CBC: 'NATO Researcher Warns of Russian Interference in 2019 Canadian Election'

And the Russian sympathizers soon to pounce.

Quote:

Canucklhead chumps will be happy - $500 MILLION of the people's money in the Federal budget for 'cyber-security' to protect them from Putin and the evil Russians under their beds trying to put a Tory back in power or whatever this delusional Canadian variant of the low-rent Yanqui farce turns out to be...

I missed the reference to Russia in that article.

Even if "Fancy Bear" isn't actually a Russian hacking group, but is in fact, literally a bear, do you feel it's better if Canada just literally ignore the threat?

I think the most interesting question is which Canadian party the Russians would want to help, if they were getting up to election hacking. I would imagine they would want to help the party most likely to disagree with the U.S. on major issues. That looks to be the NDP, not that we are particularly brave in our foreign policy positions. So, don't be surprised if thousands of Russian bots and trolls start singing the praises of Jagmeet.

RE: VOTD.   Large US unions, real estate developers and financial service industry associations and lobby groups typically support the Liberals in Canada, and the extraction industries/big oil, etc typically support the Conservatives.   Elections Canada has reported on it, google the Tides Foundation for recent example.    Typically US orgs will give money to local branches or to local third parties to spend. 

Michael:  I think your questions is unknowable and somewhat dangerous.   To ask it is believing the hype.   Do we need to, at this point in time, specify who should get the lion's share of the McCarthyite charges of "acting in the interests of Russians" coming down the canadian media pipelines?   Besides, we all know it will be the NDP.

How trusting of you to allow the government to define the threat, and to tell us the solution to it.   That kind of trust is very useful to governments everywhere.

Mobo:

Yeah, I know about the Tides Foundation controversy. Thing is, though, when Harper and Levant were making a big issue about Tides and other groups funding environmentalist groups in Canada a few years back, the general repsonse from the left seemed to be "Yeah, well the oil companies are throwing foreign cash around all over the place, so we don't really have much choice but to fight fire with fire, now do we." At the very least, I certainly don't recall anyone on the left saying that environmentalists should on principle refuse money from US foundations.

I take the point that there has been foreign money(of whatever ideological origin) influencing our elections for some time now, though I don't know if US environmentalist groups are really what most progressives have in mind when they think of "Americans trying to elect a Canadian government." And I suspect that CBC poster you quoted wasn't a progressive at all, but was mad that Harper lost and is blaming left-wing Americans.

VOTD:  "At the very least, I certainly don't recall anyone on the left saying that environmentalists should on principle refuse money from US foundations."

Sure, if you look at this issue through a partisan lens, that logic makes sense.   If you take the position that other countries shouldn't interfere in our domestic affairs as a general principle than when evaluating threats it would seem to me we should consider their individual scale, ability and power to interfere.   I would put it that the US and China, at minimum, have far more ability and $ to spend influencing our elections, but they are not mentioned by Trudeau.  

If one is generous and believes the US intelligence agencies, Russia spend some 6 million dollars on influencing the US election prior to the election.   We are spending, as NDPP has pointed out, 500 million on combatting this threat alone, + another 2.2 billion on a joint venture with Shared Service Canada.  

Michael and Pondering:   I get that it's fun to speculate, but do you really think we are in any sort of position to judge the Russian government's motives vis-a-vis Canada?   Governments don't announce their true intentions, and we have little to no direct experience with the Russian government or it's foreign policy, and we are not in a media environment where anything Russian is discussed in a reasonable, factual way. 

Allan:   Got it.   Strongmen like Putin bad.  Trudeau good, will protect us from Strongmen!   

Very curious how the government intends to define (or not define) "interference", as well.   The definitions used in the Kremlingate affair by the US were ridiculously vague and overly general.   Kind of a key point for me.   

Thanks for the thread NDPP! When I get the chance I'll add more opinions and comments. 

Quote:

I would put it that the US and China, at minimum, have far more ability and $ to spend influencing our elections, but they are not mentioned by Trudeau.

If either are doing it on the "down low" then I hope it would be mentioned.

If either of them openly made some contribution to "the People's Freedom Foundation" or some similar, I'm not that worried.  But it's a general principle of criminal law that there's a difference between openly committing a crime, for all to see, and committing a crime and taking pains to try to cover up the evidence.

Russia's innocence in all of this crap would be so much easier to believe if it weren't being constantly and consistently asserted that they're innocent of EVERYTHING. 

Like, if the defenders of Mother Russia could agree that, OK, looks like there really was some doping going on and Russia needs to finally own that, it would be just 100x easier to believe them when they say "there was no attempt to subvert any elections".  But the idea that it's all just 100% "Russophobia", promoted by the U.S., the Canadian "chumps", Chrystia Freeland and the ghost of Ronald Reagan doesn't hold water.

alan smithee wrote:

Putin,strongman. bad. Xi and Duterte are no better or worse. If you think foreign governments don't interfere with elections,you're sleeping. That is all

Foreign, why should we be afraid of foreign governments interfering with elections?

I am much more concerned with the U.S. (not foreign, brethren) interfering with elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

https://www.newsbud.com/2018/02/23/newsbud-exclusive-the-us-is-the-grand-master-of-undermining-elections-not-russia/

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think it's a bit silly to call the U.S. "The GrandMaster" of undermining elections.

From Putin to Kim to Chavez/Maduro to Al-Assad to just about any state in the Middle East, it actually kind of seems like they're pitifully BAD at it.

So Putin to Kim to Chavez/Maduro to Al-Assad to just about any state in the Middle East; they're all bad at undermining elections (foreign).

And you don't think the U.S. is the "GrandMaster" of undermining elections.
So just who would you consider the "GrandMaster" if not the U.S., based on say, the history of the past 100 years?

NDPP wrote:

According to the article, The $507.7 million is on top of another $2.2 billion joint initiative with Shared Services Canada. That's quite a lot of money, given how few seem to have a clue about any of it, let alone outrage. The curiosity and comprehension levels of the country vis a vis important affairs foreign and domestic was never anything to write home about, but the present state of this dumb-down is more than alarming and leading us down some rather bizarre, expensive and dangerous roads...

It is human nature to pay attention to the things that have an immediate or direct impact on our lives and things we believe we have influence over. For most people foreign affairs is in neither of those categories. 

That we pay closer attention to politics doesn't make us wiser or more enlightened. Of all of the issues we are facing climate change is by far the most serious and the most threatening. We are talking about the only planet known to support human life. It's pretty important. Some people are dedicating their lives to fighting it and educating people about it to the point of obsession. They probably feel like screaming WAKE UP PEOPLE. How stupid can you be?

Judging people is counter-productive if you need to persuade them to support you or the causes you think are important. 

I spend too much time on this board, too much, because I am not accomplishing anything here. I'm not influencing anyone. I guess it exercises my brain, forces me to think more logically, informs me, but none of those things are particularly significant to the world, just to me personally. Just knowing about stuff to be outraged about it isn't particularly constructive. 

There has been no dumbing down. People were not better educated in the past. Quite the opposite. More people than ever have a university education. It's perfectly normal for people to focus attention on what has direct impact on their lives. Don't mistake that for being "dumb". 

Pondering wrote:

There has been no dumbing down. People were not better educated in the past. Quite the opposite. More people than ever have a university education.

And yet, university education is both more expensive and less valuable than ever...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

less valuable than ever

Perhaps you mean "less lucrative"?

50 years ago, a Baccalaureate was probably akin to a Master's today.  Not to mention that having gone to University at all implied that you were white and a bit priveleged and were likely to be financially successful regardless.

These days, a University degree is pretty much just Grades 13-16.  So it shouldn't be a shock that being one of a hundred job candidates with a B.A. isn't the "shoo-in" that it once was.

No, I meant valuable. The internet makes learning easier than ever, on your own schedule, for those who have the desire to do so. The only reason to go to university now is to buy your accreditation.

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

less valuable than ever

Perhaps you mean "less lucrative"?

50 years ago, a Baccalaureate was probably akin to a Master's today.  Not to mention that having gone to University at all implied that you were white and a bit priveleged and were likely to be financially successful regardless.

These days, a University degree is pretty much just Grades 13-16.  So it shouldn't be a shock that being one of a hundred job candidates with a B.A. isn't the "shoo-in" that it once was.

No, I meant valuable. The internet makes learning easier than ever, on your own schedule, for those who have the desire to do so. The only reason to go to university now is to buy your accreditation.

In any case point made. More people are more educated than ever before. 

Pondering wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I think the most interesting question is which Canadian party the Russians would want to help, if they were getting up to election hacking. I would imagine they would want to help the party most likely to disagree with the U.S. on major issues. That looks to be the NDP, not that we are particularly brave in our foreign policy positions. So, don't be surprised if thousands of Russian bots and trolls start singing the praises of Jagmeet.

LOL, that was exactly what I was wondering!

If we are going to speculate:

First a party wanting to hack an election may not want to support a party so much as destabilize the country and the process leading to doubt about the democratic process.

Second, reportedly the Russians seem to promote right wing populists. The NDP is not that. The NDP is no tool to create major problems within the country. The worst they could do is create some electoral uncertainty but they are not going to rip up institutions or damage the effectiveness of the state.

If you had ill-will to Canada hacking an election is less likely to be in support of a party and more likely to be to radicalize a party. To that end here are some possibilities:

1. Conservatives – promote the same kind of racist identity politics that already exist that mirror what is south of the border, knowing this will land in the CPC. Promoting hatred generally will push the CPC to that direction.
2. Liberals – attack the party to show division, anger at the leader, possibly promote fake stories.
3. NDP promote the most fringe aspects of the NDP and seed stories against the leader and perhaps fake racist stories purporting to be from NDP members against the leader.
4. All parties – promote stories about cheating in the election, stories about media bias, negative false stories about the process itself and the leadership of all parties.

The NDP is not a worthy party to promote to attack the country. Such a campaign could risk electing it and unlike the others who people have claimed have benefited from hacking, the NDP will not damage the country.

If any party is the target, the objective is unlikely to elect them and more likely to direct them to a fringe direction or damage them so that no matter who wins, the country is divided.

Let's not stop at a Russian threat. I think this is the new battleground of a new cold war. Such a threat could come from a number of countries, including from within. It could come from non-state sources. It is cheap.

Given what is south of the border, I don't think it is reasonable to think that the US is much less (if any) of a threat than Russia. They have a lot more interests here.

Look at the orgainzed bots and humans active politically in the fake news, conspiracy area.

I personally do think that Russia is involved (sorry Russia defenders) however, I certianly do not think they are the only ones and I think a lot more domestic operators are involved with trying to poison opinion in the US. I am not sure why people might think that a domestic nasty dishonest fake news racket is a lot better than a foreign one. Both ahve the same objective. Spending minimal time on social media is an education in the number of people who will stop at nothing to promote their opinion without regard for truth, fairness or process. Some of them have money.

We have already had elections affected -- Pierre Poutine anyone?

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Thanks, Sean, for a much more nuanced analysis than my rather flippant comment. I agree with all the points you make.

Thanks. I think it is equally dangerous presuming the Russians are innocent as thinking they are more of a threat than other sources. In any case, we need a defence becuase our system is valuable. You don't wait for a thief to implement some security.

Here is another thought. Politics in Israel are extreme. Canada is significant when it comes to Israeli politics. Israel is more advanced than most when it comes to spycraft. The government of Israel is run by people who appear to be crooks. Israel knows that Canada's position globally on them matters. There are many in Canada unhappy about Israel's positions. Why stop at Russia? Israel may or may not be a threat... We have no evidence but, I would metaphorically lock my door at night just the same.

I give this as an example -- not somethign I am claiming exists. My point it that debating the who (Russians) instead of the problem (the technology, affordability, ease of attacks) is a mistake.

I do not dismiss the need for the govedrnment spending money on security. I would be very unhappy to learn that these security measures were against one country only or presumed only one threat.

On a slightly different tack, all of these cyber threats should remind us that paper ballots are the simplest and most effective way to ensure that at least the voting and counting process won't be easily hacked.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The difference is that pressure and influence and funding on the part of groups like the NRA, Big Oil, pharmaceutical corporations, the insurance companies, the military, and the U.S. government is an accepted fact. So it isn't that they are less important. In some ways they are more important.

But the objectives and the target groups and the denial in the case of Russian interference is a distinct problem, not least because one of the things it has exploited is racism and anti-immigrant sentiment. And for another, there isn't a large block of activists on the left who are falling for the arguments of big pharma. Evil western empire is a far easier sell.

And lying media.

I do agree with Sean. And I expect we also agree that this isn't an either/or. But this is a particular problem that has been around for a very long time. In part it is a testament to just how good they are at it.

 

 

Yes, I agree.

Timebandit wrote:

Reading the internet is in no way comparable to a university education.

That way lies a dystopia where Jenny McCarthy is as qualified as an MD. So kindly stop with the anti-intellectualism.

I'm not talking about "reading the internet." I'm talking primarily about MOOCs, such as those offered through coursera, udemy, or edx (as just a few examples).

Want to learn calculus? There's a course for that. Website design? Got you covered. Physics? Java? Database management? Check, check and check.

Free (or almost free) higher learning, available anytime, to anyone with access to a computer and the internet, regardless of upbringing, minority status, or personal circumstances or background. How is that anti-intellectual?

Quote:

But it seems that second-guessing the Stanley trial is far more fascinating than discussing more general systemic problems.

It's not "anti-intellectual".

But we've always had books.  Read every book in the library and you'll know all we know.

When you attend an actual university -- even if some of what you do is online -- you're not "buying" accreditation, you're earning it.  I don't really want to undergo surgery performed by someone who swears they totally did every MOOC they could about surgery.