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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by myko »

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.

Incredibly short sighted given the timing of Trump's comment, the suspicious nature of his campaign's behavior, and Russia's involvement in releasing propaganda designed to help elect Trump.

A reasonable person could look at his behavior and think that he was hiding his corruption in plain sight.

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

#62

Post by hanshan »

RIMR wrote: post #35
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 Ame…

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

That's a false dichotomy which implies you missed my point. There is no such thing as sovereign democracy in a globalized world with omnipresence and instantaneous communication.

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

#64

Post by tw04 »

mkempe wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/mon…

Really? And you know this how? Just because the Chinese or Russian government's don't make a public spectacle, doesn't mean they haven't indicted US citizens for espionage. I'm willing to bet there's more than one US government employee who would be arrested the second they cleared customs in one or both of those countries.

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

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

Replying to an unfortunately killed comment which raised common, potentially legitimate (given the success of various spin efforts) though naive and poorly informed questions:

> Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake?

It's the Russian election meddling scandal, the hacking was just one piece of it, and, yes, much of the information fed to the public in the course of that operation was false.

Some of that has been covered in the special counsel’s previous indictment of Russian organizations and individuals involved in the propaganda end of the operation.

> Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things

It's not; the issue is that a US Presidential campaign actively collaborated in an influence operation by a hostile foreign power directed against the US (that is itself part of a larger operation being conducted not only the US but the entire Western Alliance), that that influence operation was integral to the success of the Presidential campaign, and that the US President (who is, by virtue of that position, also effective head of a major US political party) may, therefore, effectively be an agent of a hostile foreign power working against the interests of the US and her allies.

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

#67

Post by koolba »

ipython wrote: post #37
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.

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 langu…

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

Sure but what constitutes crossing the line is debatable. Plus he wasn't a head of state at the time, he held no office whatsoever and was only a candidate in arguably the dirtiest election of most people's lives.

> What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way?

I thought it was funny and enjoyed the line. As a human I generally enjoy laughing so yes it enhanced my life.

> Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way?

I'd wager others thought it was amusing as well and that may have lead to a more positive opinion of Trump which in turn may have lead to greater voter turn out. A sense of humor can connect with a lot of people. Those that agree with his policies and agenda for the country would see things that lead to his election, such as demonstrating a sense of humor, as positive things.

> What are the limits?

There's no specific rule, it's up to the public to decide. Harping on Clinton's missing emails and private server setup was a go-to topic for Trump including commenting about how it was likely a hacking target by foreign governments. Joking about one of those governments providing the emails as evidence is (IMHO) well within bounds.

> Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?

There's definitely a lot of hyperbole in Strozk's texts but even stripping that away I wouldn't want him anywhere near an investigation of a political ally or adversary. It's the same reason you wouldn't want him on a jury. It's not that people aren't allowed to have opinions or even strong opinions. It's that once there's been a demonstration of animus or bias the end product will be tainted.

> 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 ;)

Politics, and more generally human interaction, is non-deterministic. As much as I love strong typing and well formed expressions, I wouldn't want the entire world outside of software to be like that. There's beauty in the non-determinism.

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

#68

Post by mkempe »

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…

Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence used to charge them?

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

#69

Post by bcoates »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #4

I wonder what the folks that kept claiming an inside job have to say about this?

I'm going to guess it's the usual reminder that statements in indictments are a description of the story the prosecutor plans to tell, not what they can actually prove. They are allowed to leave out anything that isn't consistent with their story.

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

#70

Post by thucydidesofusa »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #4

I wonder what the folks that kept claiming an inside job have to say about this?

This indictment doesn't seem to rule out the assertion that Wikileaks got their copy of the emails from someone in the DNC.

It's possible that the DNC email server was compromised multiple times.

Post reply on HN