On Russian Hacking

Did the Russians hack Democrats or other individuals or entities during the recent U.S. presidential campaign?  Was the cyber attack intended to influence the election, or accomplish something else?  Was their a desire to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton?  Did it actually help?  If so, how much help did it actually provide?  From your perspective, what's more troubling: the hacking allegation itself, or the underlying illegal, unethical, or otherwise disturbing behavior it revealed?

Who knows the truth to any of these questions?  Not me, likely not you, and most likely not anyone publicly or privately pontificating on this subject. 

What we do know is that people lie.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of lies, partial truths, and so-called justifiable "white lies."  By their very nature, intelligence agencies around the globe embrace this reality.  World leaders have agendas -- as do political parties, businesses, journalists, and ideologues -- and exploit information misdirection on a routine basis.

What we also know is that our world is extremely complex, and many nations and other actors on the world stage possess 1) robust cyber capabilities; and 2) a willingness to use them.  Although those capabilities include taking down networks or other infrastructure, they are much more commonly used to simply gather information, learn from it, and use it (or not use it) at an advantageous time, place, and manner.  Endless numbers of books could be written about such intelligence activities, and their true strategic significance.  Knowledge is power, right? 

Now, a few quick thoughts specific to the "Russian hacking" issue:

View fullsize

• Is it fair to assume Russia sponsored or otherwise facilitated the hack and leaks?  Of course it is.  Like China and many other nations, Russia apparently has extremely robust and aggressive cyber and related intelligence programs.  Again, like other nations, Russia seems to hack everything.  So why wouldn't they target information relating to our elections.
• Are the Russians the only actors (friends, enemies, foreign, domestic, others) with capability and motive?  Of course not.  Who else actively engages in such cyber activities, and who else has previously conducted them in the U.S.?  Possibly more important is the question who has a motive to retaliate against suspected U.S. sponsored activity in their countries?
• Was any of the released information untrue, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading?  At this point, it doesn't appear to be.  Other than a few embarrassed political operatives squirming, I have seen no response that discredits the veracity of the information.
• Because the substance of the leaked material placed Clinton surrogates in a negative light, should we assume the intent was to favor Trump?  Probably, but not necessarily.  There could very easily be other motivations in play, some we might consider and others of which most of us have no knowledge.
• Why specifically would Russia, or any other nation, want to favor Trump?  We could spend all day speculating, but what makes the most sense, if anything?  How do you assess the various motives?  Other than favoring Trump, what other possible motivations exist?
• See here for reasons why a President Trump is not in Russia's best interest.  If you agree with that logic, what is Russia's motive?
• Does any of this activity make the election illegitimate?  Of course not.  No one is alleging that the voting process itself was hacked or altered, but simply that private communication between and among Democrat political operatives was released to the public.  For those who question the legitimacy, would your answer differ if the information was uncovered by a resourceful journalist who did not release her sources or methods?  What if the information was presented by either an identified or anonymous whistleblower?
• Why has the outrage and pressure for Congressional investigations seem to have significantly increased after the election?  This issue was discussed and debated throughout the campaign.  The voters had their eyes wide open when casting their ballots.  What has changed?
• If you believe Russia or another foreign actor conducted the hack in order to influence the election, do you think it's the first time such activity has occurred in the U.S.?  In the past ten years, how many have foreign entities successfully and unsuccessfully hacked into our communication networks?  Has the U.S. ever conducted such operations in foreign nations to influence their activities, to include their elections?  If so, should we be surprised that if it happened during this most recent presidential election?
• Was the hack itself a simple or complex operation?  One report alleges that Podesta's information was seized by using a simple phishing email with a link on which he should not have clicked.  Whether or not these cyber attacks are complex, how do we as a nation defend, combat, and deter such behavior?  How can we improve our performance at defending, combating, and deterring?
• Most of the controversy has surrounded whether a foreign government is meddling in our election process, and rightly so.  But what is the responsibility of the victim of these hacks?  In this instance, it appears many were cavalier with their cyber security practices, and they were bitten.

View fullsize

• Regarding the substance of the emails, it appears those issues are no longer a part of the public dialogue.  Why is that?  Assuming both are facts, which do you think is worse:  1) a hacker (whether or not a foreign state) attempted to influence the election by publicizing truthful information; or 2) the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders; Clinton received debate questions in advance from an operative working at a news network; and/or the Clinton team reviewed and influenced articles from friendly journalists prior to the articles being published as independent, unbiased reporting?
• How would you evaluate a scenario where a journalist, private citizen, or any other American illegally discovered and disclosed a public figure abusing kids, a spouse, or drugs?  Would you be more outraged by the violation of one's privacy, or the sordid truth of the underlying behavior?
• Did the hacking and ultimate revelations ultimately help Trump win the election?  I don't think so.  While this specific information likely further confirmed what Trump voters already believed about the Clinton campaign, it didn't play a meaningful impact, to include persuading undecideds to vote for Trump.  Especially in the swing states, the state of our economy and culture, along with the realities of Obamacare, played a much larger role.
• What isn't being discussed is what other information the [multiple] hackers have.  Again, on many fronts when it comes to our counter-intelligence and counter-cyber attack practices, we simply fail.  Consider for a moment the breadth of the intelligence and offensive cyber operations likely targeting our nation.  How many spies, sources, and hackers do you think are walking around, or otherwise targeting, our government and major corporations?  If you were a foreign nation, friend or foe, how would use cyber and intelligence capabilities against us?

• This so-called Russian hack is only a small chapter in volumes of cyber activities that take place around the globe.   What's the old saying about the importance of "knowing what you know and what you don't know."

I'll close with a quick story.  A couple years ago, I was able to enjoy a conversation with a super smart guy with 30+ years of experience dealing with national security issues. When discussing the most significant foreign threats to America, he cited the targeting of our cyber networks and communication infrastructure with the primary goal of simply seizing private information, and then making it public.  Such activity, he argued, would create chaos, exacerbate divisions, and over time, significantly weaken our nation.  It seems this gentleman could easily cite the last couple months as Exhibit A to support his theory.  The only question, I think, is by how much we will weaken.

For additional information on this topic, please click on the hyperlinked bullet points below:

• A brief overview to the Russian hacking controversy.
• A Trump presidency is not in the Russians best interest.
• U.S. Defense Secretary says Russia hacked Pentagon network.
• U.S. Government notifies 21.5 million victims of foreign hacking that included detailed personal information.
• Putin and Netanyahu foster improved relations.

View fullsize