随着英国在12月12日投票前达到狂热状态，关于俄罗斯卷入英国即将到来的选举的指控越来越多。考虑到英国退出欧盟谈判的曲折进程以及一系列国内社会和经济问题，这场激烈的竞选对英国来说至关重要。
俄罗斯干涉西方选举已经被广泛接受。情报官员、立法者和网络专家都警告说，莫斯科很可能正在加速其活动，既有国家直接发起的网络攻击，也有更多可否认的网络假情报活动。
美国机构一直在为预计俄罗斯——以及其他国家——在2020年进行干预做准备。他们将在本周横跨大西洋寻找莫斯科重新努力和不断发展的战术的早期迹象。
但是，如果美国人要从观看本周大西洋彼岸的选举中吸取一个教训，那就是真正的选民是如何与虚假信息互动的——并被虚假信息所欺骗——无论这些信息是由外国账户还是国内行为者推出的。
俄罗斯对英国竞选的直接干预尚未得到证实，尽管这并没有阻止政治分歧双方的干预建议。
一些报道暗示，这场运动令人震惊的揭露之一——泄露的文件详述了英国和美国谈判代表就一项潜在的后英国退出欧盟自由贸易协定进行的讨论——被俄罗斯泄露到了红迪网上。
反对派领导人杰里米·科尔宾公布了这些文件，并让首相兼保守党领袖鲍里斯·约翰逊陷入困境，原因是担心后英国退出欧盟时代与美国的协议将迫使英国放松管制、降低食品标准和提高药品价格。政府没有否认这些文件的真实性。
工党本身也经受住了直接针对其网站的直接拒绝服务攻击——这是一种简单的企图，旨在通过访问淹没该网站并破坏页面。
英国政府的国家网络安全中心告诉记者新闻周刊它“确信该党采取了必要的步骤来应对这次袭击”，这次袭击“没有成功，事件现在已经结束。”
这种攻击的性质使得很难确定肇事者。尽管早些时候有人暗示他们背后有一个国家行为者——也许是俄罗斯——但后来的证据都没有指出这一结论。所谓的蜥蜴小队已经声称对此负责。
与此同时，社交媒体日益刻薄的语气又降了一级。这使得很难区分党派用户和虚假账户或机器人，这些账户或机器人是由特殊利益集团，甚至俄罗斯等国家行为者通过其臭名昭著的互联网研究机构来分享虚假新闻和阴谋论的。
例如，本周，英国社交媒体因阴谋论而陷入混乱，阴谋论试图抹黑一篇报道4岁被迫在医院的地板上等了几个小时，这是他母亲寻求治疗的医院的压力。
最重要的是政府关于俄罗斯干涉英国政治的未发布报告，包括2016年英国退出欧盟公投。
约翰逊拒绝发布这份报告，认为仅仅为了在选举前公布这份报告而仓促发表是不合适的。
他的反对者驳斥了这一论点，认为这份报告会让保守党尴尬，因为该党捐助者中有几名俄罗斯富人。
尽管担心俄罗斯干涉，但没有什么具体证据。英国网络安全专家告诉记者新闻周刊这可能仅仅是因为它没有发生，或者是因为所使用的措施非常微妙，难以察觉。
2016年美国总统选举是公众理解在线积极措施和直接网络攻击的里程碑，例如对民主党全国委员会或脆弱州的电子投票机的攻击。
包括英国在内的许多国家使用更安全的计票方法。英国选举官员不必担心直接干预计票，但社交媒体大肆渲染的低技术虚假信息仍构成威胁，就像在整个民主世界一样。
这张档案照片展示了2019年12月11日英国伦敦议会大厦的全景
自己造成的问题？
英国查塔姆研究所智囊团的网络安全专家凯尔·贾尔斯告诉记者新闻周刊他预计“目前”不会看到俄罗斯干预英国选举的证据
贾尔斯解释说，“不是因为它没有发生，而是因为总的来说，我们只是在事件发生后很久才知道这些事情。”他补充道:“许多这种情况将会持续发生，而不是与特定事件相关联。”
贾尔斯说:“我们应该假设，如果俄罗斯认为有机会为自己的目的干涉政治进程，那么它就会抓住这个机会，因为没有重大的威慑力量阻止它这样做。”。
但贾尔斯也表示，只有当克里姆林宫“有明确和明显的支持某个政党的目标”时，俄罗斯才会干预
他说，可以说，英国的情况并非如此，任何一个主要政党的胜利都可能严重破坏该国的稳定。“没有好结果，”他说。“在某种程度上，很难决定哪个俄罗斯会真正回到自己的利益上来。”
贾尔斯补充说，英国、美国和其他地方的国内政治行为者已经向俄罗斯学习。只要花一点时间和投资，虚假信息在网上的影响可能是巨大的，这使得此类活动对肆无忌惮的政治活动者极具吸引力。
真正的用户是否知道他们是虚假新闻活动的一部分并不重要——像俄罗斯这样的外部势力或国内活动人士不需要做太多事情来获得选民的支持。
本周，4岁的杰克·威利蒙·巴尔的照片上的争吵很好地说明了这种情况。这个形象——让约翰逊和保守党深感尴尬——很快成为毫无根据的阴谋论的主题，声称是由男孩的母亲上演的。
脸书的帖子据称证明了照片的伪造迅速传播，甚至到了杰出的媒体人物正在传播它。最初的帖子似乎来自神秘的脸书账户，由不知道海报的真实人物传播。
英国拉夫堡大学的政治传播专家安德鲁·查德威克解释说:“这不仅仅是造假和恶意的行为者。”
查德威克表示，渴望透露消息的记者和热衷于巩固自己立场的政治活动人士，在摇摆不定的选民的同时——尤其是在竞选活动的最后阶段——宣传这是一个系统性问题。
查德威克说:“很难得出某种结论或分析，这是否是外来干涉，或者是否只是游击队在协调行动。”。
“如果你只是想通过俄罗斯寻求外国影响，”他补充道，很容易忽略为什么俄罗斯的策略如此有效。
“他们现在理解了媒体系统在自由民主国家的运作方式...他们都对社交媒体如何融入竞选活动有着非常非常好的理解，而五年前情况并非如此。”
查德威克预测道:“总有一天，你可能会不得不说，‘看，有些是自己造成的——是英国公民，是党的积极分子。’。
知识差距
公民在很大程度上仍然没有准备好处理网上的虚假信息——2017年的一项调查显示96%的英国人分辨不出真假新闻。
查德威克说:“英国社交媒体用户对于分享虚假和误导性信息似乎相当放松。”。"这包括普通公众可能会介绍的信息."
皇家联合服务研究所的研究分析师兼网络安全专家斯内哈·达达达告诉记者新闻周刊网络安全对公众来说仍然是一个很难进入的领域。
她说，媒体必须与政策制定者和专家合作，使围绕这一主题的技术语言“脱泡”。
这将有助于公众对话和跟上新兴技术的步伐，这些技术为传播错误信息和虚假信息提供了越来越有力的机会。“一般公众需要有发言权，”道达补充道。
工党网站上的两起网络攻击是现实如何在报道的迷雾中迷失的一个例子。该党宣布它是一项复杂努力的受害者，但事实并非如此。
Dawda警告说，大部分公众“在他们的武库中没有足够的知识”来区分，这加剧了知识差距。
道达解释说，像国家网络安全中心这样的机构至关重要。网络威胁和安全的世界“只会变得越来越复杂，越来越难以解决”。
各国政府可以采取更直接的行动。例如，新加坡最近推出了法律部长们可以借此命令社交媒体平台警告用户可疑的帖子，甚至将最恶劣的违法者绳之以法。
社交媒体公司、学术界和维权人士都警告称，该法律很容易被滥用来压制合法的反对意见。不管怎样，贾尔斯说，这是证据，“只要有足够的政治意愿，这是可以做到的，但是如果你生活在一个有着共同威胁意识的小而团结的社会里，这当然会更容易。”
越来越多的人要求社交媒体巨头也采取更多措施来解决网上虚假新闻的问题。平台在主动采取措施阻止虚假新闻和虚假账户的流动方面进展缓慢。Giles说，这些问题最终会持续下去，直到这些“不合作”的平台自我调节。
贾尔斯说:“一般来说，社交媒体平台似乎没有意识到，如果这种情况继续下去，它们赖以繁荣并为股东谋利的社会需要得到保护。”。"它们是摧毁它们所依赖的系统的主要工具之一."
但是根据查德威克的说法，如果虚假信息被真实用户传播，仅凭公司就能阻止它的传播是“非常令人怀疑的”。"问题是人们想要表达他们的忠诚和信仰。"
他说，在正常的民间话语和“故意散布虚假信息和彻头彻尾的捏造”之间有一条细微的界限。
查德威克说:“我认为，我们需要人们通过在线分享信息的方式，开始锻炼更多的悟性。”。“尤其是如果他们身居要职的话。”
IS RUSSIA MEDDLING IN THE U.K. ELECTION? PERHAPS—BUT THE REAL PROBLEM MAY BE GULLIBLE VOTERS
llegations of Russian involvement in Britain's looming election are swirling as the nation reaches fever pitch ahead of the December 12 vote. The charged campaign is a pivotal one for the U.K., given the tortuous ongoing Brexit negotiations and a wide range of domestic social and economic ills.
Russian meddling in Western elections has become widely accepted. Intelligence officials, lawmakers and cyber experts have all warned that Moscow is likely accelerating its campaigns, both in direct state-sponsored cyberattacks and more deniable online disinformation campaigns.
U.S. bodies have been preparing for expected Russian—among other nations—efforts to interfere in 2020. They will be looking across the Atlantic this week for early indications of Moscow's renewed efforts and evolving tactics.
But if Americans are to take one lesson from watching this week's election across the Atlantic, it should be how real voters are interacting with—and being duped by—false information, whether pushed out by foreign accounts or domestic actors.
No direct Russian interference in the U.K. campaign has been confirmed, though that has not stopped suggestions of meddling from both sides of the political divide.
Some reports have suggested that one of the bombshell revelations of the campaign—leaked documents detailing discussions between British and U.S. negotiators on a potential post-Brexit free trade deal—were leaked onto Reddit by Russia.
They were unveiled by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn and left Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Boris Johnson in hot water amid fears a post-Brexit deal with the U.S. will force deregulation, lower food standards and higher drug prices on the U.K. The government has not denied the veracity of the documents.
The Labour Party itself has weathered direct DDoS attacks on its website—unsophisticated efforts designed to overwhelm the site with visits and crash the page.
The British government's National Cyber Security Centre told Newsweek it is "confident the party took the necessary steps to deal with the attack," which "was not successful and the incident is now closed."
The nature of such attacks makes it very difficult to identify a perpetrator. Despite early suggestions that a state actor—perhaps Russia—was behind them, none of the subsequent evidence points to that conclusion. The so-called Lizard Squad has since claimed responsibility.
Meanwhile, the ever-caustic tone of social media has dropped another level. This has made it hard to differentiate between partisan users and fake accounts or bots, directed to share fake news and conspiracy theories by special interest groups or even state actors like Russia via its infamous Internet Research Agency.
This week, for example, British social media was thrown into turmoil by conspiracy theories seeking to smear a report that a sick 4-year-old was forced to wait for hours on a hospital floor, such was the stress on the hospital where his mother sought treatment.
And above it all looms the government's unreleased report on Russian meddling in British politics, including the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Johnson has refused to release the report, arguing it would not be appropriate to rush its publication simply to get it out before the election.
His opponents have dismissed the argument, suggesting the report would be embarrassing for the Conservative Party, which counts several wealthy Russians among its donors.
For all the fear of Russian interference, there is little in the way of concrete evidence. British cybersecurity experts told Newsweek this may simply be because it is not happening, or that the measures used are so subtle that they are hard to detect.
The 2016 U.S. presidential election was a milestone in public understanding of online active measures and direct cyberattacks, for example on the Democratic National Committee or electronic voting machines in vulnerable states.
Many nations, including the U.K., use more secure methods of counting votes. British electoral officials need not worry about direct meddling in tallies, but more low-tech disinformation efforts super-charged by social media still pose a threat, as across the democratic world.
This file photo shows a general view of the Houses of Parliament on December 11, 2019 in London, U.K.
A self-inflicted problem?
Keir Giles, a cybersecurity expert at the British Chatham House think tank, told Newsweek that he would not expect to see evidence of Russian meddling in the British election "at the moment."
"Not because it's not happening, but because by and large, we only find out about these things long after the event," Giles explained, referring to "casual disinformation campaigns." He added: "A lot of this will be happening on an ongoing basis as opposed to linked to a specific event."
"We should assume that where Russia sees an opportunity to interfere in political processes for its own ends then it will take it, because there has been no significant deterrent to prevent it from doing so," Giles said.
But Giles also said Russia tends only to interfere when the Kremlin has "a clear and obvious objective for siding with one political party or another."
Arguably, this is not the case in the U.K., he said, with a victory for either major party likely to badly destabilize the country. "There are no good outcomes," he said. "In a way, it's hard to decide which one Russia would actually back to further its own interests."
Domestic political actors—in the U.K., U.S. and elsewhere—have learned from the Russians, Giles added. With a little time and investment the online impact of disinformation can be massive, making such campaigns hugely appealing to unscrupulous political operatives.
Whether real users know they are part of a fake news campaign is irrelevant—an outside power like Russia or domestic activists needn't do much to gain traction among voters.
The situation was well illustrated this week by the row over the photo of 4-year-old Jack Williment-Barr. The image—deeply embarrassing for Johnson and the Conservatives—quickly became the subject of baseless conspiracy theories alleging it was staged by the boy's mother.
The Facebook post supposedly proving the falsification of the photo spread rapidly, to the point where even prominent media personalities were propagating it. The original post appears to have come from a mysterious Facebook account, spread by real people who did not know the poster.
"It's not just about fakery and malicious actors," explained Andrew Chadwick, a political communications expert working at Loughborough University in the U.K.
It's a systemic problem being propagated by journalists hungry to break news and political activists keen to reinforce their own positions while swaying undecided voters—particularly in the closing stages of an election campaign—Chadwick suggested.
"It's really difficult to arrive at a certain conclusion or analysis as to whether or not this is foreign interference or whether or not it is just partisans who are behaving in concert," Chadwick said.
