Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by mkempe » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

ssully wrote: post #78

mkempe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously Germany should sue Obama and a group of his accomplices. [added] I see double, down-voting standards. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We all agree that criminals should be charged, and that someone who organizes and benefits from criminal activity is criminal too. As America charges GRU agents, and thus targets their boss Putin, the same should be done for known actions by NSA agents, a…

I am assuming the downvotes are for you lack of distinction between two. Eavesdropping and spying, even amongst allies, is basically an open secret or just an activity everyone assumes the other is doing. Actively influencing an election is much more serious and not something you would expect your allies to be doing in your country. If Obama was doing that to Germany then I expect there would have been a real shit sh…

I don't know whether the US has done it in Germany. They definitely did it in Israel.

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

#142

Post by mkempe » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #64

mkempe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument might have at least some weight if it didn't rely on super-secret, invisible gremlins.

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

#143

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

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-...

Wow man, a puff piece article written directly before an election of how good and noble one candidate is. Not exactly hard hitting proof there.

Not even counting that the DNC of 2000 is the same in 2018. Or that Hillary was as good (or bad) a candidate as Gore.

Edit: I think a more fair reference would be looking at Clinton's past to see if there was anything ever questionable or sketchy. Like for instance... Did Clinton ask CNN's Donna Brazil to not send any more debate questions that would be asked later that week? No, she didn't.

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

#144

Post by anfedorov » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

myko wrote: post #137

anfedorov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is it overboard to consider Paul Manafort a Russian asset? He seems to have influenced Trump and his governing style pretty drastically. I don't think anything in my comment was particularly inflammatory.

I haven't read all the indictments and so might be wrong, but at this point I think it would be speculation. Time will almost certainly tell for sure. The wikipedia definition of the term seems easy to agree on — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

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

#145

Post by frankquist » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:26 PM UTC

orbitingpluto wrote: post #92

"On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post..." That has got to be one of the scarier things I've read in some time as to the depth and breadth of current surveillance.

Depth, certainly. Breadth, not necessarily (though I don't want to have much illusions regarding breadth). It could very well be that this information was gleaned from when the dutch hacked Cozy Bear. If that's the same group. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... (link copied from another comment)

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

#146

Post by 18pfsmt » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:30 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #75

Mouse47 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A good example of unethical can be seen by reading Clinton's leaked Wall Street speeches where her private options is wildly different than her public. Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before…

>unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups

Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)?

>Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info

You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP?

>Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine?

Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?

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

#147

Post by mikeyouse » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #126

keketi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [July 27 2016 is the date on which Trump said on national TV "Russia if you're listening..." and invited Russia to commit a crime to hack and find Clinton's 'missing' emails.] Trump's words were "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing"[1]. In my view, interpreting that as a call to commit a crime is a stretch. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/don…

The FBI only stated that they believed Crowdstrike but they themselves never obtained or examined the server despite multiple attempts.

Crowdstrike imaged the server and the FBI absolutely had access to the imaged server -- The mindless conspiracy theory is that the FBI needed the physical server.

> "The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

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

#148

Post by akhilcacharya » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:55 PM UTC

24gttghh wrote: post #30

Mouse47 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm referring to their organized snubbing of Bernie, which was out in the open when it comes down to it.

Bernie lost the primaries by like 10 points and millions of votes. The snubbing was definitely organized, and it was done by the people.

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

#149

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 10:08 PM UTC

puzzle wrote: post #86

jdoliner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In addition to Stone, there's also the Congressional candidate mentioned at Paragraph 43.

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

#150

Post by krapp » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #91

krapp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>>Laws are meaningless if no one follows them. >Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them. And still, Rule of Law requires that those who enforce the law, follow the law.

>And still, Rule of Law requires that those who enforce the law, follow the law.

Countries that believe the US interferes with their elections are free to try to do what the US is doing, and attempt to prosecute a case against whomever they can catch.

Otherwise... what conclusion are we meant to reach? That countries which engage in espionage or which interfere with other countries' elections shouldn't have espionage laws or should allow any interference in their own? There's no argument of equivocation one could make to excuse or exonerate Russia in this case that doesn't also do the same for the US.