12 Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted for Hacking the Clinton Campaign(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
12 Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted for Hacking the Clinton Campaign
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html
6 comments
Copy of the indictment that details the actions/methods of the hackers: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf
Why is this flagged? Is talking about hackers on hacker news going too far?
Likely because the comments here were pretty low-quality from the get-go, so people are attempting to head off flame wars ahead of time.
It’s unfortunate that the worst of a community can kill a story just by acting badly. The most easily riled and offended shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what’s discussed on any site.
[deleted]
Count Eleven in the indictment is the most serious one of the lot. The DOJ alleges there were attempts to hack election machines.
nunobrito(1)
Serious question: If this case goes to trial, which is unlikely, will the defendants be allowed to subpoena the DNC server, which to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency?
You can't "subpoena" evidence, you subpoena live witnesses, or people to produce evidence.
Since Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors have to turn over any potentially favorable evidence to the defense. The defense can of course ask to see the evidence in any criminal case.
In a civil case, as the defense counsel you would have a chance to review the evidence in the discovery phase.
Since Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors have to turn over any potentially favorable evidence to the defense. The defense can of course ask to see the evidence in any criminal case.
In a civil case, as the defense counsel you would have a chance to review the evidence in the discovery phase.
Gotcha, that makes sense.
> to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency
Given that the FBI has examined it and has forensic images of it's disks. This statement is false.
Most likely if any of these cases move to trial, the FBI's forensic examiner will be called to testify as to what was found if it has relevant information and that is what will be entered into the record.
I would like to note that your phrasing sounds rather like a constructed talking point; intended to cast a frame on events with a favorable construction towards one party in this dispute.
I would remind all readers that HN is merely another social media forum and is thus equally susceptible to information operations and propaganda campaigns designed to lead it's influential audience down certain paths of thought and to avoid others.
Be aware of phrases that are intended to foster certain attitudes; especially as in this case one that seems designed to attribute mal-intent to the _victim_ of the crime.
Given that the FBI has examined it and has forensic images of it's disks. This statement is false.
Most likely if any of these cases move to trial, the FBI's forensic examiner will be called to testify as to what was found if it has relevant information and that is what will be entered into the record.
I would like to note that your phrasing sounds rather like a constructed talking point; intended to cast a frame on events with a favorable construction towards one party in this dispute.
I would remind all readers that HN is merely another social media forum and is thus equally susceptible to information operations and propaganda campaigns designed to lead it's influential audience down certain paths of thought and to avoid others.
Be aware of phrases that are intended to foster certain attitudes; especially as in this case one that seems designed to attribute mal-intent to the _victim_ of the crime.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_i...
>FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
>Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.
Crowdstrike is not the FBI or any government agency. Do you have a source that proves a government agency examined the server or an image of the server? Because you seem awfully confident that the FBI has examined it.
>FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
>Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.
Crowdstrike is not the FBI or any government agency. Do you have a source that proves a government agency examined the server or an image of the server? Because you seem awfully confident that the FBI has examined it.
I imagine the DNC refused FBI access because of the nature of the information, and the nature of the company asking for the data.
Any leaks by Crowdstrike would be something the DNC could litigate, and would also greatly hurt Crowdstrike's reputation.
The FBI, on the other hand, does have some politics involved, and to my knowledge there wouldn't be much recourse for the DNC if the FBI were to leak confidential information they had access to from the investigation.
Even if there isn't extra information beyond what was already leaked, giving the FBI access allows for a specific narrative to be put forth in a leak, even if it's just insinuations through specifically crafted misinformation. The FBI having full access allows for bad actors within the organization to provide credence to any narrative they desire, since official communication of information about the case would be delayed and likely restrained.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense that the DNC would refuse FBI involvement in this instance, given the option (which they were).
Any leaks by Crowdstrike would be something the DNC could litigate, and would also greatly hurt Crowdstrike's reputation.
The FBI, on the other hand, does have some politics involved, and to my knowledge there wouldn't be much recourse for the DNC if the FBI were to leak confidential information they had access to from the investigation.
Even if there isn't extra information beyond what was already leaked, giving the FBI access allows for a specific narrative to be put forth in a leak, even if it's just insinuations through specifically crafted misinformation. The FBI having full access allows for bad actors within the organization to provide credence to any narrative they desire, since official communication of information about the case would be delayed and likely restrained.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense that the DNC would refuse FBI involvement in this instance, given the option (which they were).
Sounds like a lose/lose for the DNC. Either it is completely ignored, or the sever's contents may be made public
The FBI had images; you don't need a physical server
This is the first time I am hearing of this. Could you please cite a source for this information?
In his testimony in January on the cyber attacks, then-director of the FBI James Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.
"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said. [0]
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/...
"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said. [0]
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/...
I think they got a forensics report from Crowdstrike, not an image, but it's hard to tell for sure because the people making statements aren't fully aware of the distinction most likely.
The fact that I can't find specific reference to an image being provided, just "forensics", would lead me to suspect that an image was not provided, as otherwise later clarification on this point would have been beneficial to some parties involved. Then again, maybe I'm just missing it.
The fact that I can't find specific reference to an image being provided, just "forensics", would lead me to suspect that an image was not provided, as otherwise later clarification on this point would have been beneficial to some parties involved. Then again, maybe I'm just missing it.
Sure, but can they subpoena the server, or even the images?
This case will NEVER go to trail and that's the point of Mueller filing it. He knows he has to get someone for something and indicting 12 Russians for crimes he can't ever prove is a win for his team. What I'd like to see is the proof that these Russians ACTUALLY did the hacking. How do we know that THESE specific individuals committed these crimes? We don't, Mueller won't/can't prove that but that's the point. It's charge anyone for anything at this point.
Mueller did not bring this indictment. He presented the evidence to a Grand Jury of your fellow citizens. Those fellow citizens saw enough evidence to convince them to return the indictments.
If the individuals indicted ever stand for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, then we will see the evidence as it will be a public trial albeit with any evidence that will reveal national security secrets redacted from public view.
This is exactly how our justice system is supposed to work.
If the individuals indicted ever stand for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, then we will see the evidence as it will be a public trial albeit with any evidence that will reveal national security secrets redacted from public view.
This is exactly how our justice system is supposed to work.
What if there is evidence that they, in fact, did this? Everyone should be very concerned about this, whether the outcome played in favor of or damaged your particular party's side. This would be an attack on our democracy from a foreign government. How Trump handles this news is going to be very telling on where his loyalties are (beyond just himself).
The person you're responding to has no desire to enter any logical debate. Their entire calculus is that they need Trump to deliver what he's sold them on. There is no coherence to any two of their points, it's simply "any port in the storm". Any piece of information that might lead toward Trump not completing his plan is completely rejected on principle. Thus, even though they aren't going to answer your question, I can. There is no evidence that is going to satiate a troll. The only tool a troll has is to spread doubt.