Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, I know that the mods will freak because US politics, but hear me out, this may effect the whole damn world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43092085

The FBI has handed out indictments for 13 Russian citizens for manipulating the US elections. Not one side or the other, both sides. According to the FBI no American was a knowing participant in this, though many were involved.


From the indictment of these 13 Russians.

By 2016, defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online persons to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election, They engaged in operations primarily to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.

Discuss.

Wait so asides from various flavor of trolling social media sites and the likes did they actually directly manipulate votes and stuff?

i was expecting like actual rigging of physical votes.

Actually, at least one American citizen has pled guilty to identify theft and fraud in connection to this.

It's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that Russia has been meddling in US and other countries elections for some time now.

Turns out being connected to everyone all the time is a double edged sword

This is a pretty tough one to talk about with the US politics ban, but I'm not too surprised. I know they are foreign citizens trying to influence a domestic election, but is that even illegal assuming there is no collusion with these individuals on behalf of US political candidates, which the FBI apparently thinks is the case? If a citizen of the UK makes a bunch of posts trying to influence US politics, is that something they can be indicted for? Or is it just that they were proven to be state actors? It's a novel situation.

 Desubot wrote:
Wait so asides from various flavor of trolling social media sites and the likes did they actually directly manipulate votes and stuff?

i was expecting like actual rigging of physical votes.

There are no physical votes anymore.

And, rather than just trolling, these guys were spending a lot of money to create rallies, sometimes for both sides at the same place on the same day to create tension, and buy ad space and commercial time. They spent upwards to 1.2 million dollars a day to try and create chaos.

 Luciferian wrote:
This is a pretty tough one to talk about with the US politics ban, but I'm not too surprised. I know they are foreign citizens trying to influence a domestic election, but is that even illegal assuming there is no collusion with these individuals on behalf of US political candidates, which the FBI apparently thinks is the case? If a citizen of the UK makes a bunch of posts trying to influence US politics, is that something they can be indicted for? Or is it just that they were proven to be state actors? It's a novel situation.

If a British citizen is spending 1.2 million US dollars a day to do it, i'd certainly ask some questions.

$1.2m a day? That's pretty exceptional. Last I heard, which was a while ago, the only thing they knew about was hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Facebook ads. I'll definitely have to look into this more. It definitely seems clear that they were trying to stoke tension as much as possible, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just read the NYT article - that is much a much more extensive operation than I was expecting. And the legal charges are in the nature of fraud and identity theft. I'm glad for the indictment and it looks like the Mueller investigation has done good work on this one.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, I know that the mods will freak because US politics, but here me out

TBH surprised this is still up at all.

In any event, Russian bots have also started hashtag campaigns on guns today - #falseflag was another one today. I have no idea why anyone would use Twitter or what the value is thereof, but people sure seem to do so anyway so I guess this is a thing that matters.

The US is under attack by Russia and has been for a while. There may not be bombs or bullets, but these are actual attacks and need to be responded to.

 Ouze wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, I know that the mods will freak because US politics, but here me out

Spoiler:

TBH surprised this is still up at all.

In any event, Russian bots have also started hashtag campaigns on guns today - #falseflag was another one today. I have no idea why anyone would use Twitter or what the value is thereof, but people sure seem to do so anyway so I guess this is a thing that matters.

The US is under attack by Russia and has been for a while. There may not be bombs or bullets, but these are actual attacks and need to be responded to.

Be fore this is locked. May I say. Great gif.

In order to try to redeem the topic, what are some global political angles we can discuss? I don't assume these guys are going to be extradited to the US.

 Ouze wrote:

The US is under attack by Russia and has been for a while. There may not be bombs or bullets, but these are actual attacks and need to be responded to.

If think it's just twitter, or the US for that matter, please consult just HOW big this got. We're talking TV ads and running fake rallies.

 Luciferian wrote:
In order to try to redeem the topic, what are some global political angles we can discuss? I don't assume these guys are going to be extradited to the US.

Well Thetes been accusations of Russain influence in UK elections, Brexit and others in Europe

The US is not the only nation its claimed they have been playing with digital ways to influence beyond there borders.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

The US is under attack by Russia and has been for a while. There may not be bombs or bullets, but these are actual attacks and need to be responded to.

If think it's just twitter, or the US for that matter, please consult just HOW big this got. We're talking TV ads and running fake rallies.

Yes, I know it's not just twitter. You cut out the context of my post where I was referring to today's hashtag bs.

 Luciferian wrote:
In order to try to redeem the topic, what are some global political angles we can discuss? I don't assume these guys are going to be extradited to the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/internet-research-agency-grand-jury-indictment-180216.pdf

The whole 37 pages of the indictment. Seems that this was just the US branch of a much larger entity, aimed at England as well as the US. This may color the BREXIT discussion.

 Luciferian wrote:
In order to try to redeem the topic, what are some global political angles we can discuss? I don't assume these guys are going to be extradited to the US.

What about talking of all the crazy schemes that come out of the Kremlin?

I love how much attention this is getting. It is as if Russia and the USSR haven't been doing this for decades already. Russia has tried to infiltrate the US in almost every way imaginable, and this is far from the Kremlin's most notable or elaborate little plot. Anyone remember the Illegals program? Now that was a properly elaborate scheme. And I can say with some confidence that it is far from the largest or most elaborate thing. But even the craziest things Russia is doing pales in comparison to what the Soviets did back in the day (poisoning the Potomac and suitcase nukes anyone? (speaking of which, the Russian government mysteriously 'lost' some of them). Really, observing the Russian government sometimes makes me feel like I am living in a movie. They certainly come up with schemes worthy of a cartoon villain. It is hilarious.

They keep themselves busy, that's for sure.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
speaking of which, the Russian government mysteriously 'lost' some of them).

People still believe the suitcase nuke story? You realize how much a nuke with a range greater than a few hundred feet weighs? It might be the size of a suitcase, but they'd have to move it with a fork lift.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
speaking of which, the Russian government mysteriously 'lost' some of them).

People still believe the suitcase nuke story? You realize how much a nuke with a range greater than a few hundred feet weighs? It might be the size of a suitcase, but they'd have to move it with a fork lift.

IF it was dirty enough tech, would it need to have greater range if you were just going to drop it into a water treatment plant or something? Asking for a friend.

 daedalus wrote:


IF it was dirty enough tech, would it need to have greater range if you were just going to drop it into a water treatment plant or something? Asking for a friend.

I don't think you understand: it's not the range, it's the weight. W19 was 11 inches around and weighed 600 pounds. Fissile material is heavy.

I see what you're saying now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


IF it was dirty enough tech, would it need to have greater range if you were just going to drop it into a water treatment plant or something? Asking for a friend.

I don't think you understand: it's not the range, it's the weight. W19 was 11 inches around and weighed 600 pounds. Fissile material is heavy.

Plus if anyone still or has set up radiation sensors in key locations. It will scream the momment anyone close and likely hooked into camera and other systems.

Even if one could be carried. A suitcase will not hide it and have room for a nuke and a thick radiation barrier. Plus on top of that. Lead is heavy as hell.

A small roll for roof. 9 inch by 4 metres came in at 30+ pounds or so. And that was about 1-2mm thick only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
I see what you're saying now.

That the scary soviet suitcase nuke could weigh in at over 200 kilos and be impossible to carry unless your a Olympic body builder and thus. A bit of cold War propaganda.

Back to topic. It's hard to tell what is truth or not with modern case. It may be true. It may be being pushed for a reason. Decades down the line these bots could be proved real, or like the suitcase nuke. A great story bit not true.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
speaking of which, the Russian government mysteriously 'lost' some of them).

People still believe the suitcase nuke story? You realize how much a nuke with a range greater than a few hundred feet weighs? It might be the size of a suitcase, but they'd have to move it with a fork lift.

Uh?
I am not really sure where you are getting that from. The smallest known nuke ever built (and used) was the US W54, which weighed only 23 kg. If you need a forklift to move that, well I think you need some excercise
Pretty sure 'suitcase nuke' is just a nickname though. Even though these nukes are very small (for nuclear explosives), they are still too large to fit into the average suitcase.
The W54 for example was carried around in these backpacks:

Didn't Putin say a few years ago that the future of warfare wasn't in militaries, but the internet? Something like that, but the jist being that if you can 1984 the hell out of someone's perception of things then you'll win the war before it even starts.

This form of warfare is a natural fit for Russia of course, as societal manipulation is kind of day to day life in that country. "What do you think of Global Warning?" - Oh its fantastic says the average Russian, all the way up to the actual government. The woes of state run media I suppose. "What do you think about cyber warfare" - oh, well those Americans had it coming, always looking down on us, now we have the upper hand! And so on... In a climate that Putin's government's created in that country its not difficult for a system where cyber terrorists can be created, and a feeling that what they're doing is justified. I mean, look at Crimea. Russia invades another country, then say they're the victim.

Regardless, their actions other cause instability, or people agree with whatever thinking that they were attempting to achieve. In either case they win, and in the latter's case face even less repercussions. Its not an attempt at having people believe all the lies, its enough to have them argue over what is the truth. If people are arguing over whether the sky is blue, then they aren't dealing with the actual problem.

"We don't have any soldiers in Crimea" - but you clearly do "Oh,they're volunteers" - volunteers walked away with modern tanks? - "Ok, the locals asked us to come. See, 99.9% of them voted for it". - Hey, wait, we've been arguing over this for ages? Has anyone actually dealt with this problem instead of getting into circular arguments with these trolls?

I do not volunteer to ruck that thing.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Didn't Putin say a few years ago that the future of warfare wasn't in militaries, but the internet? Something like that, but the jist being that if you can 1984 the hell out of someone's perception of things then you'll win the war before it even starts.

This form of warfare is a natural fit for Russia of course, as societal manipulation is kind of day to day life in that country. "What do you think of Global Warning?" - Oh its fantastic says the average Russian, all the way up to the actual government. The woes of state run media I suppose. "What do you think about cyber warfare" - oh, well those Americans had it coming, always looking down on us, now we have the upper hand! And so on... In a climate that Putin's government's created in that country its not difficult for a system where cyber terrorists can be created, and a feeling that what they're doing is justified. I mean, look at Crimea. Russia invades another country, then say they're the victim.

Regardless, their actions other cause instability, or people agree with whatever thinking that they were attempting to achieve. In either case they win, and in the latter's case face even less repercussions. Its not an attempt at having people believe all the lies, its enough to have them argue over what is the truth. If people are arguing over whether the sky is blue, then they aren't dealing with the actual problem.

"We don't have any soldiers in Crimea" - but you clearly do "Oh,they're volunteers" - volunteers walked away with modern tanks? - "Ok, the locals asked us to come. See, 99.9% of them voted for it". - Hey, wait, we've been arguing over this for ages? Has anyone actually dealt with this problem instead of getting into circular arguments with these trolls?

Well, Putin did not say that militaries and conventional weapons weren't the future, but he did say that in the future, the internet would become just as important a tool of war as them. (IIRC, contrary to what you guys might be expecting, I do not have every single speech of Putin memorised )
But yeah. Misdirection is something that Russia has always been good at. Misdirecting and causing confusion is a key component of maskirovka, one of Russia's primary military doctrines. It is not needed to have people believe in your deceptions, you just need to make so much deceptions that they get confused. When they are confused, they will be hesitant. That is when you strike. Crimea was indeed a good modern example of this, but lots of other examples of the Soviets doing this can be found if you look back a bit.

I'm still baffled how these attempts to influence elections are ok when we do it, but it's somehow wrong when someone else does it.

Seriously, American political organizations, lobbyists, and politicians collectively spend billions a year on spreading misinformation and lies, and have been doing so for a long time. But because it's Americans doing it to other Americans who are gullible enough to believe it, it's ok. But when it's the evil Russians fooling gullible Americans, it's bad. At what point do we actually hold the gullible Americans responsible?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm still baffled how these attempts to influence elections are ok when we do it, but it's somehow wrong when someone else does it.

Because when you (assuming you're an American citizen) do it, it' politics. When someone does it to you, it's considered an act of war by some countries. The US has extensive laws prohibiting foreign persons from attempting to manipulate the US elections. By a wide variety of means.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm still baffled how these attempts to influence elections are ok when we do it, but it's somehow wrong when someone else does it.

Because when you (assuming you're an American citizen) do it, it' politics. When someone does it to you, it's considered an act of war by some countries. The US has extensive laws prohibiting foreign persons from attempting to manipulate the US elections. By a wide variety of means.

You know, maybe someone should tell the US government that making laws for foreign persons isn't going to be very effective... You can prohibit those pesky foreigners from meddling in your elections all you want, but those prohibitions are pretty much powerless since they are well... foreigners. Besides, it is not like the US or other countries do not meddle in foreign elections (the US is in fact more active in this than Russia is, according to academic studies). Foreign meddling has been a inseparable part of elections ever since the very first elections were held back in Ancient Greece. It isn't going to stop just because you made some silly law. Laws that can not be enforced are just a waste of perfectly good paper.
Russia wasn't even the only country to meddle in the US elections. The only reason this is so focused on is because the whole "Russia is evil" tangent that Americans seem to love so much.

I hope this instigates a broader global/UN response.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It isn't going to stop just because you made some silly law. Laws that can not be enforced are just a waste of perfectly good paper.
Russia wasn't even the only country to meddle in the US elections. The only reason this is so focused on is because the whole "Russia is evil" tangent that Americans seem to love so much.

Well, see, there's this thing where they do it in the US. There is this thing where if you go to soemone's country, and, say, kill soemone, they can get you deported. Just because Russia is unlikely to deport these people, particularly those associated with Vladimir Putin, does not mean that no one does.

Or, if Russia really feels that way, then by all means, I should be able to go to Russia and do things that are illegal there but not in the US, and get away with it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm still baffled how these attempts to influence elections are ok when we do it, but it's somehow wrong when someone else does it.

Because when you (assuming you're an American citizen) do it, it' politics. When someone does it to you, it's considered an act of war by some countries. The US has extensive laws prohibiting foreign persons from attempting to manipulate the US elections. By a wide variety of means.

You know, maybe someone should tell the US government that making laws for foreign persons isn't going to be very effective... You can prohibit those pesky foreigners from meddling in your elections all you want, but those prohibitions are pretty much powerless since they are well... foreigners.

To be fair, the US has extradition treaties with a large number of nations that would allow US law to reach such people, and if they don't have diplomatic immunity can be charged if found within the borders of the US.

Nobody expects Russia to actually extradite anyone, that's never going to happen, but not every foreign nation is Russia. The recent FIFA scandals were prosecuted in US courts against foreign nationals who committed banking crimes in the US.

That said, does Russia not have nearly identical laws? They probably don't expect to get extraditions often, but I'm sure if some were found within the borders of the Russian Federation engaging in such activity it would not go well.

Besides, it is not like the US or other countries do not meddle in foreign elections (the US is in fact more active in this than Russia is, according to academic studies).

I don't think anyone would debate that the US routinely meddles in foreign elections, the hypocrisy is obvious and rank, but just as the nations the US meddles with naturally take steps to minimize and counter that activity, so will the US.