and that harms real people.
>Flat earth started from YouTube recommendations...
Yes but my point is that, if the flat earth videos were clearly marked a joke or fiction, there wouldn't be a heap of people who really believe it and show up for a conference.
My objective is not to solve a political problem, I'd like to be able to believe what I read on the internet, and for the people around me to have the same basic understanding of what is happening in the world. If that also solves political problems it would be nice too.
I think that would only have worked temporarily. Over time people would grow skeptical of labels. If there's anything that's a truism about the current environment, it's an earned distrust of elite opinion and a distrust of their attempts to characterize different viewpoints as unserious. It could even backfire as people want to watch what the controversy is about.
As far as I understand, solution A is what Russia uses itself - e.g. Putin and his 'HQ' does not handle any electronic documents whatsoever, all document processing of that level is done with typewriters, not even offline computers; communication is done by wired 'dumb' phones that only do voice and in some cases hardware encryption of the voice.
You can have a hack-proof office by ensuring that no digital devices are present, no computers, no cellphones. You can't hack Putin's emails because there aren't any. There are drawbacks, of course, but it's certainly possible to work that way.
HN doesn’t require any real verification, not that there are any good verification solutions out there the “best” rely on mobile numbers which are both easily spoofed and also can lock you out sometimes as numbers do get reused.
I am far less likely to use a site that requires me to verify my identity than not, unless they provide a substantial service they don’t need to know who I am.
So what do you think, the norwegian intelligence service is doing? Twisting thumbs?
Spying is their craft.
And spying nowdays mostly involves breaching into computersystems, aka cyberattack.
The problem is the ambiguity of the word cyberattack.
Because it covers passive reading of classified content (which is classic spycraft and sadly very normal in the realm of politics) as well as offensive disruptive cyberattacks, from slowing a service to physically damaging infrastructure.
So you do think, that norwegian intelligence is twisting thumbs?
But not to get misunderstood, no I don't believe what norway is doing is on par with what russia is doing. But I never said that.
I just challenged your claim:
"I really doubt Norway ever made a cyberattack on a Russian (or any other) government institution."
Because if the norwegian intelligence service never hacked any government institution then they would be very nice. But then they would be the first nice one of their kind.
There are countries that have military and didn’t have to use it for offensive purposes against another country. Not having it would be foolish because of rogue actors (case in point, Russia).
Similarly, there may well be countries that have intelligence agencies and did not have to use them for offensive purposes. Those agents may be twiddling thumbs, or more likely they may be working to detect and counteract offensive actions of other countries’ intelligence agencies.
>So what do you think, the norwegian intelligence service is doing? Twisting thumbs?
With its 12 million dollar budget and 2000 employees (compared to 170k in Russia on a 3 billion budget, or hundreds of thousands on a 60 billion budget in the US) presumably trying not to get hacked by everyone else
Let's start with defining terms here. I would argue that spying (e.g. observing) and attack (DDoS, trying to alter data etc) are already different.
Second, you can doubt, but you don't have any evidence that they're not doing this (as well as I don;t have any evidence that they're doing then). Given that Norway is a part of a block that is opposite to Russia, I'd expect that Norway has operations that are targeting Russia.
Since proving the negative is impossible, it is sufficient that you don't have any evidence they are doing this. You draw your conclusions from thin air.
> I really doubt Norway ever made a cyberattack on a Russian (or any other) government institution.
IIRC, Norway alerted the US to the Russian hack of the DNC, because they had wormed their way into the video surveillance system at the Russian operations center.
edit: did a quick search and it was the Netherlands, not Norway.
> IIRC, Norway alerted the US to the Russian hack of the DNC, because they had wormed their way into the video surveillance system at the Russian operations center.
Right continent and first letter, but that was the Netherlands, not Norway.
To an extent, you are correct: many countries participate in the cyber-spy/cyber-espionage game. Where, perhaps, you are incorrect is that this is normal. The GRU has lead exceptionally aggressive cyber-attacks on just about everyone, particularly Estonia and Ukraine.
That's already deflection. You brought unrelated things to the discussion.
What would you say about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet? I'd argue that Stuxnet is an example of cyberattack. Hacking email server to spy on it is rather a spying. If they were forging emails etc, that'd be an attack.
I think the missing element here is what is being attacked. For a country committed to democracy, an attack on the democratic process is an attack on a core national interest.
I'm not sure Russian decision makers understand the full implications.
Simple truth of the matter is, they don't even know if it's "Russia". Nor do they know if it's state sponsored. This is pure politics from politicians who don't understand how Internet works.
.. in addition to that, it's not like Norway is without controversy, when it comes to accusing Russia. I'm not making any claims here. Not about Russia being behind it, nor the opposite.
If Norway publicly accuses Russia, then it better have some very credible (and independently verifiable) evidence for it (just an IP address from within Russia certainly won't do).
After having seen a long chain of blatantly flawed and clearly political attribution to alleged Russian wrongdoings (in all kind of matters), I'd say not a single EU country (let alone the USA) still has even remotely enough credibility left for granting them any benefit of a doubt, whenever they come with yet another finger pointing exercise towards Russia. I'm not saying Russia isn't doing anything bad, they may very well be, but that's no excuse for making accusations without credible evidence.
It should pretty clear by now that both the EU and USA aren't much interested in ever providing actual proof. That alone should worry anyone, considering their own shoddy track records. When will people finally demand to either put up (the evidence) or shut up (with what mostly likely is rather dirty politics). Or maybe Russia should just start with somehow reciprocally deal with countries that make such accusations without a willingness to provide their proof. Maybe this game would stop, once it actually starts to hurt.
Sure, their email system was very likely hacked .. but what better way than to blame it on Russia, instead of the many other possibilities (probably including the possibility of embarrassing personal incompetence or a royal screw-up in their security setup). "I'm not to blame, it was Russia that ate my homework!"
Norway likely has irrefutable proof, at least enough so that it can confidently claim another nation was behind it all. Also, presenting detailed proof could reveal something about Norway's capabilities which they'd rather keep hidden.
Now, let's play a thought game: what would happen if Norway DID in fact present evidence and proof?
In the end, no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc.
This has been heard already in numerous cases such as GPS jamming in Northern Norway, poisoning of an opposition politician, interference in elections, shoot-down of a civilian passenger aircraft, deploying a military nerve agent in Salisbury, failed coup plot in Montenegro, and so on.
> presenting detailed proof could reveal something about Norway's capabilities which they'd rather keep hidden
Then they can also keep this accusation out of the public eye and deal with this on a diplomatic, which is where these kind of things should be (first) dealt with anyways (as least according to protocol). And this is exactly where so many political accusation lately go off the rails, because although most people are blissfully unaware of it (and hence make them good useful idiots to have the wool pulled over their eyes), these direct political attacks without presented proofs are very much against both the spirit and also the letter of the protocols for such situation.
I have to admit that in this particular case I don't know if diplomatic protocols have not been first exhausted before going public like this, but in many other cases that step certainly has been skipped/omitted. Which in themselves were pretty darn shameful violations in their own right. No, some people argue that it is warranted because Russia is doing wrong in the first place, which of course fully hinges on the assumption that the claims are valid in the first place (without any chance to verify this). However, nowhere does it say that such situations should null and void diplomatic protocols, so this line of reasoning is actually politicized hogwash.
> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc
Where did you get that? If you know how this "game" actually works, you would know that at some level there will be matching/corroborating information coming from source that are not all controlled by the same interests (or group of interests). I've heard this (false) argument that it all comes don't to trust in whoever provides whatever evidence, but that just isn't true. With enough detailed information (which of course and conveniently is never given; should give rise to enough doubts on its own) it is most certainly possible to give a credibility to such evidence that goes way beyond just the credibility of the source of the damning details itself. I've personally seen cases where this was done, among nations that usually have different or even opposing agendas. But when it comes to (most) accusations towards Russia, the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all. Since when have we become all this gullible, that we just believe organization who themselves have questionable track records on their good word and reputation?
Nah, that just doesn't cut it for me. For for anyone to whom it does, good luck with that unwavering faith (which in my opinion goes straight against logic).
>> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc
>Where did you get that?
Well, from the fact that there usually is evidence provided, and such evidence usually gets denied by either the high-ranking state officials, and/or state-controlled media and/or state-controlled social media accounts and/or similar channels. In any case the real evidence is seldom presented at all, let alone neutrally, on the state-controlled channels.
Just look at the cases I listed. There is no doubt of deep involvement. Yet in all cases the provided evidence is "fantasy" or "fabrications" or ultimately a "NATO plot" or even waved off as some form of totally illogical hatred of the Russian people (!).
Then there's also the counter-evidences, which are often clumsy attempts to add confusion to the real evidences and to delegitimize the original claims of guilt. For example, in the MH17 case, there was satellite imagery of a fighter jet firing missiles and so on. In the Navalny nerve agent poisoning case there was a "phone call between Warsaw and Berlin".
Sadly, and predictably, denial of presented evidence is the usual reaction and a deliberate part of the communication strategy employed.
On one hand, it is completely logical, because accepting the evidence would be an admission of guilt and such a thing never seems to be done. On the other hand, given their ongoing track record of aggressive and rather expansionist rhetoric, bullying their neighbouring countries and the tendency of always denying evidence, even for things which are clearly their doings, why should any nation think Russia is innocent if something points to Russia?
> the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all
No, there is no "total absence of evidence". There is usually plenty of evidence. And from this we go back to the deliberate strategy of rejecting evidence; the evidence is always somehow lacking, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. or that there is no evidence at all.
The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.
It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here.
So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?!
And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?
>The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.
Sure, that's really the reason. As with everything above it, you may want to hone your skills in differentiating propaganda from (corroborated) facts.
As for the cases you mentioned, there certainly are doubts about (deep) involvement of Russia. For starters because most of the purported evidence really does raise questions about its reliability and in some cases has been shown to not add up. Mind you, I'm not saying this means Russia is innocent. Just that the evidence is inconclusive and in some cases highly questionable (at best).
You of course can frame any such doubts as if all "evidence" is just categorically going to be rejected or denied, but that will on you. I don't know how long you have been around and whether you've moved around a lot, but after decades of rather "hands on" experience with how NATO member (often on USA command) have done all kind of (increasingly) questionable things to further their agenda. If you can say with a straight face that this organization to not lie or produces falsified evidence, than you've clearly have little actual experience with being on the receiving end of their efforts.
Please do take into account that it is you who is talking like there is an already established fact, that Russia is as bad as you claim, while in reality all of that is derived from rather questionable assertions and in more than a few cases obvious propaganda.
I don't claim that Russia is good or bad. That's a complicated discussion and a whole different story, which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways, because the majority is already too presumptuous and indoctrinated to even have a level and honest discussion about it.
What this is about is if there is credible evidence that Russia is (to a high degree of likelihood) guilty of the things you claim(ed) about them. To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that is a clear no. In fact, all I have seen regarding that for the last two decades or so, has been (pretty much without exception) propaganda, framed, falsified or otherwise not passing the bar of credibility.
But feel free to believe otherwise. I'm pretty sure that time will teach you. Especially since the apparatus that has been pushing all this garbage, is slow but surely creeping towards its inevitable demise. There will be a lot of skeletons falling from closets, you better believe it. In fact, you'd be lucky when those who have suffered from these "games" (and many innocent citizens certainly have) will be forgiving when the full extend of this shit show really comes to light. It will pale both Wikileaks and Snowden in comparison.
> which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways, because the majority is already too presumptuous and indoctrinated to even have a level and honest discussion about it.
As opposed to pure and non-indoctrinated Russians, the single bearer of truth?
I mean, I'm sure you're inflating Putin's ego massively by attributing superhuman powers to GRU, and in particular to its cyberwarfare arm. But if I were to bet my own money, I'd say the Russian government's capability for anything other than than Nigerian prince style phishing is quite limited. Why? Because in Russia government employees are paid a pittance, and soldiers are paid even less, so they do not get the best people. Shit, they didn't even get _me_, and I have no illusions about being the best at anything other than shitposting on HN.
I believe it can be interesting to examine how for example the GPS jamming situation in Northern Norway has developed:
There are reports of GPS jamming happening already in 2017.
In 2018, GPS was jammed during the NATO Trident Juncture exercise, the diplomatic routes were tried, and Russia denied everything: "Initial diplomatic contacts between Nordic governments and Moscow has produced a flat denial that Russia was behind the GPS signal-jamming." [1]
President Putin's senior press spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeated the usual message of innocence and victimhood: "There is a tendency to blame Russia for all sins in general. As a rule, these allegations are found to have no basis in actual fact" [1]
Committee of Foreign Affairs chairman Vanhanen of Finland said Norway's intelligence is trustworthy and in any case Norway won't release technical military data: "There is every reason to trust Norway and its intelligence. It’s unlikely that Norway will publicly disclose the methods behind its assessment. As no technical evidence will be offered in the public domain, we may end up in a situation where Russia just denies it. We need to tell Russia that we do not accept disturbances of this kind in our airspace" [1]
Year 2019: GPS is again jammed in Northern Norway. Norway now has electronic evidence it was Russia. Russia asked for evidence. Norway provided the civilian-side evidence. Result: no reply from Russia.
Again, the message of innocence, victimhood and lack for evidence were made; "The [Russian] Embassy called for evidence." [2] and Zakharova (foreign minister Lavrov's spokesman) "even named the accusations “absurd histories” and said western politicians are making it a habit to blame Russia for all kind of incidents without providing evidence." [2]
The Norwegians say they have provided the data: "“We believe this is not acceptable and we have provided the information we have from the civilian side. They asked for our data, and we gave it to them,” [foreign minister] Eriksen Søreide says and underlines that Russia, so far, has not responded to the data." [3]
There is a mention of a dialogue having started but where this went is not elaborated.
Now, in the year 2020: GPS jamming still happens. "“The last incident was not long ago. In April/May this year we registered another episode. ..., says Police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta to High North News." [3]
"District Police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta first noticed jamming in 2017 and then notified the Norwegian Police Directorate. The National Security Authority has analyzed the jamming and in September 2018 verified that the jamming came from the east. The intelligence services have concluded that Russia was behind it." [3]
There is a pattern.
Now, disturbing navigational systems in an wilderness-rich area like Finnmark and Northern Lapland is dangerous, and if it is done intentionally, it is an aggressive move and not anything innocent friendly nations should be doing.
Maybe some of those cases were somehow accidental, but why not just come out and say so?
> which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways
I honestly have no frame of reference for this, since I'm not an American and have no experience discussing these issues with Americans.
As for apparatuses creeping to their inevitable demise, President Putin is, however sparky and bright, not by any means immortal, and there is no clear successor defined. There are rumors but that is all. Once Putin loses control for whatever reason, a rush to grab political and economical power is likely to ensue and more than likely to become messy, and no doubt skeletons will fall not only from closets, but windows, too.
You can't have "irrefutable proof" on the Internet. On the internet nobody even knows if you're a dog or not. It is strange to me that we have people on this otherwise pretty "technical" site who believe otherwise.
Or maybe Russell himself is orbiting Mars, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Those are possible, plausible and falsifiable reasons for having non-internet-based evidence. If any of those reasons were true, Norway would likely stay quiet about the details.
Usually, a big part of attribution is the reuse of specific TTPs (tactics/tools/procedures), malware components, and components of C&C infrastructure - sophisticated attacks are tool-heavy, the tools are custom and generally not distributed much (even within the same country - e.g. it appears that in Russia the military intelligence and foreign intelligence units don't share much of their tooling/infrastructure with each other for some political reasons), you don't/can't recreate all that code from scratch for every single attack, so there's inevitably reuse that allows you to link some attacks to others. Since there are some earlier attacks where we can link particular actions not only to a country, but to specific people in specific organizations, usually due to some mistake on their behalf, it's sometimes possible to also determine the attribution of new atacks with reasonable certainty.
I wonder if the hackers spammed a picture of Putin hunting bears from a canoe to all MOPs from the head of gov or something.
There is no way they can know that the Russian gov. hacked the Norwegian parliament without such valuable spies or bugging that NATO would not waste the advantage on something so relativly unimportant as the Norwegian parliament.
A bit of a meta-comment, but why was the year included in the HN title? I thought that was only required for articles submitted to HN in a later year than they were written?
I was a bit confused when I say the year in the article list - it caused me to doubt if this was still 2020!
Sometimes submitters do that to emphasize that the story is current, but you're right that it breaks HN's convention. The default is the current year, so titles don't need that. I've taken it out now.
It might not have been required, but imo it helps a lot with something that is somewhat similar to earlier events.
For example, if there was another tariff placed on some exports from China tomorrow, listing a year and month next to the article title would have definitely helped. Mostly because there have been quite many news articles referencing similar events earlier, so if there was no year/month listed, I would have thought it is just another discussion on a tariff passed earlier this year.
I don't have a strong feeling on it either way, but the default rule of "no year in the title if the article is from this year" actually makes sense and feels appropriate, as it definitely helps with keeping things a bit more standardized and easier to parse.
Anyone who believes in science can't possibly take these allegations seriously.
It's beyond trivial to use proxies and malware to make it appear like your "call is coming from inside the house". It's beyond trivial to use more than one proxy, and/or Tor, where the overall mosaic and path will not be possible to assemble.
It is so trivial that it's often the plot of every movie or TV show on the subject. When Putin was asked this question once, that was actually his reply as well -- that "our hackers" can change their IP address easily, and all the evidence anyone may have on IP addresses is basically worthless. Yet we still let the politicians trick us into believing their intelligence services have any sort of irrefutable evidence of something that's often impossible to determine outside of using secondary factors that would often not be available in these cases that involve international borders?
---
Put it another way: for anyone to believe in these stories, you have to admit two directly contradicting assertions, (1), that the protection of these government systems was so good that only the best hackers of a single nation-state could have breached it, and, (2), that these best hackers of a single nation-state are so sloppy in their job that they never manage to hide their steps and shift any possible blame away from themselves.
In other words, I find it really hard to believe that these systems are properly secured, and if they are, I find it really hard to believe that people who could break them are so sloppy that they can't hide their true tracks.
I believe in science and I take these allegations seriously. You don't pin an attack based on what IP address it came from. You use intelligence and piece together clues found in the attack to build up a picture.
Nations are really cautious about attribution. For Norway to officially blame Russia it just means they've found some pretty convincing evidence.
Why is no such intelligence or convincing evidence ever shared?
I really find it hard to believe that it's always Russia that's responsible for every ill in the whole flat world.
We've already had the evidence declassified that the whole 2016 Russiagate hoax was entirely invented by his opponent for political purposes, and then spin out by the media out of control. But, yeah, let's still believe each nation accusing Russia of all evil!
In the case of Norway, this could be a public signal to Russia indicating the motivation for some other action, such as the recent Su-30 friendly fire incident, the recent munitions dump explosion, dramatically enhanced IT capabilities by the Belarus opposition movement etc.
So a message: "If you do this, we do that."
If the acting parties know who they are, no public proof is necessary to send the message.
966 pages of random circumstantial evidence, none of it connected to the state, none of it proving actual interference, none of it establishing a motive, none of it establishing an intent? Surely, if you say something often enough, or drown the reader with irrelevant details, people will just believe it.
The recently declassified documents in the last month or so, point to a very different picture on 2016, however.
Meanwhile, actual election interference in 2020 by foreign nationals like Greta of Sweden -- even right after her candidate has publicly denounced Green New Deal in the first debate, and after he's openly supported Fracking in Pennsylvania -- is totally okay with everyone!
I don't think I've ever seen a single cyber event attributed to Russia in my country. I see a ton of speculation in the news about other nations but never Russia. I'm going to suggest that your view that Russia is held responsible for the ills in the whole flat world is quite wrong.
Russia who?
Individuals? Government? Putin? Intelligent service?
What facts? Hacked via Russian VPN? By Russian hacker?
I guess there must be more information especially from the source such ad Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
116 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadOther than that the only viable strategy is to do the same to Russia. Keep them busy and stretch their resources thin so their government implodes.
But I guess nobody really has the balls to do it.
Certainly not the EU.
Norway isn't in EU
Norway will probably ask NATO for help to launch contra cyber attacks.
I wouldn't, however, interpret any actions from Norway as having any form of EU support, unless it's explicitly mentioned.
Norway could not do it even if it wanted to.
It is most certainly NOT braindead. You Sir, are wrong.
1. https://youtu.be/yo5Zw4XdAfQ
That's normal. Of course each one is unhappy when it's done to them, but nobody wants to do anything about it, because it might be done to them as well.
I might tolerate you peeking through my window into my house from time to time to try and understand what i'm up to.
I wouldn't tolerate you burning my house down to prevent me from doing my stuff.
Attempts to circumvent Russia and get access to other pipelines usually escalate things Georgia was at least partially due to the Caspian pipelines and Ukraine was also due to Russia not being particularly fuzzy about the possibility of the Ukraine getting closer to the west.
The EU and NATO have been expanding eastward and like it or not it does makes Russia nervous.
Moscow used to be 1000’s of miles from the border now the distance can be covered by mechanized infantry in a day.
Russia is essentially a landlocked country they don’t have access to the open seas, their airspace is also heavily restricted by less than friendly nations.
It’s behavior is very much dictated by geography.
They have access to three seas and one ocean. Just friendly FYI.
The closest they have is Vladivostok and that isn’t a warm water port (yet).
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-imposes-sanctions-over-russ...
It's just a game Europe plays with its electorate. Points fingers at the US while making backdoor deals.
Because Russia is doing it.
Bulletproof logic
And because we do it too.
The better question is - why does your question get asked every single time that <some country> spies on <some country>. Is it because the question-asker is against espionage in general, or is it because they are fine with the concept, but are against espionage being directed at them?
This whole issue has been so old, it's been one of the story plots in a popular 1980s British TV show called Yes, Prime Minister:
- Why don't you expel 76 Soviet diplomats? That has been our practice in the past, when we wished to ensure that the press lose interest in something?
- I can do that?!
- It must be a story that nobody can disprove.
- And which will be believed even if it's denied!
https://twitter.com/rusembmalta/status/980521180460388352
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW10zLDI3Eg
(Yes, Prime Minister, "Official Secrets", 1987)
Everything must happen in-person on paper, typed by computers, offline. I've already gotten in the habit of having friends leave their phones in the house and go on a walk when talking about sensitive information (tech IP)
For propaganda/astroturfing, stop using websites that don't require verification. There should be a real person behind every comment. Anonymous websites still will exist, but that's less trustworthy than someone putting their reputation on the line.
Edit-added emphasis on having anonymous websites since it wasn't being read.
Instead, I would advocate that you should read everything critically and that any news you accept must meet some evidence threshold and logically make sense in a coherent narrative. Learning real history helps.
I strongly suspect that we were lied to about the rationale for real names policies on Google, FB, etc. They wanted data for their advertising business and to help enforce political conformity (their businesses benefit from a politically stable base of operations). It clearly didn't help suppress hate speech or insane conspiracy theories.
This would stop. This is what we want to stop.
I don't think "real name" policies are enough. FB, Google, and Twitter need to collect credit cards and take deposits that are lost when you use your account to spread lies and hate.
There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.
Also you will run into first amendment issues.
>Who defines lies and hate.
I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.
In short, if you really are in a at risk group you need to stay off the internet, everything you do adds to your risk that you are tracked. It doesn't matter much effort you take to hide your tracks (which everyone should take anyway...), if you have a reason to worry you need to get off the internet.
I don't have a real problem distinguishing real from fake news, research and verification come naturally to me. But although I hear this recommendation frequently, it offers nothing to help with the tidal wave of gullible/dishonest people who spread false information. I would like to ignore them, but a) that requires additional effort, much like filtering spam and b) ignoring them is unwise to some degree, as such people can have a significant impact in the real world by spreading misinformation.
When I first expressed worries about the 'qanon' thing several years ago, friends and family asked me why I wasted time studying such nonsense. Now it's an international phenomenon with electoral leverage; and it's still hard to get people to give their time to study and understand it as a strategic problem rather than simply mocking or belittling the adherents. It's a bit like trying to explain to a clever developer that a brilliant architectural design can be compromised by idiots and that the user interface requires artificial friction or safety rails.
It's not that your preference for an educated polity full of critical thinkers is wrong, it would be delightful. The problem is that stupid and mean people are indifferent or outright hostile to such a long-term goal and are perfectly willing and capable of wrecking things in the short term for their own selfish ends.
Watching Attenborough's new netflix film [0] last night, I think I said [1] almost exactly the same thing.
[0] https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393
[1] OK, yelled at the tv in a blind rage.
For example, you might demand FB and Youtube stop using their divisive engagement strategies, but that would violate their profit motive so they won't. The only solutions are political organizing.
I think if you "publish" something on the internet, you should be held responsible if it causes harm.
I would love to see a world where conspiracy nuts would throw their passion and enthusiasm into something that's real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H110vCGvTmM
Pizzagate and QAnon started because many people understand something is fucked up but lack the correct tools to understand the systemic problems of society (of which you and I would probably disagree as I blame capitalism and imperialism) so they invent conspiracies to explain the world around them. In many cases, their conservative, libertarian, or liberal ideology does not permit them to critique the systems around them, so they must find some other way to explain the situation, which revolves around (non-system challenging) elite conspiracies. It's difficult to disabuse people of the fake conspiracies because real conspiracies against the public are routine. Some are boring (such as the SV conspiracy to depress software engineer wages). Some are exciting, such as what the CIA is publicly documented to have done overseas by selling cocaine to fund their black operations in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Also, there was a kernel of truth to Pizzagate and QAnon. Look at the Clinton's relationship to Jeffery Epstein. However, the right was unable to metabolize real existing issues and started fantasizing about a fascist coup executed by the president (whom they say rejected Epstein after he found out what he was up to... but didn't do anything about it). They make up concepts like he's tagging and bagging hollywood celebrities and subjecting them to military tribunals but replaced them with clones.
You can't beat a political problem with a technocratic solution, especially one that is proven not to work and that harms real people.
Yes but my point is that, if the flat earth videos were clearly marked a joke or fiction, there wouldn't be a heap of people who really believe it and show up for a conference.
My objective is not to solve a political problem, I'd like to be able to believe what I read on the internet, and for the people around me to have the same basic understanding of what is happening in the world. If that also solves political problems it would be nice too.
You can have a hack-proof office by ensuring that no digital devices are present, no computers, no cellphones. You can't hack Putin's emails because there aren't any. There are drawbacks, of course, but it's certainly possible to work that way.
I am far less likely to use a site that requires me to verify my identity than not, unless they provide a substantial service they don’t need to know who I am.
It only takes ONE lawsuit/stalker/arrest/accusation/divorce/etc... for people to learn this lesson.
Privacy is worth WAY more than comment/post/tweet visibility.
(Google employee, Google took it very seriously).
In general, though, I think that this is normal for countries and intelligence, it's just that this is EVIL RUSSIA makes it header-worthy.
Spying is their craft.
And spying nowdays mostly involves breaching into computersystems, aka cyberattack.
The problem is the ambiguity of the word cyberattack. Because it covers passive reading of classified content (which is classic spycraft and sadly very normal in the realm of politics) as well as offensive disruptive cyberattacks, from slowing a service to physically damaging infrastructure.
Russia has a military. Russia uses its military to attack its neighbours and quell domestic insurgence.
Norway also have a military. Does it follow that Norway uses its military to attack its neighbours and quell domestic insurgence?
But not to get misunderstood, no I don't believe what norway is doing is on par with what russia is doing. But I never said that. I just challenged your claim:
"I really doubt Norway ever made a cyberattack on a Russian (or any other) government institution."
Because if the norwegian intelligence service never hacked any government institution then they would be very nice. But then they would be the first nice one of their kind.
Similarly, there may well be countries that have intelligence agencies and did not have to use them for offensive purposes. Those agents may be twiddling thumbs, or more likely they may be working to detect and counteract offensive actions of other countries’ intelligence agencies.
With its 12 million dollar budget and 2000 employees (compared to 170k in Russia on a 3 billion budget, or hundreds of thousands on a 60 billion budget in the US) presumably trying not to get hacked by everyone else
15m/2k=$7500/year per person. In Norway. It's not enough even for salaries.
Second, you can doubt, but you don't have any evidence that they're not doing this (as well as I don;t have any evidence that they're doing then). Given that Norway is a part of a block that is opposite to Russia, I'd expect that Norway has operations that are targeting Russia.
IIRC, Norway alerted the US to the Russian hack of the DNC, because they had wormed their way into the video surveillance system at the Russian operations center.
edit: did a quick search and it was the Netherlands, not Norway.
Right continent and first letter, but that was the Netherlands, not Norway.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...
If you're interested in this topic, I'd like to suggest the wondeful (and terrifying) book, Sandworm (https://www.amazon.com/Sandworm-Cyberwar-Kremlins-Dangerous-...) by Andy Greenberg.
So did the NSA and co. on the other side halted their operations, since Snowden uncovered them? That would be news to me.
Who is that gold standard of intelligence then? Who is sending a courtesy note that they will attempt to hack email server on 14:00 PST on Monday?
What would you say about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet? I'd argue that Stuxnet is an example of cyberattack. Hacking email server to spy on it is rather a spying. If they were forging emails etc, that'd be an attack.
I'm not sure Russian decision makers understand the full implications.
If Norway publicly accuses Russia, then it better have some very credible (and independently verifiable) evidence for it (just an IP address from within Russia certainly won't do).
After having seen a long chain of blatantly flawed and clearly political attribution to alleged Russian wrongdoings (in all kind of matters), I'd say not a single EU country (let alone the USA) still has even remotely enough credibility left for granting them any benefit of a doubt, whenever they come with yet another finger pointing exercise towards Russia. I'm not saying Russia isn't doing anything bad, they may very well be, but that's no excuse for making accusations without credible evidence.
It should pretty clear by now that both the EU and USA aren't much interested in ever providing actual proof. That alone should worry anyone, considering their own shoddy track records. When will people finally demand to either put up (the evidence) or shut up (with what mostly likely is rather dirty politics). Or maybe Russia should just start with somehow reciprocally deal with countries that make such accusations without a willingness to provide their proof. Maybe this game would stop, once it actually starts to hurt.
Sure, their email system was very likely hacked .. but what better way than to blame it on Russia, instead of the many other possibilities (probably including the possibility of embarrassing personal incompetence or a royal screw-up in their security setup). "I'm not to blame, it was Russia that ate my homework!"
Now, let's play a thought game: what would happen if Norway DID in fact present evidence and proof?
In the end, no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc.
This has been heard already in numerous cases such as GPS jamming in Northern Norway, poisoning of an opposition politician, interference in elections, shoot-down of a civilian passenger aircraft, deploying a military nerve agent in Salisbury, failed coup plot in Montenegro, and so on.
Then they can also keep this accusation out of the public eye and deal with this on a diplomatic, which is where these kind of things should be (first) dealt with anyways (as least according to protocol). And this is exactly where so many political accusation lately go off the rails, because although most people are blissfully unaware of it (and hence make them good useful idiots to have the wool pulled over their eyes), these direct political attacks without presented proofs are very much against both the spirit and also the letter of the protocols for such situation.
I have to admit that in this particular case I don't know if diplomatic protocols have not been first exhausted before going public like this, but in many other cases that step certainly has been skipped/omitted. Which in themselves were pretty darn shameful violations in their own right. No, some people argue that it is warranted because Russia is doing wrong in the first place, which of course fully hinges on the assumption that the claims are valid in the first place (without any chance to verify this). However, nowhere does it say that such situations should null and void diplomatic protocols, so this line of reasoning is actually politicized hogwash.
> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc
Where did you get that? If you know how this "game" actually works, you would know that at some level there will be matching/corroborating information coming from source that are not all controlled by the same interests (or group of interests). I've heard this (false) argument that it all comes don't to trust in whoever provides whatever evidence, but that just isn't true. With enough detailed information (which of course and conveniently is never given; should give rise to enough doubts on its own) it is most certainly possible to give a credibility to such evidence that goes way beyond just the credibility of the source of the damning details itself. I've personally seen cases where this was done, among nations that usually have different or even opposing agendas. But when it comes to (most) accusations towards Russia, the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all. Since when have we become all this gullible, that we just believe organization who themselves have questionable track records on their good word and reputation?
Nah, that just doesn't cut it for me. For for anyone to whom it does, good luck with that unwavering faith (which in my opinion goes straight against logic).
Well, from the fact that there usually is evidence provided, and such evidence usually gets denied by either the high-ranking state officials, and/or state-controlled media and/or state-controlled social media accounts and/or similar channels. In any case the real evidence is seldom presented at all, let alone neutrally, on the state-controlled channels.
Just look at the cases I listed. There is no doubt of deep involvement. Yet in all cases the provided evidence is "fantasy" or "fabrications" or ultimately a "NATO plot" or even waved off as some form of totally illogical hatred of the Russian people (!).
Then there's also the counter-evidences, which are often clumsy attempts to add confusion to the real evidences and to delegitimize the original claims of guilt. For example, in the MH17 case, there was satellite imagery of a fighter jet firing missiles and so on. In the Navalny nerve agent poisoning case there was a "phone call between Warsaw and Berlin".
Sadly, and predictably, denial of presented evidence is the usual reaction and a deliberate part of the communication strategy employed.
On one hand, it is completely logical, because accepting the evidence would be an admission of guilt and such a thing never seems to be done. On the other hand, given their ongoing track record of aggressive and rather expansionist rhetoric, bullying their neighbouring countries and the tendency of always denying evidence, even for things which are clearly their doings, why should any nation think Russia is innocent if something points to Russia?
> the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all
No, there is no "total absence of evidence". There is usually plenty of evidence. And from this we go back to the deliberate strategy of rejecting evidence; the evidence is always somehow lacking, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. or that there is no evidence at all.
The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.
So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?!
And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?
Sure, that's really the reason. As with everything above it, you may want to hone your skills in differentiating propaganda from (corroborated) facts.
As for the cases you mentioned, there certainly are doubts about (deep) involvement of Russia. For starters because most of the purported evidence really does raise questions about its reliability and in some cases has been shown to not add up. Mind you, I'm not saying this means Russia is innocent. Just that the evidence is inconclusive and in some cases highly questionable (at best).
You of course can frame any such doubts as if all "evidence" is just categorically going to be rejected or denied, but that will on you. I don't know how long you have been around and whether you've moved around a lot, but after decades of rather "hands on" experience with how NATO member (often on USA command) have done all kind of (increasingly) questionable things to further their agenda. If you can say with a straight face that this organization to not lie or produces falsified evidence, than you've clearly have little actual experience with being on the receiving end of their efforts.
Please do take into account that it is you who is talking like there is an already established fact, that Russia is as bad as you claim, while in reality all of that is derived from rather questionable assertions and in more than a few cases obvious propaganda.
I don't claim that Russia is good or bad. That's a complicated discussion and a whole different story, which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways, because the majority is already too presumptuous and indoctrinated to even have a level and honest discussion about it.
What this is about is if there is credible evidence that Russia is (to a high degree of likelihood) guilty of the things you claim(ed) about them. To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that is a clear no. In fact, all I have seen regarding that for the last two decades or so, has been (pretty much without exception) propaganda, framed, falsified or otherwise not passing the bar of credibility.
But feel free to believe otherwise. I'm pretty sure that time will teach you. Especially since the apparatus that has been pushing all this garbage, is slow but surely creeping towards its inevitable demise. There will be a lot of skeletons falling from closets, you better believe it. In fact, you'd be lucky when those who have suffered from these "games" (and many innocent citizens certainly have) will be forgiving when the full extend of this shit show really comes to light. It will pale both Wikileaks and Snowden in comparison.
As opposed to pure and non-indoctrinated Russians, the single bearer of truth?
There are reports of GPS jamming happening already in 2017.
In 2018, GPS was jammed during the NATO Trident Juncture exercise, the diplomatic routes were tried, and Russia denied everything: "Initial diplomatic contacts between Nordic governments and Moscow has produced a flat denial that Russia was behind the GPS signal-jamming." [1]
President Putin's senior press spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeated the usual message of innocence and victimhood: "There is a tendency to blame Russia for all sins in general. As a rule, these allegations are found to have no basis in actual fact" [1]
Committee of Foreign Affairs chairman Vanhanen of Finland said Norway's intelligence is trustworthy and in any case Norway won't release technical military data: "There is every reason to trust Norway and its intelligence. It’s unlikely that Norway will publicly disclose the methods behind its assessment. As no technical evidence will be offered in the public domain, we may end up in a situation where Russia just denies it. We need to tell Russia that we do not accept disturbances of this kind in our airspace" [1]
Year 2019: GPS is again jammed in Northern Norway. Norway now has electronic evidence it was Russia. Russia asked for evidence. Norway provided the civilian-side evidence. Result: no reply from Russia.
Again, the message of innocence, victimhood and lack for evidence were made; "The [Russian] Embassy called for evidence." [2] and Zakharova (foreign minister Lavrov's spokesman) "even named the accusations “absurd histories” and said western politicians are making it a habit to blame Russia for all kind of incidents without providing evidence." [2]
The Norwegians say they have provided the data: "“We believe this is not acceptable and we have provided the information we have from the civilian side. They asked for our data, and we gave it to them,” [foreign minister] Eriksen Søreide says and underlines that Russia, so far, has not responded to the data." [3]
There is a mention of a dialogue having started but where this went is not elaborated.
Now, in the year 2020: GPS jamming still happens. "“The last incident was not long ago. In April/May this year we registered another episode. ..., says Police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta to High North News." [3]
"District Police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta first noticed jamming in 2017 and then notified the Norwegian Police Directorate. The National Security Authority has analyzed the jamming and in September 2018 verified that the jamming came from the east. The intelligence services have concluded that Russia was behind it." [3]
There is a pattern.
Now, disturbing navigational systems in an wilderness-rich area like Finnmark and Northern Lapland is dangerous, and if it is done intentionally, it is an aggressive move and not anything innocent friendly nations should be doing.
Maybe some of those cases were somehow accidental, but why not just come out and say so?
> which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways
I honestly have no frame of reference for this, since I'm not an American and have no experience discussing these issues with Americans.
As for apparatuses creeping to their inevitable demise, President Putin is, however sparky and bright, not by any means immortal, and there is no clear successor defined. There are rumors but that is all. Once Putin loses control for whatever reason, a rush to grab political and economical power is likely to ensue and more than likely to become messy, and no doubt skeletons will fall not only from closets, but windows, too.
[1] https://www.defensenews.com/global/...
Maybe they have infiltrated the organization who did the attack.
Maybe they were warned by some other nation who had done so.
Maybe they were listening in on the C&C traffic.
Maybe they were tipped off by Russia itself.
Maybe the attackers were sloppy fools.
There are tons of avenues how this could have played out, which would be sensitive to reveal in detail.
Those are possible, plausible and falsifiable reasons for having non-internet-based evidence. If any of those reasons were true, Norway would likely stay quiet about the details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW10zLDI3Eg
There is no way they can know that the Russian gov. hacked the Norwegian parliament without such valuable spies or bugging that NATO would not waste the advantage on something so relativly unimportant as the Norwegian parliament.
I was a bit confused when I say the year in the article list - it caused me to doubt if this was still 2020!
For example, if there was another tariff placed on some exports from China tomorrow, listing a year and month next to the article title would have definitely helped. Mostly because there have been quite many news articles referencing similar events earlier, so if there was no year/month listed, I would have thought it is just another discussion on a tariff passed earlier this year.
I don't have a strong feeling on it either way, but the default rule of "no year in the title if the article is from this year" actually makes sense and feels appropriate, as it definitely helps with keeping things a bit more standardized and easier to parse.
It's beyond trivial to use proxies and malware to make it appear like your "call is coming from inside the house". It's beyond trivial to use more than one proxy, and/or Tor, where the overall mosaic and path will not be possible to assemble.
It is so trivial that it's often the plot of every movie or TV show on the subject. When Putin was asked this question once, that was actually his reply as well -- that "our hackers" can change their IP address easily, and all the evidence anyone may have on IP addresses is basically worthless. Yet we still let the politicians trick us into believing their intelligence services have any sort of irrefutable evidence of something that's often impossible to determine outside of using secondary factors that would often not be available in these cases that involve international borders?
---
Put it another way: for anyone to believe in these stories, you have to admit two directly contradicting assertions, (1), that the protection of these government systems was so good that only the best hackers of a single nation-state could have breached it, and, (2), that these best hackers of a single nation-state are so sloppy in their job that they never manage to hide their steps and shift any possible blame away from themselves.
In other words, I find it really hard to believe that these systems are properly secured, and if they are, I find it really hard to believe that people who could break them are so sloppy that they can't hide their true tracks.
Nations are really cautious about attribution. For Norway to officially blame Russia it just means they've found some pretty convincing evidence.
I really find it hard to believe that it's always Russia that's responsible for every ill in the whole flat world.
We've already had the evidence declassified that the whole 2016 Russiagate hoax was entirely invented by his opponent for political purposes, and then spin out by the media out of control. But, yeah, let's still believe each nation accusing Russia of all evil!
In the case of Norway, this could be a public signal to Russia indicating the motivation for some other action, such as the recent Su-30 friendly fire incident, the recent munitions dump explosion, dramatically enhanced IT capabilities by the Belarus opposition movement etc.
So a message: "If you do this, we do that." If the acting parties know who they are, no public proof is necessary to send the message.
The recently declassified documents in the last month or so, point to a very different picture on 2016, however.
Meanwhile, actual election interference in 2020 by foreign nationals like Greta of Sweden -- even right after her candidate has publicly denounced Green New Deal in the first debate, and after he's openly supported Fracking in Pennsylvania -- is totally okay with everyone!