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

51–60 of 172 posts

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

#51

Post by freehunter »

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.

You'd have to pretty majorly change the US Constitution before that is even remotely legal.

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

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

mkempe wrote: post #42

Expect some countries to start charging US IC operators, for hacking and interference in their own electoral processes. Reminder: the NSA has been hacking into governments and businesses all over the world.

> Expect some countries to start charging US IC operators.

Start?

It's hardly as if US intelligence officers have never previously been charged by foreign governments.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

creato wrote: post #31
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by neeksHN »

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

> This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division.

Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to release the evidence used to attribute the defendants? Or will it remain "pending arraignment" indefinitely?

I'd love to see an in-depth technical analysis of how they were able to substantiate these allegations

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

#55

Post by mkempe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #52
mkempe wrote: post #42

Expect some countries to start charging US IC operators, for hacking and interference in their own electoral processes. Reminder: the NSA has been hacking into governments and businesses all over the world.

> Expect some countries to start charging US IC operators. Start? It's hardly as if US intelligence officers have never previously been charged by foreign governments.

Yes, for torture [1], assassination [2], rendition [3], and war crimes [4][5]. Never merely for propaganda.

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/04/14/spain-to-indict-the-bus...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/05/cia-long-his...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/15/us-army-and-cia-...

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/0...

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

#56

Post by toufka »

colinbartlett wrote: post #23
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…

And given those extreme resources I am curious whether there is more or less detail in regards to the US-persons side of this investigation.

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

#57

Post by dsr_ »

neeksHN wrote: post #54

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…

If it never goes to trial? The only hope is filing a FOIA request, which will probably be denied for 20-50 years.

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

#58

Post by jrs95 »

civilitty wrote: post #49
colinbartlett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? These indictments are the result of a massive counterintelligence operation spanning many agencies from several nations. In this case specifically, the AIVD (Dutch intel) ha…

If the evidence used here was obtained via intelligence services partly through hacking, and there is no real "defense" to speak of, why should we take this to be valid? How can we be sure that elements of this evidence haven't been fabricated or tampered with?

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

#59

Post by crazynick4 »

rosser wrote: post #47
crazynick4 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship , you're paying a very selective kind of attention.

"things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes.

> ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention.

I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy.

Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum.

I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.

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

#60

Post by yongjik »

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.

If US embassy in Korea did anything similar to influence Korean election, and if it was found out, you can be assured that people will throw some major shit and there will be protests, both on the streets and in the national assembly, and heads will start rolling.

America understands this, and does not try to influence Korean election (or, if they still do, they are really careful not to get caught), because the risk of it backfiring is simply too much.

...And South Korea was basically America's puppet state during the majority of its existence.

Post reply on HN