I need a “prop” for the analysis I am about to present. To be completely fair
and “neutral” I chose to post a story from CNN as the backdrop for the analysis.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/opinions/russian-meddling-nsa-authority-opinion-kirby/index.html
So yesterday Navy Admiral Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency,
told congress that the Russians meddled in the 2016 Election...
Who Knew?
Certainly the President at that time knew - he told the Russian President to
“cut it out.”
Rogers also told Congress that he has not received specific instructions from
the current administration to deal with Russian meddling. Never mind that this
is a significant part of his job; kinda like Obama telling high level security
advisors in the weeks leading up to Trump’s inauguration to “do things by the
books.”
This got me to thinking about what the NSA can do about the use of the Internet
by the Russians to interfere in both the 2016 elections, and the aftermath,
where they bought ads on Facebook and other services, and used social media to
promote rallies both for and against the incoming President.
How can our government stop this behavior WITHOUT violating the Net Neutrality
rules that the previous administration imposed via the FCC?
No Blocking, No Throttling, No Internet Fast Lanes...
Seems that “cut it out” is about all that we can say, if we cannot block the
use of the Internet by foreign actors seeking to influence the American public.
Then again, I guess Congress could exempt themselves and the bureaucracy from
the Net Neutrality rules, as they do with many laws that are on the books.
Of course, everything has changed now that the “corrupt” Chairman of the FCC
and his cohorts revoked the rules noted above, replacing them with “the
promise” to tell customers how they will block, throttle and create Internet
fast lanes.
So I guess Admiral Rogers can tell President Putin that they CAN interfere with
our elections, as long as they tell us how they are doing it...
And if the Russians do not comply he can tell the FTC to take them to court, as
Special Council Muller did a few weeks ago when he charged 13 Russians with
violations of U.S. campaign laws...
It’s hard to make stuff like this up...
;-)
Regards
Craig
The Russians will meddle in our elections again
(CNN)The Russians meddled in the 2016 election. We haven't held them to account
for it. They will do it again.
If you happen to be one of those few Americans who still don't believe any of
that (hello, Mr. President), you need to take a look at what Navy Admiral Mike
Rogers told lawmakers Tuesday.
"The Intelligence Community concluded last year that Russian actors, with the
knowledge of senior decision-makers, employed influence operations to interfere
with the US presidential election in 2016," said Rogers, the head of the
National Security Agency and US Cyber Command.
He said the Kremlin did this by employing hackers who stole personal
communications, which were then leaked to new outlets. They also created both
fake social media personas and news items on all sides of the issues to sew
discord and confusion.
"This," he warned, "threatens the foundations of democracy, making it difficult
... to craft common measures for countering Russia's aggressive actions in its
near-abroad and its repression at home."
When pressed by senators about what the administration was doing to craft those
"common measures," Adm. Rogers was forced to admit ... not a whole lot.
"They haven't paid a price, at least, that's sufficient to get them to change
their behavior."
It reminds one of what Lord Palmerston, the great 19th century British
diplomat, once said about the Russians:
"It has always been the policy and practice of the Russian government to expand
its frontiers as rapidly as the apathy or timidity of neighboring states would
permit, but usually to halt or frequently recoil when confronted by determined
opposition; then to await the next favorable opportunity to spring upon its
next victim."
Palmerston was referring, of course, to Moscow's geographic ambitions during
the Victorian age. We can certainly see afresh his wisdom in Russia's
modern-day violations of Ukrainian sovereignty. But the essential truth of
Palmerston's warning applies as well to Russia's orchestrated and aggressive
ambitions in cyber space.
Mr. Putin will only stop this malicious meddling when confronted by a
"determined opposition" to it. And thus far, as the admiral testified, Putin's
felt nothing of that.
President Trump still cannot bring himself to openly acknowledge, much less
criticize, Russia for its cyber crimes. He has not ordered his intelligence or
law enforcement chiefs to combat those crimes. And he has not implemented the
punitive bipartisan sanctions against Russian entities that he himself --
albeit reluctantly -- signed into law.
Adm. Rogers assured lawmakers today that "we're taking steps, but we're
probably not doing enough."
One reason for that, he confessed, is that he hasn't been given the necessary
authorities -- legal and direct orders, as it were -- to more aggressively
target the threat at its source ... in Russia.
"I need a policy decision that indicates there is specific direction to do
that," Rogers said. "The President ultimately would make this decision in
accordance with a recommendation from the Secretary of Defense."
Right he is. Neither the new National Security Strategy nor National Defense
Strategy say much about so-called offensive cyber capabilities. But the NSS
makes clear that the United States "will impose swift and costly consequences
on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant
malicious cyber activities."
Those consequences have to be the result of a policy decision. And Adm. Rogers
doesn't make policy.
To be sure, the administration can -- and should -- have the debate as to the
advisability of more aggressive cyber options. There are also other,
noncyber-related ways to retaliate against state and nonstate actors -- such as
those pesky sanctions the President won't implement. All options should be
fairly heard.
But that's the problem right now. Nothing is being heard, much less discussed,
regarding this looming threat to our democracy. So convinced is he that
evidence of Russian meddling taints his legitimacy, Trump refuses in nearly
every way to face the issue squarely and dispassionately -- the way any good
commander in chief would face a national security threat.
Best we can tell, the President hasn't even convened a single National Security
Council meeting to address the matter.
For his part, Adm. Rogers said he hasn't asked for additional authorities. He
no doubt has good reason for that, reasons the public are probably not meant to
know. Given the admiral's long record of service and his reputation for candor,
we should not leap to the conclusion that one of his reasons is the President's
intransigence.
But absent more context and an adequate explanation for why the administration
has failed to enact "swift and costly consequences" on Russia, the American
people could be forgiven for believing that we are leaving ourselves
vulnerable. They might be forgiven for worrying that we will fall prey to the
same ill-confidence in our electoral process, the same crassness in our public
discourse, and the same distrust in our public institutions that Russia's
attacks have heretofore engendered. Indeed, six in ten of those Americans
surveyed in a new CNN poll said they lacked confidence the President is doing
enough to stop outside meddling in US elections.
It is way past time for Trump to reassure the citizens of this country that he
takes this matter seriously, and that he will do all that is required to defend
our constitution, as his oath stipulates, "against all enemies, foreign and
domestic."
Palmerston had it right all those years ago. Even when effectively confronted,
Russia will await the "next favorable opportunity to spring upon its next
victim."
Russia has not been effectively confronted. And if we don't start doing
something soon to protect our democratic system, we must content ourselves with
the dubious distinction of being both Putin's last -- and next -- victim.