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

Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#21

Post by krapp »

hanshan wrote: post #17
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.

One could indict every major world power for foreign election interference. Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.

>One could indict every major world power for foreign election interference

And yet the rest of the world still complains when America does it.

If it's a problem when America does it, it's a problem when Russia does it.

>Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.

Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#22

Post by dsfyu404ed »

hanshan wrote: post #17
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.

One could indict every major world power for foreign election interference. Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.

>Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.

The truth to that statement has to do with power and influence. The average Joe isn't gonna get out of a speeding ticket by saying everyone speeds.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#23

Post by colinbartlett »

silveira wrote: post #3

Full indictment document: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

The indictment is a reminder of just how much data can be pieced together about a person's online activity, at least with considerable resources and seemingly proper court authorized warrants. From web searches, to emails, twitter posts, block chain transactions, all of it could be correlated together. The searching for specific phrases that then appeared in a text is particularly damning.

What I could not glean from the indictment is how they could possibly have identified these 12 people individually. The government must have some other sigint or humint for that? Will this ever make it to trial so that evidence can be revealed?

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#24

Post by lawnchair_larry »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #5

Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things... Isn't that shooting the messenger? Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? edit: Downvotes for a serious question, hello Reddit, I hadn't…

I can’t quite figure this out either. The only thing that I would call meddling was their propaganda campaign. We shouldn’t care about the leaked emails. If the RNC had their mail spool dumped, Dems wouldn’t give a shit about this and would be saying that Republicans are just mad that they got caught.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#26

Post by koolba »

toufka wrote: post #6
silveira wrote: post #3

Full indictment document: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

So GRU, during Moscow work-hours, searched for terms like: "worldwide known", "think twice about", "some hundred sheets", and "company's competence". And those terms happen to all show up later that day in this post: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ We all here talked about that release at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912412 Our top comment suggested, "The media (and CrowdStrike) bl…

> Additionally, on July 27, Trump suggested in his speech, "Russia, if you're listening. I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." And those same computers, "attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts... used by Clinton's personal office."

Anyone who has seen the actual video for that blurb that doesn’t take it as a joke should re-evaluate their sense of humor.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#27

Post by local_yokel »

chickenfries wrote: post #9
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #5

Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things... Isn't that shooting the messenger? Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? edit: Downvotes for a serious question, hello Reddit, I hadn't…

So let’s see you publish your inbox then. What are you suggesting, that attempts to hack the Secretary of State go unanswered?

How should Germany have answered the Obama-sanctioned eavesdropping on Angela Merkel's phone?

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#28

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

hanshan wrote: post #17
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.

One could indict every major world power for foreign election interference. Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.

Right... That's something the USA does all over the world.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#29

Post by mozumder »

koolba wrote: post #26
toufka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So GRU, during Moscow work-hours, searched for terms like: "worldwide known", "think twice about", "some hundred sheets", and "company's competence". And those terms happen to all show up later that day in this post: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ We all here talked about that release at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912412 Our top comment suggested, "The media (and CrowdStrike) bl…

> Additionally, on July 27, Trump suggested in his speech, "Russia, if you're listening. I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." And those same computers, "attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts... used by Clinton's personal office." Anyone who has seen the actual video for that blurb that doesn’t take it as a joke should re-evaluate their sense of humor.

Statements are statements. Obama should have arrested Trump the moment he made this statement.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#30

Post by 24gttghh »

Mouse47 wrote: post #19
24gttghh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes their backroom dealings were/are unethical, and its exposure surely help them to lose the election, but was any of it actually illegal? To put it another way, evidence brought forward in a court of law supposedly has limits placed on how the evidence can be obtained. If someone obtains (in this case effectively commits a B&E to get it) damming information about a party, which while good that it is exposed, it doe…

Can you point out instances of unethical behavior or "backroom dealings"? Frankly I haven't personally seen anything out of place other than uncharitable readings by the right...

I'm referring to their organized snubbing of Bernie, which was out in the open when it comes down to it.
Post reply on HN