Russia Hacking and Meddling in US political affairs

Status
Not open for further replies.

I think it makes sense keep this focused on the current focus of social media / cyber manipulation. The old fashioned approaches like invasions and financing the opposition can be dealt with elsewhere.


So you think that all private individuals should be vetted and approved before they post anything to the internet? Citizen's internet access should be restricted so they can only see or read material that your select group of publishers provide? A journalist can only publish an article so long as they themselves have been vetted and work for an approved outlet? It may not be China, but it sounds very much like it.

TheBigShort said:
I never said it does, I would agree social media is far more effective in targeting, but it remains to be seen if the ads themselves are any more effective in persuasion.
Click to expand...

This all stemmed from you saying:

TheBigShort said:
Whats different from TV ads?
Click to expand...

So perhaps we're close to answering that.



That's still a very long way from targeting different ads at supporters of each team, and different again based on whether they are an existing customer or not, whether they have used other providers or not, whether they've just read an article suggesting who the winner might be, whether they read more from one media outlet over another, whether they have expressed positive of negative views on the prospects of one or other team in the past, etc., etc..

TheBigShort said:
No, individually at the same time - collectively.
Click to expand...

So that by definition would be collectively, and not individually.
 
Leo said:
I think it makes sense keep this focused on the current focus of social media / cyber manipulation. The old fashioned approaches like invasions and financing the opposition can be dealt with elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me. But I think it is worth noting at least that these new sanctions on Russia stem from a cyber attack on a website of an organization that promotes interference in the political jurisdictions of other countries.


None of the above. I said no such thing.

Its not that hard to figure really. Using Ireland as an example, there is a register of lobbyists https://www.lobbying.ie/ that is designed to to provide information to the public about who is lobbying whom and about what.
It wouldn't take an awful amount of effort to define what is political advertising or lobbying under legislation. So once an organization attempts to advertise a political advertisement, be it on social media, TV, radio or wherever, then the platform that hosts the advertisement must satisfy itself (as a legal requirement) that the advertisers are registered lobbyists.

As for journalist articles, they are not advertisements. They may provide opinion and/or analysis but again, a simple register of journalists, identifying the individual or organization promoting the article would go a long way to resolving all of this.
 
Last edited:

Taking Ireland, we already have legislation regarding political advertising, but there were still advertisements that broke our existing laws in the abortion referendum, and a huge number of posters and flyers that didn't comply with the legislation. Google stopped accepting advertising targeted at Irish users even though such advertising doesn't (and can't) fall under the legislation. Then of course, Irish legislation only applies to what happens in Ireland, there is nothing we can do to block advertising in the foreign media that is widely consumed here. Same again for the internet, very limited powers there.

If it's not hard to figure out, how would Ireland as an example legislate for what publishers around the world can or can not publish on their own platforms hosted outside the state?

Also, advertising is only a small part of the manipulation. So even if that was locked down under China-like controls where only outlets approved by the ruling party could publish, your state censorship is still only scratching the surface or the larger problem. How do you propose addressing chat bots or users of social media or other accounts? Should all AAM users for example be government vetted and approved?


So government approval of all journalists and any unapproved journalist daring to publish is breaking the law? Again what do you do about foreign media or local consumption of foreign publications? Searches at the borders?
 
Leo, I thought you would have known better.......How do you think this thread is going to end?
 
Leo said:
Taking Ireland, we already have legislation regarding political advertising, but there were still advertisements that broke our existing laws in the abortion referendum, and a huge number of posters and flyers that didn't comply with the legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes, cant you see the difference between political advertising that breaks the law, and political advertising that is not regulated? (ie fake FB ads)

Leo said:
Google stopped accepting advertising targeted at Irish users
Click to expand...

So it can be done. Thats just self-regulation. So the industry is being offered an opportunity to show how it can stop specific targeted advertising of a political nature - as per Google example.
If it fails to adequately address the issue, then legislators can legislate to penalize platforms that do not use the obvious tools they have available to block specific political targeting whose source is not verifiable.

Leo said:
Then of course, Irish legislation only applies to what happens in Ireland, there is nothing we can do to block advertising in the foreign media that is widely consumed here. Same again for the internet, very limited powers there
Click to expand...

True, but US legislation only applies to what happens in the US.
So you are correct. If an American in NY searches Bord Fáilte.ie website for info on a trip to Ireland, there is very little that can be done if that person is bamboozled with Kremlin sponsored ads inducing to vote one way or another.
So that is a problem, but it is hardly the sophisticated targeting that we have been referring too? Its why FB is worth $500bn and Bord Fáilte.ie...isnt.
So while that advertising remains a problem, its more akin to illegal advertising on telegraph poles in small villages than targeted large audiences tuning into TV at 9pm etc.

Leo said:
If it's not hard to figure out, how would Ireland as an example legislate for what publishers around the world can or can not publish on their own platforms hosted outside the state?
Click to expand...

That would be hard yes, but keeping a eye on the central issue - interference with US elections - I dont think anyone has, or is even considering the impact of foreign based advertising (if any) on US elections. Not very sophisticated really is it?

Leo said:
Also, advertising is only a small part of the manipulation.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have mentioned how the Russians are in a league of their own before. It would be interesting to know on what basis you have come to this conclusion.

Leo said:
How do you propose addressing chat bots or users of social media or other accounts? Should all AAM users for example be government vetted and approved?
Click to expand...

Dont be a silly, as you should be aware social media giants, YT, FB are already censoring content without government vetting.
So censoring of political advertising, that is not verifiable as to source can be done.
Not easy, but steps to reduce apparent interference can be taken without denying peoples right to free speech.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, cant you see the difference between political advertising that breaks the law, and political advertising that is not regulated? (ie fake FB ads)
Click to expand...

You're the one who suggested that setting up a register of approved lobbyists and that it 'wouldn't take an awful amount of effort to define what is political advertising or lobbying under legislation' as a solution to foreign meddling. Now you're deflecting asking if I know the difference between regulated advertising or not? The focus of these campaigns has always been in the unregulated sector unless you think the GRU are taking out ads in the NY Times?

You've said multiple times not that 'Its not that hard to figure really' or that it should be easy for a government to prevent foreign meddling in their elections.

So taking Ireland as the example you chose, what actions should the Irish government take to prevent foreign entities targeting Irish users of social media platforms and web forums?


TheBigShort said:
So you are correct. If an American in NY searches Bord Fáilte.ie website for info on a trip to Ireland, there is very little that can be done if that person is bamboozled with Kremlin sponsored ads inducing to vote one way or another.
Click to expand...

It's not close to the sophisticated targeting, so why even raise it as an example. But good you seem to finally admit there is very little that can be done to address that targeting. That after all was the point all along.

TheBigShort said:
So that is a problem, but it is hardly the sophisticated targeting that we have been referring too? Its why FB is worth $500bn and Bord Fáilte.ie...isnt.
Click to expand...

Where to start! Publicly traded company versus state agency, massive volumes of data on its entire user base versus minimal anonymous analytical tracking, sophisticated advertisement platform offering precise targeting versus typical dumb tracking based options, placement and prominence of ads, proven ad user engagement stats, etc..


TheBigShort said:
Yes, you have mentioned how the Russians are in a league of their own before. It would be interesting to know on what basis you have come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

Industry reports I have access to via work.


It really isn't being done. They remove an inconsequential portion of such content that they perceive may damage their reputation (i.e. share price), but only long after it has been widely disseminated and republished elsewhere, even in other media reporting on the ensuing controversy. Understandably, they only act in their own self-interest. Many other such platforms and forums fly under the radar with varying levels of filtering and censorship. But you suggested a simple register of journalists and media outlets would address content published in these locations. How do you do that without crossing the state censorship line? How would you implement such controls on AAM?
 
Fascinating (long) article below regarding a recent Russian cyber attack. It's only a matter of time before gets killed.

https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-russia-code-crashed-the-world/

Of course the Russian's deny it and the nature of cyber attacks makes it difficult to definitively prove, but the old adage, "If it walks like a duck" surely applies.

I've no doubt many countries engange in cyber espionage but Russia are IMO clearly out in front.
Just look at what they are doing to the Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015_Ukraine_power_grid_cyberattack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_cyberattacks_on_Ukraine

It is widely agreed in the cyber community that Ukraine is providing Russia with a live, guinea pig to develop and test their cyber capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Leo
Ok, the topic is in danger of burrowing off into various rabbit holes. So in an effort to re-direct it back to the OP here are a few points.

1) I have no doubt that Russia, along with other nations, is engaged in cyber attacks on the US. As im sure the US is itself on other nations. So while I appreciate links to Russia cyber activity on Ukraine, it somewhat deviates from the OP which is about Russian activity in the US.

2) I am highly skeptical however to the extent it is being presented by US officials and to the impact it has had on the US election.

3) I accept now that stopping this activity is far more complex than mere proposals I outlined.

4) However, it terms of the sophisticated advertising using platforms like Google and Facebook I am highly skeptical that more cannot be done by those organizations to filter out false political advertising. And if not done voluntarily, that legislation can be introduced to reduce the impact (if any) of this type of advertising on political affairs and elections.

Having said all that, the notion of foreign interference in the political affairs of other nations is as ancient since the dawn of nation states, using the more 'traditional' methods, so to speak.

Whats irksome about all the hyperbole in the US toward Russia is how it is being played out in public with clear attempts to link Trump as a beneficiary, by complicit means or unwitting means.

I don't think there is any doubt that there are concerted efforts by some powerful people in Washington making moves to oust Trump?
Some, for plausibly legitimate reasons. But others for not-so-much legitimate reasons. And this is where the Trump/Russia 'collusion' is, in my opinion, bogus.

Outside in the wider geo-political sphere, Russian and US relations are poor. In no insignificant part due to the continued advancements of NATO forces towards the Russian border, culminating in Russian annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict of power in Ukraine.
Whether the rights and wrongs of all that, Russia is the new US bogeyman (or rather old bogeyman re-invented).
So feeding into the US agenda of Russia bogeyman, fits nicely a conspiracy theory about Russia hacking/interfering in the US election and for the benefit of Trump.

There has been scant evidence produced. Innuendo, guilt by association, circumstantial reports - none of which amounts to very much, if anything all, relative to the accusations being put.

The Russia 'interference' saga, resonates alot with WMD saga in Iraq. A constant barage of noise, attempting to drive fear into the public, drowning out of moderate voices.
All to the point where the old adage "if it walks like a duck" is to apply, "even though the nature of cyber attacks makes it definitively difficult to prove."
In which case, investigations into cyber attacks should be conducted by the relevant agencies behind closed doors - until they get a definitive handle on who is behind the cyber attacks.
That is what leads me to believe that this Russia cyber attacks and meddling saga is part of the US long-term agenda of hegemony.

Has anyone said what Russia stands to gain from all this alleged activity?
 
Firefly said:
Ha! That's rich coming from you! I needed a good laugh, so thanks for that & keep it up!!
Click to expand...

Your welcome.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive of your post. The links you put are interesting and worth discussing, but then the topic would veer off onto many different tangents.
Im already guilty of it myself for bringing irish lobbying register into it!
And thats why I tried to revert back to tone of OP.
Your comments about "walk like a duck" and the difficulty of determining the actual identity of hackers fits nicely into my position that the this whole Russia interference saga is more bluster than substance.
 
Ceist Beag said:
FWIW I'm with you TBS, hence my earlier question (this time with a link to WIKI for anyone unfamiliar with the 1st and 2nd Red Scares).
Click to expand...

Cinnte, a Ceist Beag

Gan éilliú oifigigh páirtí An Daonlathach i bhfábhar Clinton, ba cheart an sóisialaí Sanders a bheith mar Uachtarán na Stát Aontaithe inniu.
Is léir go chuir sé eagla ar an mbunaíocht.
 

Im not sure about Iran , they may have desires in that direction but they were actually the victims of the most sophisticated hacking of all, namely the "stuxnet" virus carried out by the americans and israelis which put their nuclear program behind by at least a decade. why all the focus on Russia when the americans are the best hackers of all.
 
TheBigShort said:
Cinnte, a Ceist Beag

Gan éilliú oifigigh páirtí An Daonlathach i bhfábhar Clinton, ba cheart an sóisialaí Sanders a bheith mar Uachtarán na Stát Aontaithe inniu.
Is léir go chuir sé eagla ar an mbunaíocht.
Click to expand...
Not a chance he would have won it.
 

Thats my point. Russian ads placed on foreign sites (like Bord Failte) attempting to sway US public opinion is next to useless.
The primary location to place ads would be on platforms that can use sophisticated targeting, like FB and Google.
Those companies, platforms, should be able to filter out political ads, where the source of those ads is not clearly identifiable. By that I mean, the purchaser of political ads on FB to be used to target US public must be identifiable to FB otherwise they refuse the ad.

Leo said:
It really isn't being done. They remove an inconsequential portion of such content that they perceive may damage their reputation (i.e. share price),
Click to expand...

Craig Murray former British Diplomat to Uzbekistan, whistleblower is tweeting that his FB posts have been taken down and he cannot post anymore on FB.

Is this censorship or just protecting share price?
I fail to see how it protects share price.

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1032995819304218629?s=19
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register