Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil • Hacker News Board

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#131

Post by zorked » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

logicbombr wrote: post #130

zorked wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(c) "charged with" and "found guilty of" are vastly different things To be fair this is the most important comment in this thread. Greenwald was charged by a prosecutor who belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed, despite not being a target of the investigation. Said prosecutor already pulled a similar trick before. The government, who just a few days ago was forced to fire a secretary who liter…

is it possible to someone to be charged by a prosecutor that NOT belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed? I understand that everyone in Brazil are charged by Ministerio Público. What you are saying is: as Greenwald exposed supposed misbehaviour (are you a judge?) by some prosecutors them he can't be prosecuted anymore, which gives him immunity to commit all kind of crimes he wants to. Unbelievab…

I don't mean the MPF. Also the answer to your question is yes.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#132

Post by stanferder » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #121

stanferder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it the Russians or the media reaction that made the difference? If I recall correctly one of Greenwald's main theses is that click-thirsty coverage of exciting-sounding stories overwhelmed more substantial topics in the 2016 election.

The Russians definitely found a flaw in the way the U.S. works with political information today, and exploited it for a big effect. And I don't think that flaw is fixed as we head into this election. So, I agree with Greenwald that a broken media environment made it possible. But I disagree with him that that casts doubt on Russian involvement, or invalidates Russian activity as a topic of national concern.

Did Greenwald ever say he doubts Russian involvement? I know he on the side of "Trump didn't conspire" and feels that the rest of the media is mishandling the matter, but I don't think he's ever disputed the actual meddling.

(Correct me if I'm wrong; if he's actually disputing the existence of the meddling he'd go down a few notches in my esteem).

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#133

Post by logicbombr » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

zorked wrote: post #131

logicbombr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it possible to someone to be charged by a prosecutor that NOT belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed? I understand that everyone in Brazil are charged by Ministerio Público. What you are saying is: as Greenwald exposed supposed misbehaviour (are you a judge?) by some prosecutors them he can't be prosecuted anymore, which gives him immunity to commit all kind of crimes he wants to. Unbelievab…

I don't mean the MPF. Also the answer to your question is yes.

no it's not.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#134

Post by kikokikokiko » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

crazynick4 wrote: post #42

diegoholiveira wrote: post #36

It's important to notice that he's not been charged for publishing those materials. He's been charged for giving instructions to the hackers about targets and contents, like a lider of the hackers. So, it's not a leak, it's a content obtained illegally through a series of crimes.

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.

Bazilian dude here. The problem is the hacker was asking him "who should we get the telegram messages from next". If a journalist know before hand about crimes that WILL BE committed and instructs the guy to continue, this is way beyond simply keeping your sources secret. And he also was instructing the guys on how to respond in case police came asking WHEN he hacked his victims, since if he hacked them after or during the time he was already in contact with Greenwald it would be a little bit strange to explain. Glen is a lefty, he hates Bolsonaro, ok. But he absolutely did commit various crimes here, conspiration, electronic fraud etc.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#135

Post by pera » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #84

Before commenting, let's all pause for a minute and recognize that: (a) we're not versed in Brazilian Law (b) we don't really have all the facts of the case (c) "charged with" and "found guilty of" are vastly different things (d) one's opinion on the morality of a certain alleged episode has no bearing on its legality

> (b) we don't really have all the facts of the case

According to Folha de São Paulo there is a recorded conversation where Greenwald mentions to one of the "hackers" that The Intercept Brasil had saved all the submitted files, hence there was no reason for the hacker group to keep them:

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2020/01/sem-ter-sido-inv...

The plaintiff considers this is a proof of Greenwald assisting the group.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#136

Post by elicash » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #107

airstrike wrote: post #84

Before commenting, let's all pause for a minute and recognize that: (a) we're not versed in Brazilian Law (b) we don't really have all the facts of the case (c) "charged with" and "found guilty of" are vastly different things (d) one's opinion on the morality of a certain alleged episode has no bearing on its legality

> (d) one's opinion on the morality of a certain alleged episode has no bearing on its legality While this is true, the related question over whether the law in question is "just", is very much a relavent issue, and something worthy of comment.

Are folks actually questioning the "just" nature of a law, really? If so, which law?

Or are folks questioning whether that law is being falsely applied in this instance?

I think it's the latter. Folks are saying, essentially, that he wasn't part of the conspiracy to commit a cybercrime but that he was working as a journalist who simply received information. That's a very fact-dependent claim. I don't think folks here would say that journalists have blanket immunity to commit cybercrime or anything like that -- this seems like a dispute over the facts. Of which we have basically none.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#137

Post by cyorir » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #98

cyorir wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But you can still be lying by omission. Does the phrase "speaking truth to power" still apply if you are also lying by omission?

I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission". Even the most ethical journalist in the world would have limited time, a limited network of sources, a reader base that prefers coverage of specific issues, and personal interests that drive the direction of their reporting. From my perspective, accurate reporting on a limited set of issues is much preferred over "truthy" reporting on a broade…

> I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission".

If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission.

A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts.

This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased.

Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#138

Post by coliveira » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #77

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.

Was it 'asking for more' or 'helping' with said activities? I think there is materially a difference. That said, I don't know the specifics of the case, I'd be interested in hearing if there is material legitimacy to the case. If they are jailing a reporter for essentially publishing data and merely 'communicating' with individuals ... this would be bad. Also - there is the question of the legitimacy of publishing ha…

> If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?

It all depends on the contents of your phone. If you committed certain actions that are of public interest, and lied about and/or hide these actions (as is the case of the Brazilian group of judges and prosecutors), then it is imperative that journalists publish that content. Journalists are protected in their activity exactly because of this reason.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#139

Post by piadodjanho » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

The accusation [1] is public. I will translate the highlight parts of the conversation transcription between the hacker and Gleen Greenwald.

In another thread I discussed how they hacked the Telegram accounts.

Page 58:

> MOLIÇÃO: Like it happened with Danilo Gentilli, the MBL and Holiday. We got [their Telegram account] last october. They only started talking [on the news] about this [Telegram hacking] now.

Some context:

Danilo Gentilli is a liberal tv show host that was very vocal on the last election; MBL is acronym to "Free Brazil Movement"; Holiday is a politician with MBL affiliation.

In Brazil, the liberals are the right-wings. Their motto is "Liberal on the economy and conservative on the customs", custom as traditional practice.

On page 58:

> GG: Because, for instance, if they knew that someone is getting ready to publish [the hacked conversations], or worst, that we [The InterceptBR] are ready to publish, they would get an judicial order to forbid the publication or reporting of this material. But so far, no one have done that. Therefore, it look like they don't know who has "this material".

> GG: They know someone have this, but they don't know who has it.

> M: Yes. We also want to know your opinion about something... Once you publish the articles, everyone will exclude their conversations, everyone will exclude their Telegram. We want to know what do you suggest us should to do. We have some names separated, we can get [their conversation from Telegram] this weekend or leave it for a while. [I ask this]because, there are some people that already changed their number, we can't get their conversations anymore.

Page 60.

> GG [black text included]: Yes. Look, we are going to [??], what is going to happen? They are going for sure try to accuse us in participating in the hacking. They are going to accuse that us of being part on the hacking attempt. For sure, they are going to accuse us. So, I'll keep the messages for myself, the messages are the proof that you only talked to us after you already done everything. This is very important for us as journalist to show that our source only talked after they already had everything.

Page 61.

> GG [only text in red]: We already saved everything, we received everything. I think you had any reason to keep any of this, understood?

In the bold text, Molicao asks if they should hack more people, he wanted to know GG opnion.

Page 62.

> GG: Yes, yes. This is difficult because I can't give you advice but I've the obligation to protect my source and this obligation is a very serious obligation, very serious. We are going to do everything we can to do this, understood?

> GG [only red text]: Also, we are going to say we received everything before those articles from the other week about Moro [begin hacked], about the other hacking.

[1] https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/wp-conte...

Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

#140

Post by coliveira » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

The goal of this persecution is not necessarily to jail Glenn Greenwald. What they want is to muddle the discourse and to discredit the journalists involved in this reporting. Let's remember that the group of prosecutors in question are supporters of the current government and the ex-judge is now the justice minister, a position he occupied just after releasing "dirt" on the government opponents to facilitate the presidential election. They have resorted in the last few years to all kinds of political and judicial tricks to silence their opponents through courts. This is exactly the kind of manipulation that was exposed by Glenn Greenwald.