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

Post by wu-ikkyu » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #21

hanshan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by stochastic_monk » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

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…

Post by drewrv » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

Post by freehunter » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #77

freehunter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even if it is a legitimate question or interest Perhaps, but you and I both know this is not a legitimate question or interest. It's a talking point used to deflect blame.

I asked the question, was the information released wrong or fake. Was it? Because if it's not wrong or fake, and it's damaging - none of that blame lies with the creators and only with the publisher? That seems odd.

Post by wahern » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #81

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…

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.