UK Intelligence report in to Russian interference in UK Elections/Scottish Referendum

Originally Posted by Mick

I have evidence of foreign interference in our 2016 Brexit referendum and it seemed to be perfectly fine when it suited the Remainers, former U.S President Barack Obama threatening back of queue on a leave result. If that wasn't foreign interference in plain sight then the Russians just didn't get their foot in the door fast enough.

There is a difference between someone saying something up-front for which people can make their own judgements and people interfering behind the scenes and possibly committing criminal acts such as hacking.

You're not inferring if you express an opinion, you are if you're engaging in hacking attacks or bombarding the internet with bots.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

There is a difference between someone saying something up-front for which people can make their own judgements and people interfering behind the scenes and possibly committing criminal acts such as hacking.

Still interference.


So what effect was there from any illusory actions? No identified effect and no identified actions. Doesn't even reach the giddy heights of mere speculation.

Anyone would think the UK or anybody else didn't have any hackers.
Link

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice on Tuesday accused two Chinese nationals, who it said were working on behalf of the Chinese government, of stealing trade secrets and hacking into computer systems of firms working on the Covid-19 vaccine.
...
The DOJ said in a statement that high-tech manufacturing processes, gaming software, solar energy engineering, pharmaceuticals and defense industries were among those targeted in the hack.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still interference.


So what effect was there from any illusory actions? No identified effect and no identified actions. Doesn't even reach the giddy heights of mere speculation.

I haven't looked into the report much.

I was just saying there is a difference between a politician publically commenting on an election and directing their intelligence services to hack/undermine one. To extent to which the latter happened I don't know.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Anyone would think the UK or anybody else didn't have any hackers.
Link

Yes but we're British and generally don't want external forces attacking us.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

I haven't looked into the report much.

I was just saying there is a difference between a politician publically commenting on an election and directing their intelligence services to hack/undermine one. To extent to which the latter happened I don't know.

Yes but we're British and generally don't want external forces attacking us.

So where is the evidence of any effect of hacking or undermining? Never mind whether it took place at all. There is no "this occurred, what is the explanation and who was responsible". There is no "this". If there was a "this", then people could reach the giddy heights of mere speculation.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Kushan

We could ask our intelligence agencies if Russia interfered. Crazy thought, I know.

If the Government knew Russia hadn't interfered, then it would be quite keen to ask this question. If a government of leavers felt there was a chance Russia had interfered, would it feel so comfortable in asking the question?

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

There is a difference between someone saying something up-front for which people can make their own judgements and people interfering behind the scenes and possibly committing criminal acts such as hacking.

You're not inferring if you express an opinion, you are if you're engaging in hacking attacks or bombarding the internet with bots.

Exactly - totally false equivalents.

Originally Posted by Damien

There is a difference between someone saying something up-front for which people can make their own judgements and people interfering behind the scenes and possibly committing criminal acts such as hacking.

You're not inferring if you express an opinion, you are if you're engaging in hacking attacks or bombarding the internet with bots.

I am sorry but I totally disagree, there is not a difference at all. Barack Obama interfered in our referendum because he was asked to by the Remain side, and he did not express an opinion, he made a direct threat which is totally different, it was totally out of order by the Remain camp to use, at the time the U.S President to threaten the UK people in to voting Remain or else.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I haven't looked into the report much.

I was just saying there is a difference between a politician publically commenting on an election and directing their intelligence services to hack/undermine one. To extent to which the latter happened I don't know.




Yes but we're British and generally don't want external forces attacking us.

Again Damien, he didn't just make a public speech. He made a direct threat. I cannot believe you are fine with a leader of another country, allied or not, to come to our country and threaten the people in to voting a certain way or else. That is not and never is ok.

[nomadking]

So saying something publicly isn't trying to influence anything, but something or other, nobody knows what, and nobody can see any effect, is trying to influence. Which is likely to have changed voting intentions more?

Originally Posted by Mick

I am sorry but I totally disagree, there is not a difference at all. Barack Obama interfered in our referendum because he was asked to by the Remain side, and he did not express an opinion, he made a direct threat which is totally different, it was totally out of order by the Remain camp to use, at the time the U.S President to threaten the UK people in to voting Remain or else.

In may be out of order and against the convention that foreign leaders do not comment on the affairs of others but it is not the same for two main reasons:

1. It was transparent. Everyone can see who is saying it, why and make their own judgements as to if it's approrate or not
2. It's not illegal. It's not an attack on the country's security systems or media.

If Putin was to come out and tomorrow as say Boris Johnson is an idiot and you should vote Labour then that would not be a matter of national security.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Again Damien, he didn't just make a public speech. He made a direct threat. I cannot believe you are fine with a leader of another country, allied or not, to come to our country and threaten the people in to voting a certain way or else. That is not and never is ok.

I think the threat is rather weak 'you'll be at the back of the queue'. But I don't think foreign leaders should comment on the internal politics of their allies. It's bad form so I am not 'ok' with it.

However I do think it's a different kettle of fish to Russia doing all the things they do to the U.K such as cyber security attacks.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So saying something publicly isn't trying to influence anything, but something or other, nobody knows what, and nobody can see any effect, is trying to influence. Which is likely to have changed voting intentions more?

Yes because voters can decide for themselves.

Boris Johnson making a speech saying Starmer is incompetent would be different to him, theoretically, organising a lot of fake stories from his time in the CPS calling him incompetent. And it CERTAINLY would be different to him hacking the Labour Party.

This are all worse things.

Originally Posted by Mick

I am sorry but I totally disagree, there is not a difference at all. Barack Obama interfered in our referendum because he was asked to by the Remain side, and he did not express an opinion, he made a direct threat which is totally different, it was totally out of order by the Remain camp to use, at the time the U.S President to threaten the UK people in to voting Remain or else.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------



Again Damien, he didn't just make a public speech. He made a direct threat. I cannot believe you are fine with a leader of another country, allied or not, to come to our country and threaten the people in to voting a certain way or else. That is not and never is ok.

Just imagine an American President telling people how he thinks they should vote in a certain way...

Trump before the last election...

When you are the president of the United States you have great relationships with many of the leaders, including Boris, he's a fantastic man, and I think he's the exact right guy for the times.

Trump took a swipe at the Labour leader, saying, "Corbyn would be so bad for your country, he'd be so bad, he'd take you on such a bad way. He'd take you into such bad places."

Or a Presidential candidate showed support for one side in a U.K. vote

"I would say [the UK] are better off without [the EU], personally, but I'm not making that as a recommendation, just my feeling.

[Carth]

WOW . . . I never guessed Trump was Russian

Maybe the Government were right to discount the 'alleged' Russian interference, seeing as it was obviously American

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes because voters can decide for themselves.

Boris Johnson making a speech saying Starmer is incompetent would be different to him, theoretically, organising a lot of fake stories from his time in the CPS calling him incompetent. And it CERTAINLY would be different to him hacking the Labour Party.

This are all worse things.

So when were Labour hacked and how would it be different to any other hacking attempt on the rest of us? If they did and succeeded, how would that influence anything. If they uncovered bad secrets, then shouldn't those bad secrets be exposed to the electorate, so "voters can decide for themselves"?

Still not seeing any of a little thing called evidence, that anybody did anything. If there was a "something" then it could be considered and looked into. The best they can come up with is, "Russia might have wanted to influence X, Y, Z". Same could be said about the US, Germany, France, Ireland etc.

You can't influence anybody without somehow people being openly exposed to that influence.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just imagine an American President telling people how he thinks they should vote in a certain way...

Trump before the last election...



Or a Presidential candidate showed support for one side in a U.K. vote

So what?

I did say if you open your eyes, that nobody should interfere in any countries election, period and that is regardless of WHO is president, so do not quote to me what other presidents have said or done, it should not happen period!

Originally Posted by nomadking

So when were Labour hacked and how would it be different to any other hacking attempt on the rest of us? If they did and succeeded, how would that influence anything. If they uncovered bad secrets, then shouldn't those bad secrets be exposed to the electorate, so "voters can decide for themselves"?

I didn't say they were hacked. I said 'therotically' and gave a list of examples.

And hacking attempts on the rest of us are still illegal and wrong. As for sharing bad secrets then ok, certainly the press have published documents obtained illegally before and if it's in the public interest then those newspapers do that precisely because the voters can then decide for themselves.

However, it's still illegal and if it's a foreign power doing it we should be upset. As after all if they're only hacking one side it's clear what they're up too.

I don't want people hacking this country, hacking our political parties or hacking you.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

I didn't say they were hacked. I said 'therotically' and gave a list of examples.

And hacking attempts on the rest of us are still illegal and wrong. As for sharing bad secrets then ok, certainly the press have published documents obtained illegally before and if it's in the public interest then those newspapers do that precisely because the voters can then decide for themselves.

However, it's still illegal and if it's a foreign power doing it we should be upset. As after all if they're only hacking one side it's clear what they're up too.

I don't want people hacking this country, hacking our political parties or hacking you.

I don't want people trying to steal my car, selling drugs in the neighborhood, or turning up in a dodgy van offering to re-lay my drive . . . it's the modern world though, deal with it

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

I didn't say they were hacked. I said 'therotically' and gave a list of examples.

And hacking attempts on the rest of us are still illegal and wrong. As for sharing bad secrets then ok, certainly the press have published documents obtained illegally before and if it's in the public interest then those newspapers do that precisely because the voters can then decide for themselves.

However, it's still illegal and if it's a foreign power doing it we should be upset. As after all if they're only hacking one side it's clear what they're up too.

I don't want people hacking this country, hacking our political parties or hacking you.

So your "theoretically" is not based in reality? I thought we were meant to be discussing something that is meant to have actually happened.

More than just theoretically, a lot of different people try to hack X, Y, Z. Just look at the number of phishing attempts. Doesn't mean state involvement. Still no evidence of anybody doing anything much more than putting forward a viewpoint.

It is when the Remain side try to prevent Brexit meetings or stifle comment that people should be worried about. Open free speech is dead and buried. Just look at "cancel culture". Every day people are being fired or forced to quit, just because they have the "wrong" non-approved opinions.
Link

UKIP leader Nigel Farage had to cancel a planned bus visit to Northampton town centre because of protesters.

With Brexit, it wasn't case of a 80% or even 60%, in favour of remaining, mysteriously turning into a Brexit win. The very reason for the referendum was that the 2 sides were close in numbers for a long time. Was Russia "interfering" for that "long time"?