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

31–40 of 172 posts

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

#31

Post by creato »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #24
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.

We don't have to imagine what a Dem campaign would do in a comparable situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/14/us/the-2000-campaign-the-...

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

#32

Post by mbesto »

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.

I could be wrong, but "Hacking an election" is not by definition illegal per say. However, accessing a computer illegally or defrauding people with the intention to meddle in an election is indeed illegal.

If had an election and the US-CIA had hackers put malicious code in their voting machines, and that country had laws against tampering with voting machines, then I would fully expect that country to indict those involved. Obviously in a geopolitical environment, that usually means through sanctions or some other means.

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

#34

Post by crazynick4 »

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...

The knowledge that we had an ally who was funding ISIS and we were doing effectively nothing about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...

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

#35

Post by RIMR »

hanshan wrote: post #13

>The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” >“Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections. Sounds like Don Quixote is fighting the internet now. Unless you just shut it down how is it possible to not have world wide "interfer…

Wow, when a foreign government tries to influence our elections, you handwave it away, but when American journalists weigh in on politics, suddenly they're being "adversarial".

Think long and hard about what you're saying here. You're dismissing foreign interference, but critisizing domestic political involvement.

The key difference here is that Russia isn't the United States and has no say in our policies, while American journalists are citizens and voters who have a societal duty to participate the democracy. When the former gets involved in an election, we call it "foreign interference", when the latter gets involved we call it "democracy".

So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?

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

#36

Post by abowlofpetunias »

hanshan wrote: post #13

>The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” >“Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections. Sounds like Don Quixote is fighting the internet now. Unless you just shut it down how is it possible to not have world wide "interfer…

Thanks for your genuine opinion, 4-day-old account in a heavily bombarded thread.

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

#37

Post by ipython »

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.

Perhaps that is why other heads of state choose their words carefully... there are places where snark, innuendo and sarcasm are in poor taste.

What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way? Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way? What are the limits? Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?

To bring this back to hacker news, would you prefer a language syntax where you could insert meaningless statements that the interpreter or compiler could selectively decide to execute or not based on some non deterministic property? Lord knows we have enough problems with UB in C already ;)

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

#38

Post by jdanp »

mozumder wrote: post #29
koolba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For what?

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

#39

Post by frockington »

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…

Hacker news has sadly become more like Reddit. "Wrongthink" or questions will be down voted to preserve the narrative, even if it is a legitimate question or interest

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

#40

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

You can sell a lie by saying true things. In fact, the best lies are mostly true - but the true parts don't add up to the overall picture, which is the lie. But the lie is the more believable because of the true (and verifiable!) parts.
Post reply on HN