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

81–90 of 172 posts

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

#81

Post by bcoates »

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…

The indictment doesn't assert an APT, just plain-old spearphish, steal password, install backdoor. If this was the GRU they didn't need their top men. 100% consistent with the "it could have been anybody, and probably multiple attackers got in" theory.

Note that the communications with the politicians and reporters are all a month or more after the leaks and their contents were public knowledge.

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

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

mkempe wrote: post #68
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?

> Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence use to charge them?

If they actually are arrested or surrender themselves to face the charges, yes, mostly. That is, they are entitled to not only what the prosecution will use at trial, but to have any exculpatory evidence in the hands of the government proactively turned over, and to have compulsory means of securing any relevant evidence, physical or testimonial, from any person subject to the court.

But that's likely moot in this case; these defendants seem unlikely to be brought before the court, voluntarily or involuntarily.

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

#83

Post by mciak »

Two things stand out to me here:

(1) CrowdStrike, for all intents and purposes, failed. Russia had access to dem servers for four months after they were hired

(2) Donors trying to use ActBlue (fairly major way dems raise money) were taken to a spoofed Russian site. Stealing democratic campaign donations feels like a very direct attack on the democratic process

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

#84

Post by myko »

mkempe wrote: post #71
dragonwriter wrote: post #66

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 claim that President Trump is an anti-American, Russian agent is insane. [added] I will not provide any reply or assistance if you further promote, hypothesize, or engage in crazy conspiracy theories.

His policies are fairly anti-western alliance, which has defined America for nearly a century. It's unlikely he's a Russian agent but he certainly seems to be influenced by at least one. His son definitely attempted to work with the Russian government to help get Trump elected, even though he knew they were doing something illegal.

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

#85

Post by jdoliner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #66

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…

> 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's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you present some evidence of it?

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/rosenstei...

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

#86

Post by puzzle »

jdoliner wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #66

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…

> 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's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you pres…

Yes, only Russian agents are indicted this time, but someone who might be Roger Stone makes a brief appearance (#44) in the document, too, probably to be targeted in future legal action.

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

#87

Post by anfedorov »

myko wrote: post #84
mkempe wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that President Trump is an anti-American, Russian agent is insane. [added] I will not provide any reply or assistance if you further promote, hypothesize, or engage in crazy conspiracy theories.

His policies are fairly anti-western alliance, which has defined America for nearly a century. It's unlikely he's a Russian agent but he certainly seems to be influenced by at least one. His son definitely attempted to work with the Russian government to help get Trump elected, even though he knew they were doing something illegal.

At least some of that seems in the past. Presently, Schindler has good coverage of the details here [1], which details what a generous reading of mkempe's point is trying to say -- let's not go over-board.

1. http://observer.com/2018/07/putin-conflict-poland-ukraine-na...

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

#88

Post by thucydidesofusa »

krapp wrote: post #12
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…

>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.

[dead]

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

#89

Post by agathocles »

hanshan wrote: post #62
RIMR wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hi Comrade!

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

#90

Post by michaelmrose »

jdoliner wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #66

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…

> 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's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you pres…

There was a meeting with a foreign ambassador offering to collaborate which was met with enthusiasm by trumps people who we are to believe knew nothing about this even though he was in the same building a few floors above.

He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.

Post reply on HN