
Hacker Releases More Democratic Party Documents - thyrsus
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/democratic-party-documents-hack.html?_r=0
======
mark_l_watson
Is Wikileaks announcement that the recently murdered DNC staff member was the
source of the leaks, not Russian hackers, credible? I don't know, and in
anycase I consider the source of the leaks to be much less important than the
contents of the leaks.

When we watch a good magician, they entertain us by using misdirection.
Unfortunately, when the deep state and the media they control use misdirection
it is not fun or entertaining, it is about getting the population to go along
with policies against the public's interests, against the interests of peace
and prosperity, etc.

~~~
spenvo
If you listen to Assange's interview, he says nothing of substance, just
insinuates the connection.

------
upofadown
This is the interesting part:

>American intelligence officials said they are virtually certain that Russian
intelligence officials were behind the attack.

... but there there isn't anything in the article to back it up. Why do these
unnamed officials think this?

~~~
jlgaddis
I'm guessing they have intelligence, likely captured via their global
surveillance infrastructure, that points to them as the culprits... but they
can't publicly admit to that, of course, due to "national security concerns".

We're just supposed to _trust_ them.

------
vermontdevil
Maybe now Diane Feinstein will see the value of end to end encryption?

Doubt it. She'll probably advocate that only for herself and her Senate
colleagues.

~~~
threeseed
Nobody disputes the value of end to end encryption. That's not the issue.

The problem of encryption is that it changes the relationship between
government and individual in a way that has never been seen before. If a
person is suspected of committing a crime the police have always had the
ability to intercept mail, record calls, search property etc and obtain
evidence. They can't do that now.

You can argue the pros/cons of this new world order. What you can't argue
against is the natural inclination of many people to simply maintain the
status quo.

~~~
whamlastxmas
They can intercept my encrypted emails just like they've always been able to
intercept encrypted hand written letters.

~~~
berkeleynerd
This precisely.

------
difftest
Muh Russia...

I to my girlfriend- how dare you cheat on me. You are texting Sam since a
year.

My gf to me: How dare you breach my trust by looking at my phone? This doesn't
count.

~~~
pbz
Yeah, let's talk about foreign intervention, Assange and his vendetta, how
some private information was not censored, possible geopolitical implications,
or how Trump may be implicated. Did I forget any other diversion tactic? The
efficacy of such methods is worrisome; even smart people are unable to look
behind these curtains.

------
thyrsus
Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut:

“It’s hard for me to imagine how just having a bunch of numbers, cellphones
and emails would in any way affect the election,” he said. “It wasn’t totally
unexpected.”

“Someone could cause a lot of damage if they were able to send emails out from
a member’s account, but I’m not hearing that that’s a risk at this point.”

Me: I have yet to see a cryptographically signed e-mail from a politician, and
without that, spoofing such a message would be almost trivial. Do they keep
their cybersecurity well hidden from the public?

~~~
rbanffy
Securing a politician's computer is 30% infosec and 99.9% conditioning:
deliver a painful shock when the politician tries to open Facebook from the
same computer they do their emails, when they download an attachment from an
unsigned email, etc...

~~~
ThrowMeAway314
Or we could just replace out politicians with urandom

------
ourmandave
Another incremental release to keep it in the news cycle.

Do they have _anything_ career ending or prosecutable, or do "the Russians"
just enjoy watching Hillary dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge?

------
bertil
I was surprised to see how WikiLeaks is not mentioned until late, as a passing
mention in the context for the leaks. I’m not sure what having leakers _not_
going through WikiLeaks means: do we have to trust them on leaking everything?
Is Assange personality getting in the way of the leaks? Are people who think
they are savvy enough to hide their trace trying to go direct? Why would they
take that risk?

------
ting_bu_dung
So it looks like Trump might have solid ties with Russia, and through some
connections might be triggering all the Russian hacking of _only_ the
democratic party. Doesn't bode well for American democracy when Russian
dictator can sneak in a candidate for president.

\- Trump's manager, Paul Manafort, has done multimillion-dollar business deals
with pro-Russian oligarchs and was a longtime adviser to the Russia-aligned
Ukrainian president whose 2014 ouster triggered Russia’s intervention in
Ukraine, a major source of tension between Russia and the United States as
well as its NATO allies.

\- On the campaign trail, Trump has called for a new partnership with Moscow,
overhauling NATO, the allied military force seen as the chief protector of
pro-Western nations near Russia

\- Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to
Moscow in search of business opportunities

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-
financ...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-
ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-
putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html)

~~~
threeseed
I doubt that Trump or his campaign would be actively lobbying the Russian
government.

There is plenty of motivation elsewhere to do so. Russia would be a major
loser given that Hillary would far more decisive and bold with her foreign
policy decisions. Assange benefits because a Trump government would be more
amenable to immunity negotiations. And Wikileaks benefits from all the
publicity.

~~~
ting_bu_dung
Trump publically called on Russia to hack on Hillary

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-
trump-r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-
clinton-emails.html)

~~~
cmdrfred
I'm going to be honest here, I'm non-partisan and I agree with some of his
comments here and so does this lawyer who specializes[0] in cases like this.
If I had that data in my possession it would already be on wikileaks, the
American people deserve to know what their leaders say when they don't think
they are listening.

Edit: People will down vote but not reply because they don't have a leg to
stand on. It's not like Hillary is a privacy hawk[1], turnabout is fair play
where I'm from.

[0][https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-
speciali...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-specializing-
in-security-clearance-cases-hillary-clinton-got-off-
easy/2016/07/07/38b10f3c-4480-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?utm_term=.7cdc66cf5ee5)

[1][http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-
clinton-w...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-
wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/)

------
chvid
Why does the actual source:

[https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hack...](https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hacked-
dccc/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977)

get flag-killed immediately where as this somewhat colored article gets on the
frontpage?

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
... was wondering too. The screenshots in the NYT article look like "teaser-
advertisements", while the actual sources are a big taboo.

Keep in mind that Guccifer2 isn't a lone hacker as initially portrayed.
Guccifer2 is a cover for APT-28/APT-29 (GRU). So if anything then this leak
has to be considered for what it was: A foreign nation meddling in the
elections of another. Current Russian meddling fits seamlessly into Russia's
bigger doctrine on Cyber Defense Strategies [0][1][2][3][4]

[0] [https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-
democ...](https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-
national-committee/)

[1] [https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-
Cy...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cyber-War-In-
Perspective-Analysis-From-The-Crisis-In-Ukraine-wp.pdf)

[2] [https://blog.valbonne-
consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess...](https://blog.valbonne-
consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess-cyber-security-role-and-ethical-
challenges/)

[3]
[http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-...](http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx)

[4] [http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-
pap...](http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-papers/cross-
domain-coercion-current-russian-art-strategy)

PS: there is now also guccifer 3.0 :-) and I'm hitting reload like crazy
[https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/](https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/)

EDIT: anyone interested in this subject also look for 'Gerasimov Doctrine' for
a thrilling read.

~~~
jmnicolas
Do you really think that the Russians would interfere so blatantly ? They're
not stupid, these hacks deserve them.

The only one that has to gain from this hacks is Hillary : she looks like the
poor victim of the evil Russians and their agent Trump.

~~~
gloverkcn
Are you suggesting that Hillary realesed the emails to get an anti-Russian
sympathy vote?

~~~
cmdrfred
If I was a member of her campaign I would have released the documents. The
democratic process and corruption matter no matter how much you dislike the
other guy.

------
meeper16
This should read: "A hacker votes for Donald Trump"

------
ZoeZoeBee
I posted the leak on here yesterday and yeah, it was flagged immediately. Hate
to have to say it but when it comes to information critical of a certain
candidate this place is an echo chamber, looks like 13 people have now
submitted the site and it is no longer flagged. Still concerning about the
overall censorship in regards to a topic this site should find interesting no
matter your political views
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977)

~~~
difftest
It's okay to discuss absolutely anything but not politics. But if you are
discussing politics, you better discuss pro queen.

------
difftest
I already commented but Ill say it again- Trump is a wild card who will likely
do little for the country but little to the country and the world. Hillay will
do a bit more for the country but much worse _to_ it. See my past comments for
proof about literal oligarchy. She is already attacking the very backbone of
internet- free speech by spending 6m per quarter hiring trolls

~~~
givinguflac
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this really isn't the place for that type
of discussion.

