Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 322 posts

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#281

Post by userbinator »

mc32 wrote: post #8

Oh boy, that ever useful boogeyman >“In December 2019, the Washington Post reported that Elbakyan was being investigated by the US Justice Department on suspicion that she “may” be working with Russian intelligence to “steal U.S. military secrets...” When you start trotting that out, you know it’s a witch-hunt because if they had real reasons they’d have stated them, since they don’t they offer vague insinuations cou…

And whatever happened to Apple who refused to work with FBI on the San Bernardino shooter but here is only happy to comply in a much less interesting case?

The unfortunate implication here is that Apple is more strongly against theft of Imaginary Property than it is against physical violence.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#282

Post by upofadown »

pyuser583 wrote: post #275
upofadown wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People routinely do end to end encryption with email every day using either OpenPGP or S/MIME. Heck, email encryption is where the term "end to end encryption" came from. When someone claims E2EE for some other sort of messaging system they have to at least be as good at it as the email case to be taken seriously.

Hmmm!? Most people use emails via cloud services. I don’t think Eudora is still a thing.

But Thunderbird and Claws and Sylpheed and K-9 and Fairmail are things. There is Mailvelope for webmail.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#283

Post by tored »

gebruikersnaam wrote: post #268
tored wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US intelligence classifies the data as sensitive. Where can I read about that classification for this polling data? That part of the report your are quoting is from the addendum of the senators Heinrich, Feinstein, Wyden, Harris and Bennet, all five are members of the Democratic party, so it is not what the report concludes, it just their viewpoints. Nice try. What the report does concludes is "The Committee found…

> Where can I read about that classification for this polling data? I see that you get your talking points from Mate. But the fact that he or you don't have access to classified info doesn't mean you get to decide that the data is not sensitive. Manafort lied about it and both he and Kilimnik tried to tamper witnesses, that's not something one does over top-level polling data. That fact that Mueller didn't get enough…

As you said it is circumstantial, it could be that that there were more exchanges of (truly) sensitive information between Manafort and Kilimnik (they used encrypted communication) and that Kilimnik does in fact have GRU access (or is GRU himself), or everything could have been orchestrated by Putin himself to put Trump into power, I don't know that, but that needs to proven.

But doesn't X amount circumstantial evidence together prove collusion? Not necessarily, you still need to weigh each circumstantial evidence.

Lets take the WikiLeaks example, assume that it is 100% true that it was the GRU that was feeding WikiLeaks with the stolen documents. Trump campaign benefited from those leaks and Trump encouraged WikiLeaks to do more, does this prove Russian collusion? No. There is no proven coordination between the Trump Campaign and GRU via WikiLeaks. GRU could have played on these events during the 2016 election and used that to benefit the candidate they would prefer, assuming Trump. Putin is on the record for criticizing the US interventionist policies, policies that Clinton represents, and they could have used this opportunity to help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign gladly accepted this opportunity to get an advantage, but I would say that should be viewed as interference from GRU, not collusion with the campaign.

That is why the claim from the Senate report that "Kilimnik may have been connected the GRU's hack" is interesting, but the report doesn't provide any evidence only speculation on redacted material. That is of course impossible to asses the truthiness of.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#284

Post by jbpnoy6fifty »

mc32 wrote: post #8

Oh boy, that ever useful boogeyman >“In December 2019, the Washington Post reported that Elbakyan was being investigated by the US Justice Department on suspicion that she “may” be working with Russian intelligence to “steal U.S. military secrets...” When you start trotting that out, you know it’s a witch-hunt because if they had real reasons they’d have stated them, since they don’t they offer vague insinuations cou…

Honestly, I know of someone who was involved with the San Bernardino shooting. And the shooter was not the Muslim man that was a co-worker of my friend who was there during the attack. The guy who did it was light skinned (not dark), looked of Caucasian background based on skin, and was more than 1 foot taller than the accused assailant. The media explained a different story.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#285

Post by NorwegianDude »

esolyt wrote: post #123
shockeychap wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has always bragged about iMessage content being end-to-end encrypted, and thus inaccessible even to Apple. Why aren't they doing the same with email and other files, like other providers? (ProtonMail, to name one example)

> Apple has always bragged about iMessage content being end-to-end encrypted, and thus inaccessible even to Apple. Majority of iPhone users have backup enabled so Apple can certainly access most iMessages.

And most people using iMessage is using it on iOS with basically zero control over the software it's running.

If Apple wanted to they could make your phone send them whatever they want.

It's end-to-end encryption* with an asteriks as Apple controls both ends.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#286

Post by tootie »

temp8964 wrote: post #224
tootie wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very weasely statement. The FBI and multiple other agencies investigated a very real campaign of election influence that swirled around a particular candidate. No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. There was no concerted effort to punish a candidate. Proxies to the candidate were tried and convicted for their very real crimes.

"No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. " Wow.

I meant no one in an official capacity. No one at DOJ or elsewhere accused anything unsupported by facts.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#287

Post by tootie »

the_optimist wrote: post #216
tootie wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very weasely statement. The FBI and multiple other agencies investigated a very real campaign of election influence that swirled around a particular candidate. No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. There was no concerted effort to punish a candidate. Proxies to the candidate were tried and convicted for their very real crimes.

Your statement is simply false. There were four years of allegations and strong innuendo floated in congress and the press, as well as extraordinary use of carefully worded statements to sustain extralegal focus with zero evidence of behavior that would violate an actual law. No one was charged with or found guilty of anything other than conjured process crimes. History will not forgive, and it will not forget.

"Process crimes" is the refrain of the denier. The process crimes in question involved obstructing the investigation that could have uncovered more evidence. That is tantamount to full guilt. We know for a fact that Roger Stone worked with the campaign and Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. He refused to cooperate and waited for his pardon. Manafort was reporting to his Russian handler while he was campaign manager. Trump Jr met with Russian agents about emails at Trump Tower.

There was plenty of legitimate crime going on but the standard for a president shouldn't be conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. His open encouragement of Russian hacking even under the guise of "sarcasm" was grotesquely inappropriate. His refusal to confront Russia was shameful. His continued conspiring with his agents in Ukraine were plain as day and showed his willingness to break any rules he could to meet his ends.

Trump, who won his campaign on ludicrous conspiracy theories spent his final days in office fomenting insurrection and suing relentlessly to overturn the election based on lies. His crimes done in broad daylight are 1000x worse than the ones we can't thoroughly prove.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#288

Post by milesdyson_phd »

MathYouF wrote: post #276
avh02 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

waaaaay too slow talking to be at 1x speed. I don't listen to podcasts that fast, but darknet diaries definitely needs a speed bump. I like the episodes I've listened to though (so far only 5-10 of them)

All of you people really listen to podcasts and youtube videos and lectures at more than 1x speed? What about just enjoying the emotional journey, the pregnant pauses, having time to consider possibilities and implications between narrative sections? I only ever met one person who basically always sped up any media they consumed, but I wonder if it's more common and if so what you think about your habit. Seems useful…

I had a biochem professor in college who talked extremely slowly, like we are talking 2x speed just to approach normal talking (and her lectures were all online). I usually listen to stuff at 2x or greater depending on the content.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#290

Post by busymom0 »

gebruikersnaam wrote: post #104
mc32 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like these: https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-foreign-minister-says-joh... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-sl... Maybe it's all politicking, but then if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

The NY Post isn't a credible source, sorry. If Pompeo had evidence of Kerry having illegal talks, he had the opportunity to provide this evidence to the FBI, seeing as he was part of the administration at the time. Instead he chose to 'slam' Kerry during a news conference. But still no answer to the question if Kerry pretended to represent the US government, which would have been illegal.

> The NY Post isn't a credible source, sorry.

That's the equivalent of an ad-hominen attack.

Post reply on HN