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

Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

therecord.media

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 314 posts

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#301

Post by caconym_ »

kortilla wrote: post #280
caconym_ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s much more likely for both these orgs to be telling the truth when they’re accusing their enemies of doing bad things than it is when they’re denying that they’ve done bad things themselves. It’s not a simple case of one consistently telling the truth, and the other consistently lying...

> think it’s much more likely for both these orgs to be telling the truth when they’re accusing their enemies of doing bad things That’s... not how that works at all. Disinformation campaigns very frequently include publicly signaling you’ve come to a different conclusion than the real one you’ve come to.

> Disinformation campaigns very frequently include publicly signaling you’ve come to a different conclusion than the real one you’ve come to.

I'm not sure why you think what I said is incompatible with this. Often the best "lie" is a carefully cut-out corner of a larger truth.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#302

Post by sprafa »

whimsicalism wrote: post #299
enkid wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky...

The Bloomberg articles are definitely the closest I've seen coming to substantive evidence, that is for sure. I do, however, think that there is a big difference between being "affiliated with Russian intelligence" and providing an anti-DDOS service to the FSB, which is what this article is discussing, and really all it gives evidence for. Kapersky also provided services to the US intelligence services, I don't think…

Have you ever been in a wildly corrupt and centralised country? That frame of reference changes everything about what you just said - ie there are no “FSB contractors” that could possibly be independent under an authoritarian frame of reference.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#303

Post by boomboomsubban »

b112 wrote: post #268
narwally wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population was either largely against any intervention, or was outwardly pro-Nazi[0]. If it wasn't for Japan forcing our hand, the US would have been perfectly happy profiting from supplying other countries' war efforts, and building up their military while the rest of the…

During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.

Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms.

Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#304

Post by paulmd »

caconym_ wrote: post #141
oytis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kaspersky's ties to FSB are an open secret, so it's really believing FSB vs believing CIA unless you have a way to verify them.

I think it’s much more likely for both these orgs to be telling the truth when they’re accusing their enemies of doing bad things than it is when they’re denying that they’ve done bad things themselves. It’s not a simple case of one consistently telling the truth, and the other consistently lying...

there is even a term for this in the legal system: an "admission against interest".

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admission-against-interest...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_against_interest

that is to say, when making a statement is personally detrimental to someone, and they make it anyway, that statement should generally be given a higher degree of belief than one that is self-interested.

so in other words, if the CIA denies that they did something bad, you don't necessarily believe that straightaway, because of course they would say that. On the other hand if they do admit they did something bad, then it's OK to believe them in that instance even if they've lied in other instances.

Now of course - in the specific case of the CIA they are a government apparatus, not an independent actor, so the fact that they say (eg) Russia did a bad thing isn't necessarily against their interest, it is in their interest for the US Government to look good and truthful. But as a general rule, it's important to look at the interests in a specific instance to determine rather than just assuming that because an actor lied once that everything they say is suspect.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#305

Post by shelbyKiraM »

scoofy wrote: post #62
willcipriano wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to wager I'd always bet on the CIA lying, I don't see how anyone could come to another conclusion given their history.

>If I had to wager I'd always bet on national security agency of any powerful country lying, I don't see how anyone could come to another conclusion given their history. Let's not pretend the FSB and MSS don't also lie constantly. That you're more familiar with the CIA lying is a testament to the free press of the US, not the other way around. The point of the previous post is that it could easily be another security…

> free press

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Sun, at a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1880

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#306

Post by b112 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #303
b112 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.

Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.

Surely you realise your language implies intent.

Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit?

What a twisted viewpoint.

Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation.

Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.

I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#307

Post by boomboomsubban »

b112 wrote: post #306
boomboomsubban wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.

Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal…

I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited.

>Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.

That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#308

Post by kortilla »

caconym_ wrote: post #301
kortilla wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think it’s much more likely for both these orgs to be telling the truth when they’re accusing their enemies of doing bad things That’s... not how that works at all. Disinformation campaigns very frequently include publicly signaling you’ve come to a different conclusion than the real one you’ve come to.

> Disinformation campaigns very frequently include publicly signaling you’ve come to a different conclusion than the real one you’ve come to. I'm not sure why you think what I said is incompatible with this. Often the best "lie" is a carefully cut-out corner of a larger truth.

> I'm not sure why you think what I said is incompatible with this.

Because it’s literally the opposite. Misattribution is disinformation 101 if you have a solid source you need to protect.

US finds out China severely compromised a system while pretending to be Russia. The US found this out via a compromised Chinese government asset.

They need to fix the system but don’t want to let on they knew it was China and risk compromising their insider knowledge. Best course is to just say, “we found this that looks like Russia and we fixed it”.

There is no reason to assume a public attribution from an intelligence agency is correct. There are far too many reasons for it to be helpful to lie.

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#309

Post by b112 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #307
b112 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal…

I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's n…

By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period.

Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.

You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please!

Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works.

On to your other comment.

If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it?

Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible.

Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them.

Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope.

Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting.

Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine?

It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.

Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here.

So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years.

Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so.

Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control?

YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT.

Please stop! Please!

Re: Kaspersky believes it found new CIA malware

#310

Post by boomboomsubban »

b112 wrote: post #309
boomboomsubban wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's n…

By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that. You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, p…

>indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention.

Our first century of nonintervention was unquestionably based on the thought that entangling ourselves in European wars would drain us dry. Saying an element of that doesn't still remain is just incorrect, it is broadly the same idea as "Make America Great Again."

"Much of America" supported it, I never said all.

>If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other

Trying to be an empire in itself is evil. Being the "least evil" empire is not something to be proud of.

>Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes.

Yet they have done basically that with Mexico and many other South American countries.

>. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions

Only thousands, while killing many many more.

>. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.

Literally all of America, Puerto Rico, and this ignores that setting up puppet governments and economic domination are also methods of empire building.

>Please stop! Please

No. I see your point of view as accepting the blatant propaganda taught to us our entire life. The US denigrated itself, and just tries to make people think it's noble.

Post reply on HN