Why US Media Creates Fuss Over Alleged Russian, Chinese Cyberattacks Despite Lack of Evidence

The timing of the media marketing campaign over the alleged hacking is triggering justified issues, in addition to the shortage of any proof within the public area to again the idea, say worldwide observers, including that it is unwise to pin the entire blame on Russia and China whereas the US has heaps of enemies, overseas and home.

While US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo groundlessly linked the alleged hacking marketing campaign towards American authorities companies to Russia on The Mark Levin Show, the White House has backed away from issuing an announcement condemning Moscow. President Donald Trump accused the “lamestream media” of inflating the true impression of the supposed intrusion and threw the “Russia did it” narrative into query, whereas on the identical time pointing the finger at China. However, no proof implicating Moscow, or Beijing, or some other particular actor, has ever been introduced to again the claims.

‘How Do We Know That a Cyber Attack Occurred?’

It’s no secret that in terms of interactions through Internet providers, it’s by nature exhausting to show the unique intentions and true identities of the so-called intruders, says Dr Ching Chang, a analysis fellow at Taiwan’s Society for Strategic Studies in Taipei.

Furthermore, nobody can say for certain that the “intrusion” actually occurred, as there have been many false alarms about cyberattacks occurring earlier than, in accordance with the researcher.

“The process of the Internet service is basically interactive”, he explains. “As a website is accessed by users from other networks or terminals, it would be necessary to acquire proper information before the website allows the external users to access its informational services. Whether these interactions can be defined as proper usages, probes or even attacks is literally quite controversial”.

The mainstream media fuss over the supposed hack with no proof being offered has triggered loads of questions, says Dr Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist and former assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial coverage beneath President Ronald Reagan.

“How do we know that an attack occurred?” he asks. “Is there any evidence? Why would the Russian government bother?  Was it just a private hack by kids having fun?”

©
AP Photo / Jacquelyn MartinSecretary of State Mike Pompeo arrives to talk throughout a media briefing, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2020, on the State Department in Washington.

Timing of the Alleged Hack

The timing of the “disclosure” in regards to the alleged cyber-attack speaks volumes, in accordance with Stephen B. Presser, an emeritus professor of authorized historical past on the Chicago-based Northwestern University School of Law.

“It certainly seems more than coincidental that when there is suddenly increased media attention on the infiltration by the Chinese (e.g. the ‘honeypot’ trap involving Congressman Swalwell, the Biden-family Chinese contacts) we have reports of Russia allegedly hacking our computers”, the tutorial suggests, referring to Democratic House Representative Eric Swalwell’s ties with alleged Chinese spy Fang Fang, reported by Axios earlier this month, and the FBI’s ongoing probe into President-elect Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

The professor additional presumes that the “hacking” story additionally deflects consideration from our social media, resembling Facebook and Twitter, “which have perhaps not been as politically objective as they have claimed to be and risk losing the protection against the libel laws which federal law now gives them”. In mid-November, the 2 Silicon Valley giants testified earlier than the US Congress on alleged anti-conservative bias and their makes an attempt to censor the president over his statements about suspected election fraud.

​Big Tech’s obvious partisan strategy prompted President Trump to name for stripping them of the protections offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. As US congressmen didn’t insert the aforementioned provision within the bipartisan National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), the president vowed to veto the invoice.

US Establishment Needs ‘a Major Enemy’

Apart from distracting the general public’s consideration from apparent home controversies, the US institution and the army industrial advanced “needs a major enemy”, notes Dr Roberts.

However, it’s considerably ludicrous that the listing of US “enemies” is restricted to Russia and China, highlights Ching Chang, including that Washington “does need a much longer list of suspects when any cyberattack actually happened”.  

“Given the fact that there are so many parties, existing domestically and internationally, are quite hostile to various governmental agencies in the United States… to put the focus on Moscow and Beijing will be extremely unwise”, he says. “The United States has more adversaries than it would like to have and could imagine. To cease those useless wild guesses and pay more efforts to find the true origins of threats will be a more constructive approach to the national security of the United States”.

Sourse: sputniknews.com

About The Author

Related posts