Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
I had been planning this thread, but those bastards decided to pop back up into the news; Ah well.

Anyways, can an organization like wikileaks work around the concept of information warfare?

To me, even the current brouhaha aside, it seems like a perfect propaganda tool in the making. You can dump anything you want in there and it'll likely come out, especially since their checking doesn't seem to be very thorough.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's virtually impossible to trust any source. There are simply too many motivations to create disinformation and too many ways for the information to be subtly manipulated without any means of detection.

There's no way for any of us peons to really know who is behind what and why.

We're left to either accept the filtering we get from the media source of our choice, slog through all the near endless amount of data ourselves or just ignore it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love this age.

"You have access to any information you could possibly want, but have no way of telling if it's true or not besides verifying it yourself."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
I love this age.

"You have access to any information you could possibly want, but have no way of telling if it's true or not besides verifying it yourself."


Which, of course, begs the question. Can you really verify it yourself?

I certainly don't have that sort of expertise. I'm not sure such expertise even exists.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Purely electronic data is hard to validate and easy to manipulate.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Ah well. Once we have self-driving cars, AI computers doing all the work, and we achieved the singularity so we can all become immortal, then we'll come to worship this new information age, right?

You know, it's not so much that information is hard to verify. It's that a sizeable percentage of people will outright lie and manufacture data, and an even more sizeable percentage will believe it no matter what. Like I said, this is what you kids wanted. Enjoy!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We wanted it with integrity.

We got everything but the integrity.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An article from this morning related to this topic...

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/17/13245200/russia-wikileak...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.

There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.

The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.

That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.



We already live in that world...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
Quote:
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.

There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.

The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.

That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.



We already live in that world...


It's funny because Vox mentions one case where Russia actually did this, and did a real hack job on it, in the same article.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
I love this age.

"You have access to any information you could possibly want, but have no way of telling if it's true or not besides verifying it yourself."

Which is an improvement over any previous age in which information was much harder to come by and at least as unreliable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
Jythier wrote:
I love this age.

"You have access to any information you could possibly want, but have no way of telling if it's true or not besides verifying it yourself."

Which is an improvement over any previous age in which information was much harder to come by and at least as unreliable.


The major difference being that now people THINK they KNOW stuff.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
Quote:
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.

There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.

The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.

That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.



We already live in that world...


It's funny because Vox mentions one case where Russia actually did this, and did a real hack job on it, in the same article.



The author cites that as an example as if to say that tampering is easy to detect - it was an "obvious" fake. Well, yes, it was obvious. Doesn't that, in itself, tell you something?

Do you really believe that whoever is responsible for the hack lacks the ability to make a convincing if not undetectable fake email?

The ability to alter an existing email within the hack or fabricate and insert an email?

Really?


The media is being irresponsible in not frontloading every single article they publish on this stuff with warnings and caveats that they simply cannot establish the provenance of any of these emails.

None.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
Jythier wrote:
I love this age.

"You have access to any information you could possibly want, but have no way of telling if it's true or not besides verifying it yourself."

Which is an improvement over any previous age in which information was much harder to come by and at least as unreliable.


The major difference being that now people THINK they KNOW stuff.


Also, as has been noted, it's surprisingly easy to plant 1 (or many) false statement/bit of info into a large info dump, and surprisingly hard to catch.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Purely electronic data is hard to validate and easy to manipulate.


If these emails had been signed with modern crypto, the content would have been easy to validate and nearly impossible to manipulate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rekinom wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Purely electronic data is hard to validate and easy to manipulate.


If these emails had been signed with modern crypto, the content would have been easy to validate and nearly impossible to manipulate.


Had the DNC emails been encrypted we wouldn't be having this discussion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
rekinom wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Purely electronic data is hard to validate and easy to manipulate.


If these emails had been signed with modern crypto, the content would have been easy to validate and nearly impossible to manipulate.


Had the DNC emails been encrypted we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Who said anything about encrypting emails?

I said signed.

Electronic information can be made easy to validate and difficult to manipulate with a little effort.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Which can also be filed under the heading of woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
windsagio wrote:

Anyways, can an organization like wikileaks work around the concept of information warfare?



All they do is release leaked documents. It is all they have to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
Which can also be filed under the heading of woulda, coulda, shoulda.


And under the heading of plausible deniability.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rekinom wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
Which can also be filed under the heading of woulda, coulda, shoulda.


And under the heading of plausible deniability.


Yes, they wanted to get hacked so they didn't bother with end to end encryption. They also wanted to ensure maximum confusion when they inevitably did get hacked so they failed to provide any way for the authenticity of their email to be established.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

They simply didn't take the possibility of being hacked or the need for authentication seriously enough.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.