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

New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#161

Post by allthenews »

salimmadjd wrote: post #5

Mr. Schulte had been charged last year in New York with possession of child pornography Very interesting! It almost seems like the pornography charges against him was a way to punish him but without prosecuting him for the actual leakage. Perhaps the government wanted to still point the fingers at someone else or avoid embarrassment?

I bet they could have planet d the CP to gain access to his hardware, without which they would have had no legally obtained evidence of his crime. Apparently he was running some sort of server, but I haven't read past that.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#162

Post by ben_w »

jumper_F00BA2 wrote: post #148
DINKDINK wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question we need to answer is: Was the incriminating data planted or not. Having a password manager on his phone is tangental to answer that question. After the computer and phone left his custody, either device could have had data modified. Unless he's got his data pinned into the Bitcoin blockchain, it's a pretty hard to show that it was planted. If it wasn't planted then it's really just about how the key was…

I think the level of security provided by passwords or password managers is probably of little import, when confronted by a nation-state actor, and indeed a top tier nation-state actor, with nigh unlimited resources, and an axe to grind over a serious grudge. We have wi-fi routers being used to passively see through walls, with enough fidelity to read lips and record finger movement. Put someone under a microscope lo…

> We have wi-fi routers being used to passively see through walls, with enough fidelity to read lips and record finger movement.

That’s terrifying. I had no idea that was possible despite it being published years ago and trying to keep track of technology like that: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7384744/

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#163

Post by ben_w »

sverige wrote: post #119
22837y wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, those charges are very real. They've continually been upheld in courts in both the UK and Sweden.

Nope, Sweden dropped the case. https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/05/19/europe/julian-assange-swede...

Because they timed out, I thought. Something about him not being formally chargeable until he was in the country, and cases needing to be dropped if there was no formal charge after a certain period.

“Arrested on suspicion” (and “skipping bail”) being separate to that.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#164

Post by boomboomsubban »

rosser wrote: post #33
DINKDINK wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind enlightening us how Wikileaks was a propaganda arm of the Russian government when they released video of US war crimes (murder of journalists in the Collateral Murder video)? If another news organization received the DNC leaks and chose to not publish them, do you think that would have been ethical? Is your position that, one cannot be a US citizen and oppose the US government and if you do you're a Russi…

The selectivity of Wikileaks' leaks put the lie to their claim of being a journalistic entity. Julian Assange has an agenda against certain people/parties, and has demonstrably leaked things that support that, and not leaked things that refute it. I say that as a detractor of many of the same people and institutions Assange dislikes, so check your assumptions of bias before you throw them, please.

Please demonstrate all the examples where Wikileals could have leaked things that refute that agenda and chose not to.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#165

Post by ben_w »

zeth___ wrote: post #146
chiefalchemist wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believing he was is believable. But it's only a symptom. Believing the intelligence community never bends the rules is the problem. That belief is the root disease.

Which do you think is more likely: 1). A person willing to risk their life for what they believe is right is a pedophile. 2). The CIA plants evidence. After having a look at the things we know the CIA did during my life time, Iran-Contra, I'd say 2 is vastly more likely than 1.

Despite being certain of 2, I am also certain that they don’t need to plant evidence to make someone’s life hell.

Their omniscient surveillance, combined with how many overlapping laws eveyone seems to have, means all they need to do is enumerate the crimes of someone they don’t like and run with it. So, for example, this particular enemy of theirs likes illegal porn? Next one will have something else.

This isn’t to say the CIA definitely didn’t plant anything, just that I think doing so is not the only option they will consider sufficient for their desired result.

Moral outrage based attacks have happened before; I’m told the FBI’s poison-pen-letter to MLK was being truthful when it claimed that he was adulterous, for example. While the idea that adultary could have such an impact is alien to me, the fact that it was attempted means the FBI thought otherwise at the time.

As for option 1? There’s a reason why we cant find them before they break the law. Whatever that reason is, it has to be compatible with someone like that being willing to do something like this.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#166

Post by superflyguy »

forapurpose wrote: post #144
superflyguy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the charges aren't going away. And because the girl was talked into the rape accusation and then tried to back out of it makes it a set up.

Claims in an Internet forum aren't evidence. Also, rape victims back out of accusations all the time because of the trauma involved. Is there evidence?

I'm not talking about hypothetical rape allegations. I'm talking about the Assange rape allegations. Educate yourself about the subject before just talking about it otherwise what's the point?

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#167

Post by chiefalchemist »

zeth___ wrote: post #146
chiefalchemist wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believing he was is believable. But it's only a symptom. Believing the intelligence community never bends the rules is the problem. That belief is the root disease.

Which do you think is more likely: 1). A person willing to risk their life for what they believe is right is a pedophile. 2). The CIA plants evidence. After having a look at the things we know the CIA did during my life time, Iran-Contra, I'd say 2 is vastly more likely than 1.

What I know is irrelevant. What matters is the general understanding and comprehension of the masses. If you accept Twitter and Facebook as an acceptable representation of the public at large then it's clear there are __a lot__ of naive / misled people.

Long to short, the majority would rather believe in the integrity of the intelligence community than the IC's willingness to take any road necessary (not just the high moral road).

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#168

Post by [deleted] »

colordrops wrote: post #32
wyldfire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or option C: a propaganda arm of the Russian Government. EDIT: downvoters aren't offering a response, so I'll just hope or assume that they want evidence: [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/putin-dismisses... [3] http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.771716 [4] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/cambridge-analyti... [5] https://sunli…

Calling wikileaks a propaganda arm of the Russian Government is just US propaganda. 1984 double-speak here. Can you point to ANYTHING that wikileaks has reported or released that is untrue?

[deleted]

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#169

Post by honestoHeminway »

Cacti wrote: post #111
Semirhage wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilt…

I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a…

If i where at the CIA, i would hire such rotten apples, so i have a handle, and know where the handle is, and could very carefully watch, wether somebody else was pulling that handle.

And if that trooper went rogue, and i had to make a public exempel- all those other rotten apples i had, ready to do whatever i want them to do- would know from where the bullets come flying.

Spying always attracted those who live in hiding by nature anyway. Before beeing gay was socially accepted, huge parts of the spy community where more or less flaming. If the suspect was a peod- and lived a spys life since puperty anyway, might as well hire him.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#170

Post by jessaustin »

influx wrote: post #26
jessaustin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but ISTM the question isn't really whether the logs are of a genuine conversation about CP, but rather whether the accused really was a part of that conversation? After all, if he really took part in a conversation about procuring such material, it wouldn't have mattered if he talked like a newb. Likewise, if he wasn't in on it, it doesn't matter that everyone who was in on it got "t…

Read the transcript and decide for yourself, I'm referring strictly to how I've seen people speak on IRC. Warning, there is disturbing text in there. https://dd80b675424c132b90b3-e48385e382d2e5d17821a5e1d8e4c86...

Wow you really misrepresented those chat logs. The personas portrayed within appear to be interested in the concept of CP, seemingly mostly for its forbidden nature. Whenever they discuss an individual file, there are questions about whether the participants are 15yo or older, or whether the file is "really porn". If these are really the deepest depths plumbed by that "scene", the whole thing has been wildly misrepresented.
Post reply on HN