Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil • Hacker News Board

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#61

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #44

rhino369 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of…

Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.

Podesta got phished. The actual email that phished him is available on Wikileaks for anyone to examine. Anyone who can set up a website and send an email can phish. Invoking Podesta as proof of "Russian hacks" says a lot more about you than about Trump (for whom I would never vote) or Russia (with whom I hope we don't have a stupid war).

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#62

Post by diegoholiveira » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #57

diegoholiveira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.

> should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"

I think the diference is that the source of this case is a person that choose to colaborate.

In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phones (not those provided by the government as corporate phone).

I don't think the same principle can be applied here.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#63

Post by epx » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

crazynick4 wrote: post #49

epx wrote: post #43

I don't think this will go far, for Greenwald. He didn't invade the Telegram accounts; other people did, yet another people used (and propably paid for) the service, one of them is a hard-left politician that happens to be Greenwald's husband. His involvement was to put the weight of his name to defend his husband's actions. And yes, I look down on Greenwald now, while I used to look up to him when I read 'No Place t…

I was under the impression that people voted for Bolsonaro because they are fed up with a corrupt system. Lula de Silva (who actually was massively popular) was jailed for "corruption" in Operation Car Wash. However, as we now know thanks to Greenwald, this anti-corruption fight was corrupt in itself, and the person overseeing the investigation was cooperating with the prosecutors to strengthen their case. And this s…

This is exactly the story Greenwald is selling, which I disagree with in many points.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#64

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

diegoholiveira wrote: post #62

sangnoir wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"

I think the diference is that the source of this case is a person that choose to colaborate. In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phones (not those provided by the government as corporate phone). I don't think the same principle can be applied here.

The Times, by publishing classified information, were themselves potentially violating the Espionage Act (according to the government's assertion) - so the principle applies in more ways than by proxy. Which is why it was vital that the courts ruling affirmed the importance of a free press, despite laws that might be used to gag it.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#65

Post by crazynick4 » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

epx wrote: post #63

crazynick4 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that people voted for Bolsonaro because they are fed up with a corrupt system. Lula de Silva (who actually was massively popular) was jailed for "corruption" in Operation Car Wash. However, as we now know thanks to Greenwald, this anti-corruption fight was corrupt in itself, and the person overseeing the investigation was cooperating with the prosecutors to strengthen their case. And this s…

This is exactly the story Greenwald is selling, which I disagree with in many points.

What points? You make it sound as if he stood to profit from this when the outcome has been clearly the opposite, and he himself had predicted it to be as much. His family has been getting death threats as a result of his work, and these carry a lot more weight in Brasil then they would in some country like the US or somewhere in Europe.

He is a very credible journalist and his story was widely well-received, his methods of procuring the information aside. If you have disagreements you should state them instead of just stating that you 'have them'

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#66

Post by mberning » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #51

There is a disturbing level of pro Bolsonaro astroturfing going on in here. Don't be deceived, Greenwald is a political prisoner.

Usually talk of astroturfing on HN gets you and admonishment from the powers that be. Let’s see what happens.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#67

Post by badrequest » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

diegoholiveira wrote: post #50

crazynick4 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.

Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.

We don't need to think about it, the west has largely accepted that a journalist's role is to report the truth of what is happening, and to speak that truth to power. Charging somebody with a crime for upholding that responsibility is corruptly antidemocratic. There are no ethical quandaries to consider unless you feel obligated to play devil's advocate for power holders.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#68

Post by piadodjanho » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #57

diegoholiveira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.

> should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"

This is not about the journalist knowing the information was obtained illegally. This is about the journalist asking the hacker to get information from people of interest.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#69

Post by pstuart » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

aguyfromnb wrote: post #40

pstuart wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> did not find sufficient evidence That doesn't mean there wasn't evidence to be found. Bear in mind that there was obstruction to the investigation.

> That doesn't mean there wasn't evidence to be found. How can anyone ever clear their name with a mentality like this? They investigated and didn't find sufficient evidence. Saying, "yeah, but there could be evidence" means nothing will convince you.

> How can anyone ever clear their name with a mentality like this?

I was trying to be polite because this is getting political. I could counter your question with one of my own:

How can you convict someone when his supporters won't believe any evidence they don't like?

There was active obstruction into the investigation. From the Mueller investigation itself.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#70

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #44

rhino369 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of…

Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.

A. Posesta had a password of P@ssw0rd iirc. Let’s not pretend this required some nation state espionage. He had a bad password AND entered credentials into a phishing site. He pretty much had it coming sooner or later.

B. The CONTENT of Podesta’s emails were the problem for Clinton. How much money she took from Wall Street, her public and private opinions depending who she was talking to, the very real pay-to-play “Donations” to her fund while she was Secretary. Her collusion with the media, including asking Trump to be propped up with coverage as a pied piper she “knew” she could beat. Russia didn’t make her do things that looked bad when made public, or make her skip campaigning in key states. I’m a little shocked at how all the hate is directed to the assumed-Russian messenger, when the real problem was she truly was a bad candidate who did bad things. she is responsible for Trump in many ways, yet, people years later still defending her. Makes no sense.

Edit: ok, hide the truth, don’t thank Clinton for Trump even though that’s what happened.