Saturday, December 31, 2016

Fortune — Grizzly Misstep: Security Experts Call Russia Hacking Report “Poorly Done,” “Fatally Flawed”

On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a joint report about Russian cyberattacks, titled “Grizzly Steppe.” The report had been expected to lay out more details about intelligence agency’s claims that the Russian government was directly linked to hacks on the DNC and other organizations, but security experts have expressed broad disappointment with the report.
Jeffrey Carr, author of Inside Cyber Warfare, wrote on Friday that the report “adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible” for the campaign hacks. Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America, argues that the report is of limited use to security professionals, in part because of poor organization and lack of crucial details....
Grizzly Misstep: Security Experts Call Russia Hacking Report “Poorly Done,” “Fatally Flawed”
David Z. Morris


Random said...

"Grizzly misstep" 😂

Penguin pop said...

Off-topic, but I wanted to make sure you see this, Tom. It's a comment I left on yesterday's post and I wanted to see your take on it:

"There's been an update on the comment section, Bob. Someone wanted to see a Marxist critique of MMT and was tired of what he saw as "utopian Keynesianism." That was the notification I got on my phone last night although other than that, it seems the debate died down.

I'd be excited to see a debate of some sorts over this though. I think a good point to try to diffuse tensions between the two camps is talking about MMT's connections to Kalecki and Lerner as opposed to Keynes himself and try to make people realize you don't have to support state authority or capitalism to understand what the implications are and how MMT would be useful if you wanted to reform capitalism as much as possible if revolution isn't as likely to happen. I'd love to see someone like Tom who seems very well-read on Marx much more than I am to offer his POV."

For the full context, see this:

I'm aware there's a paper by Matthew Forstater discussing Marx and MMT that I want to read soon and I'm also sure that would be helpful as well to bring up in a response to such a critique or live debate on this subject. It seems to be the biggest points of contention if there were to be a debate is discussing money, value and authority and what to do about increasing automation in the future and clarifying what was Keynes's role in influencing MMT and how this differs among several economists in this camp. I don't think people would automatically change their minds on these points, but at least people would probably agree on what TPTB have done in impoverishing others below them.

Calgacus said...

Penguin Pop- All the main MMTers except one - and common sense and logic and "normal" scholarly standards - clearly trace the lineage of MMT from Keynes as well as many others. Bill Mitchell's opposing arguments are best seen as an idiosyncratic personal aversion, for they are all bad and often refute themselves.

Everyone agrees Lerner is a major MMT forebear, and there is as far as I know nothing he said that has not been incorporated into MMT worldly philosophy. Lerner himself attributed the main ideas of Functional Finance to Keynes. Keynes at first resisted taking such ideas (which he of course got from many others) further, but by the end of his life, he clearly became a Lernerian - see several works by David Colander.

On other points discussed recently here, the problem about "reform or revolution?" or "math or not math?" is not the pointless, endless wrangling - but the fact that almost everyone simply cannot tell what a "reform" or a "revolution" is. Simply cannot tell what "math" or "not math" is. If one refers for the meaning, say to the Marxist tradition, something of enormous (Hegel would say infinite :-) ) value, or to mathematicians respectively, people here and in economics generally get it backwards more often than not. For instance, in the Marxist tradition, the JG is "revolutionary" rather than "reformist". Roger Backhouse's "An Abstruse and Mathematical Argument: The Use of Mathematical Reasoning in the General Theory" is an exceptional example of basically getting it right about what sort of argument Keynes is trying to make. Once that is understood, the sterility and stupidity of some controversies is much clearer.

Penguin pop said...

Thanks Calgacus. It seems I have more papers to bookmark and refer back to, but I will keep these points in mind when going through them for myself. I am admittedly not an expert, so that's why I wanted to see what different people thought about these matters.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Calgacus

Michael Emmett Brady begs to differ.

Brady comments at Amazon on just about everything related to Keynes. I don't have time to get into the weeds on this. Is he a crackpot, or does he have a point in your view.