181–190 of 334 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of words but you didn't answer the question. The CIA and FBI are not accountable to Americans. You may be a fan of, or even work for, these institutions. But they are unaccountable and authoritarian and opaque.
The interesting question to ask is to whom are they accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I had been able to read it before it got flagged. I do want to understand the perspective.
You can still read dead comments by turning on "showdead" on your user profile page. For you: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DevKoala
Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.
Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.
All that "drain the swamp" bullshit? The fever swamp made that up. That was never Trump's gig, not once, from the day he showed up until he fled.
Stundin is a tabloid. Let's wait until this report is confirmed by more reputable sources before declaring Assange innocent.
Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.
Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've already been provided and discarded more than minimal evidence. For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. Whether or not crowdstrike knew in 2017 doesn't matter. Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.
> For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. How exactly did they arrive at that attribution? > Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU. How do we know that? No offense, but out of all the places I thought at least people on HN should be aware about the massive caveats that modern-day cyber attribution comes with. The vast m…
> The vast majority of times it's just "educated guesses" based on identifiers that any smart adversary will know how to spoof and thus utilize as false leads.
No, I'd say people on hn often vastly overstate the lengths people are willing to go to to create these false flag attacks. If we believed hn, no attacks are done, every cyber attack is actually spoofed by an even more formidable spy ring.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. The attack, carried out with many technical signifiers of a Russian state backed attack, that was used to geopolitically help Russia was Russian.
The alternative is that someone (who?) was capable enough to infiltrate Russian cyber intelligence resources to then launch an attack on the us, which they then used to geopolitically assist Russia.
I'm not sure I can think of any attack where someone tried to successfully frame another nation. This doesn't mean they don't happen, but that they're rare. It also means that if they do happen, they're always successful, which seems unlikely. Far more likely is that successfully impersonating a state cyber attack is actually really really difficult, because doing so successfully would in general require persistent access to the state actor you're impersonating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.
I continue to be amazed at the level of competence ascribed to this man. Donald Trump was, at heart, a lazy do-nothing in search of sycophancy and praise. He had zero inclination to actually change anything about how the government operates. All he cared about was that it was "his". And to the extent he was ever "critical" of agencies, it was only because they said something (or leaked something) that embarrased him.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side? Was it more valuable as kompromat?
Yup. Looks like it still is. You don't burn your own people unless they are very bad.
Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.
Vote for the party which is most critical on them. Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vote for the party which is most critical on them. Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.
>Vote for the party which is most critical on them. >Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system. Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.