Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#51

Post by RandVal30141 »

baursak wrote: post #47
uncle_d wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone publicly presented any concrete evidence whatsoever that the Russians were involved in any way in influencing the U.S. election as yet? Just asking, for a friend :)

No, no concrete evidence was ever presented. The entire premise of this huge ongoing media sensation has still not been proven and begs for quality, in-depth investigative journalism, but only fringe ultra-right or ultra-left media outlets seem to take any interest in this. The likes of New Yorker or NYT Magazine seem utterly uninterested in digging, or readily assume this as a proven fact, for no apparent reason. Ex…

That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over.

Nevermind that the target of the hacks, hacks who share the same infrastructure, all focus on entities of Moscow's interest.

Navalny, MH17, DNC, Syria, Bellingcat. Gee wonder what the common thread here is.

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#52

Post by moduspol »

acdha wrote: post #45
moduspol wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hack was public knowledge in June of 2016, and it's only fairly recently that it's been known (asserted?) that Guccifer 2.0 was acting on behalf of the Russian government. It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.

“Fairly recently” in this case meaning “within hours of release” – CrowdStrike was already publicly connecting the dots to military intelligence by June 15th: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... A number of people find it easier to act as if this was a big post-election surprise but that's just wishful thinking to avoid having to consider the implications of many people knowing but not car…

A private third party making claims is not the same as the claims of the collective US intelligence agencies, which were made much more recently.

It's also irrelevant, because it was public knowledge by the time it was reported. My post is to debunk the assumption that the contractor knew the hacker was a foreign agent.

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#53

Post by baursak »

RandVal30141 wrote: post #51
baursak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no concrete evidence was ever presented. The entire premise of this huge ongoing media sensation has still not been proven and begs for quality, in-depth investigative journalism, but only fringe ultra-right or ultra-left media outlets seem to take any interest in this. The likes of New Yorker or NYT Magazine seem utterly uninterested in digging, or readily assume this as a proven fact, for no apparent reason. Ex…

That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over. Nevermind that the target of the hacks, hacks who share the same infrastructure, all focus on entities of Moscow's interest. Navalny, MH17, DNC, Syria, Bellingcat. Gee wonder what the common thread here is.

> That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over.

You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it.

And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way".

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#54

Post by RandVal30141 »

baursak wrote: post #53
RandVal30141 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over. Nevermind that the target of the hacks, hacks who share the same infrastructure, all focus on entities of Moscow's interest. Navalny, MH17, DNC, Syria, Bellingcat. Gee wonder what the common thread here is.

> That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over. You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it. And no, none of the presented argument…

>And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way".

"“If the guys are really good,” says Chris Finan, CEO of Manifold Technology, “they’re not leaving much evidence or they’re leaving evidence to throw you off the scent entirely.” How plausible is it that Russian intelligence services would fail even to attempt such a fundamental step?"

"On the other hand, sloppiness on the part of developers is not entirely unknown. However, one would expect a nation-state to enforce strict software and document handling procedures and implement rigorous review processes."

"The strings in the code quite transparently indicate its intent, with no attempt at obfuscation. It seems an odd oversight for a nation-state operation, in which plausible deniability would be essential, to overlook that glaring point during software development."

Acting befuddled is not a reasonable means of helping to cast suspicions aside.

Nothing can change who these attacks, sharing the same infrastructure, targeted. Opponents of Russia's current ruling order. Very specific frame up jobs against Putin's political opposition and phishing against civilian analysts who just happened to be making news regarding MH17? Come on now.

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#55

Post by ItendToDisagree »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #44
moduspol wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government. The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniq…

> They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you? Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't. If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had finan…

Sources on any of this conjecture?

What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?

Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more leaks during one of the presidential debates?

Seems like you have your information pretty mixed up (or simply made up).

Can you post a substantial source for any of your claims?

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (details Trump's many ties to Russia and was written by a Republican to boot.)

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#56

Post by baursak »

RandVal30141 wrote: post #54
baursak wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over. You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it. And no, none of the presented argument…

>And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way". "“If the guys are really good,” says Chris Finan, CEO of Manifold Technology, “they’re not leaving much evidence or they’re leaving evidence to throw you off the scent entirely.” How plausible is it that Russian intelligence services would fail even to attempt such a fundamental step?" "On the other hand, sloppiness…

There's a lot of space between "wouldn't possibly do that this way" and "is it plausible that they've done it that way?"

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

gragas wrote: post #23
ItendToDisagree wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...

>Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents. I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.

In a court of law, rules of evidentiary procudure apply such that one side is not unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged, by unequal law or process.

No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal.

An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play.

One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that.

Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst.

A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#58

Post by mcphage »

gragas wrote: post #23
ItendToDisagree wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...

>Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents. I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.

> I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.

Unfortunately, you weren't given the opportunity to find out how corrupt the RNC and the Republican party were before you voted in November. But that's okay, half the picture being blocked from view I'm sure is just like seeing the whole picture, right?

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#59

Post by narrowrail »

moduspol wrote: post #48
tiles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.

Well, the leaks themselves revealed some pretty troubling (although not terribly surprising) friendliness between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, so it's not like we have nothing to compare it to. The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info. The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the…

I think it's interesting that George Washington, in his Farewell Address[0], warned of political parties being an enemy of the government, and could provide a route to foreign governments and interests to have influence on our government. That linked section provides almost an exact description of what seems to be going on in the US currently. I would like to see the RNC and DNC dismantled by the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...

Re: Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

#60

Post by vorotato »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #50
GVIrish wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction. This is not a case where the public is g…

>> Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu? According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-fund…

This is the definition of whataboutism. It wasn't okay when Russia did it, and it wasn't okay when Obama did it. Saying Obama did it doesn't make something okay?
Post reply on HN