On the phone they went to a website and ignored warnings in order to download and execute a malicious APK. On the PC they followed a link in a scammy looking phishing email to download and open a malicious Office document. On the Mac they visited a website that had an ad suggesting that they needed an "antivirus program" so they downloaded and installed it.
So the devices were hacked not because Sochi is especially dangerous, but because of pure stupidity. Nothing can help you if you deliberately ignore warnings, and deliberately install Trojan horse malware. The exact same thing would have happened in the US.
(Yes, I know there are no frozen lakes in Sochi, it's an example)
I'm sure he can find a frozen lake in Moscow to jump on.
After all, the reporter was in Moscow -- not Sochi -- for the hacking story.
Well, more they were hacked because someone smart deliberately got them hacked. I don't actually know someone inept enough to achieve all three without help. It's actually quite hard to find malware these days if you use Google and the like to find sites as they are quite good at blocking them.
> Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime.
The law is still on the books, but ever since Lawrence v. Texas, gay sex is legal in all 50 states (and all US territories). They're on the books simply because of inertia - there's no impetus to pass a new law repealing a law that's already been invalidated.
> In Russia you cannot be fired from your job for being an LGBT individual, in the United States you can
This depends highly on the state. Some states even protect transgender individuals.
Also, comparing Russia's laws to the US's laws is inherently flawed. For example, I could mention that Iran conducts more sex reassignment operations than any other country in the entire world, except Thailand!
But before we go ahead and praise Iran for being progressive with regard to transgender rights, let's understand that they do this because they assume that homosexuality and being trans are the same thing, and the government pays for forced gender reassignment of gay people.
So it's very easy to make the US look bad in comparison to other countries, especially since the US is more federated than many other countries (ie, states have more leeway), and the US is larger (so it's easier to cherry-pick examples). But that doesn't mean the US is actually worse.
 There's some subtlety to this (we could debate the exact nature of the word "forced"), but that's basically how it works.
This is entirely incorrect, you sure as hell can and good luck finding a judge overruling it.
There are polygraph companies in Moscow that help out gays to employers, and they are completely open about it.
Even army, schools and universities use quackery like polygraphs and Voll/Schimmel EAP to "detect drug users."
- http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=... (no direct link to paragraph, search for "Voll")
Well... in 2000 (!), Alabama repealed its laws against interracial marriage, which had been invalidated in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.
Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay in some US states? Wouldn't you get sued for discrimination if you did that?
Yes. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Under Obama the tide has definitely turned in favor of gay rights, but gay people are still very far from being equally protected under the law nationwide.
And if the next US President is a Republican, many Obama-era gay rights advances might very well be rolled back.
It is so ridiculous it is funny. In the US, the law guarantees NO paid maternity leave, but you can't fire a pregnant lady. So, as soon as she gives birth, you can stop paying her (but not fire her), and then, two weeks after she comes back from maternity leave, you can fire her (because she is no longer in a protected class). So, basically, all this protection amounts to is ... about two extra weeks of severance.
US is pretty sad when it comes to labour law and employee rights - and most people living in the US are somehow under the illusion that it is better for them.
Does anyone know if sexual preference or sexual orientation is a recognized protected class?
While I agree that a minimum is a good idea (though not sure how it would be legislated in practice) I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated.
As for protected classes, it seems that sexual preference is kind of covered under Title VII, but it's flimsy (this is at the Federal level):
> I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated.
companies that are more "responsive to change"? What does this mean? Yes, they respond more easily to quarterly results by firing, but I don't know of anyone outside of Wall Street that considers this a good thing.
The US labour situation is all fcked up, sorry - up until last year, health insurance was tied to employers (meaning people kept working in places they hated, or did not start a new venture, for health coverage). Now, it's just ultra expensive and tied to a location. (Moved? unlikely you can keep your coverage)
Some places in Europe are fcked up in the other extreme - e.g. I've heard from people in Austria and in Denmark that they won't hire employees because they won't be able to fire them without a year's notice.
But the e.g. UK, Northern Ireland, Sweden and Germany are doing fine on the both the health care and labour law fronts.
The people who REALLY need it don't get it though, those working low income jobs who can't afford to save up for maternity leave.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Before that one could say "black people need not apply" on a job description or ask women if they were going to be having children soon on a job interview. Being gay was never defined as a protected group outright.
That being said, SOME States in the United States have taken it one step further and made homosexuals a protected group and disallowed discrimination against them under STATE law. Some companies have specifically outlawed discrimination against gays via official company policy and extended employee benefits to same sex partners.
I don't know if you can see this video outside of the United States, but try to watch it! It gives some examples of people being fired for being gay, and an interview with a completely clueless State lawmaker.
Looks like I'm slightly wrong.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been interpreted to apply to gays recently.
In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC enforces the prohibitions against employment discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment.
The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20.... The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.*
Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the US was a highly segregated country mostly because of "cherry picked" examples from the deep south. Federal law exists in part to put the entire country on the same page with respect to basic liberties. Its not OK for me to have more freedom of speech in California than in Texas, so why should it be OK for an LGBT individual to have more basic human rights in one state than in another?
So far the court only decided that the federal laws banning same-sex marriage are violating the rights of the citizens. They did not decide that recognizing same-sex marriage is a basic human right though, and since the text of the Constitution is also mum on this question, it would require a separate court decision to have federal enforcement of such rights, if recognized.
However not having such decision is in no way comparable with limitations of freedom of expression instituted in Russia. It's one thing to complain that the federal government does not force states to recognize same-sex marriage, especially if it doesn't even have a legal basis to do so right now, and another thing is to prosecute people for opening support centers for gay youth or for debating the topic of sexual relationships and freedoms in public.
If it is actually true (the anti-"Russian anti-gay laws" movement is overblown in Western media), and if you believe that it is true, then you would do better to stop posting this. You are only doing that cause a disservice by looking untrustworthy.
Everything about your posts and the thing you linked to smells of astroturf.
Been lurking on HN for half a year now, I guess this is what finally gets me to sign up.
Our western friends are more delicate this time.
Are you aware that Russia perfectly timed it's Kavkaz 2008 military training near the border of Georgian Region of South Osetia? Just several days earlier before conflict heated up.
And what Russia does when conflict begins? Forwards it's Kavkaz 2008 troops towards Georgia as soon as conflict begins. What a coincidence...
BTW, name South Ossetia was created (yes created) by USSR which aimed to take control over Caucasus, and Georgia was kind of too unified by that time, that was against Russian plans.
That should tell you who the transgressors were that were attacking those same civilians.
Again, if I recall correctly, a good number of those civilians in the "conflict zones" had dual citizenship or at least a Russian passport.
So when Georgia started shelling them, Russia responded.
Russia has been deploying Russian passports in the conflict zone for two decades, by force... So the reason "defend our citizens, friends" was a "Putin-made". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/265...
Many Ossetians headed south to the Georgian side as conflict began, before Russian troops took Tskinvali. Many of them now live in a refugee camps near Gori. http://www.demotix.com/news/77308/refugee-camp-gori-georgia#...
And there have been an ethnic cleansing of Georgians after Russian troops arrived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_...
The other points can also be challenged considering there are always going to be some numbers in the population that that are pro-Russian and some that are anti-Russian in that region. And there will be further conflict with the anti side.
We can argue on details endlessly and it's against my intention. The case is complicated indeed.
To keep it simple: Russia has been "operating" in this region for a long time and it's intention has always been to control Caucasus. It still continues such politics.
The only one who was "bearing" the nerves was Russia and here's why: They were bombing Georgian controlled side by the hands of Ossetian separatists for a long, as soon as Georgia decided to end it and react correctly (by correctly I mean taking control over South Osetia, which in fact is withing the borders of Georgia) and that's were Russia decided to defend its "friends". Read my comments above on Russian passports.
So, it's Russia bringing itself to war only to screw up media coverage of China olympics.
Nice conspiracy theory...
The readiness to respond was quite amazing though, yes -- but it was Georgian army who started the storm of Tshinval, not expecting the Russian one to appear any soon through a mountain tunnel (or appear at all, actually).
There have been trainings just before that, that's correct; and there have been provocations from both sides of the conflict (Ossetian and Georgian).
But still, there was an annexation too, Russia took this part of the Georgian controlled lands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhalgori_Municipality
Speaking of the conflict scale, it still looks quite lucky that this all ended soon -- with Georgian army leaving heavy armour all along the road to the capital, and panic starting there.
Georgian and Ossetians (and many other nations too) have been living in peace for centuries before Russian rule. Russia is the only one to blame in provocating every single conflict in Caucasus (except several minor issues).
Agree, Georgia can't be proud of acting organized later, but that's not the point here.
Indeed, who are we lying to, my Georgian friend?* ;)
* - esp. with claims as broad as:
>> Russia is the only one to blame in provocating every single conflict in Caucasus (except several minor issues).
Georgia fucked up, serves them right to get their ass handed to them by the Russians. Should be happy and thankful Tbilsi didnt get the same treatment like georgians gave to South Ossetian capital. Anyway what kind of country does that - start shelling to rubles some city it claims is within its own territory?
Yes, Georgian. And as I guess you are Russian.
I have nothing against Russian people, actually our nations had a deep relationships for centuries, But I'm really pity for you... Putin makes you to live in dictatorship, withing unfairness, Vors and I can imagine how much that sucks in 2014.
To help you have a better understanding of the conflict let me invite you in Georgia, you'll be my guest. I'll guide you through the places where all happened (OFC Georgian controlled ones) and show you facts of Russias' wrong reaction. I'm inviting you, seriously, no joking :) Let me know if you're interested.
But thanks for the invitation, is it still valid? I pretend be good Russian bring vodka and cookies. Then I can show you around my home area, Croatia.
On a side note, who still takes anything the big three networks push? Let alone lets not forget, Russia isn't politically correct so portraying them in a negative light is allowed if not desired.
However, one thing that everyone should keep in mind is that Russians do not "shit where they eat". It is not very common for any Russian group to specifically target people within their own borders as that would bring upon a lot of attention.
It is 100% likely that their connections are being monitored and 100% likely that a dossier is being built on reporters and officials visiting the country, but it is 100% for sure that they're not being specifically targeted with malware. If they are, the person initiating the attack is going to find themselves in a lot of heat.
Engel's Wikipedia article is quite fluffy on that note:
This is, of course, assuming all of this is being perpetrated by regular civilians, not the Russian government. Seems that a "dossier built on reporters and officials" would be more interesting to a government rather than a hacker group, don't you think? Is the Russian government being accused of/watched for this kind of shit?
It all came back to me as I watched the American media in the last few weeks, bringing a number of negative stories on Sochi and Russia -- much more so than in the European media I monitor.
Also I assume the research was done before Snowden revelations, where it was known that foreign governments engage in cyberwarfare, but there was not known US government does the same and the US government denied it does. Reinforcing the image of the threat as the foreign one.
So this is what the pair programming experience is like!
I like to imagine the next scene is the two >1000 hacksaws explaining ssh, remote X and basic Cisco admin to the yank-happy cord monster.
Ever been on IRC? It's exciting stuff:
Not sure I think HN should be a place to post memes like this all the time, but still: thanks for posting.
But actually, one of his closing remarks is unintentionally helpful: "The best way to protect yourself ... if you don't really need a device, don't bring it" [lest it get stolen by US customs as you're returning home].
This is all over the news wire, every outlet is reporting on it, the Obama administration has intervened, and it needs to be on top page of HN like now.
Is there any story about Russia right now that's not actively searching to criticize something?
Sounds like freedom hating.
What a wasted opportunity for a "strained yogurt" pun.
Everyone is gushing about how amazing the place is, how great the food is and the accommodations. Several people have commented on how this or that is better than it was in Vancouver. So now I'm thinking that maybe junior journalists still have some ethics in them and will do some actual investigations of stories.
As for positive reports - news usually aren't positive. It always has been so. Nobody reports positive things unless they are exceptionally positive. Fireman saves the lives of ten - news. Drunk driver plows into a tree - news. Drunk man decides not to drive but walk and safely arrives home - not news. A man comes from work, meets his wife and kisses her - not news.
Never underestimated the news media's ability to split the American public in half.
News isn't usually positive, but what do you think the tone of this coverage is compared to the coverage of the London olympics?
I personally strongly dislike the way gay people are treated in Russia and I am enjoying the drubbing they're getting from Western media.
But the parent comment is right, it's eerie to suddenly hear partisan media singing from the same hymn sheet.
I wasn't even aware that sports competition begins today, until today.
What was interesting was I repeated this story and later found this site and others and started looking back at what was said and no feel bad that I was "hacked" by the news guy in believing something that wasn't true. I wonder if their hotel story is just as bogus. I had forgotten briefly that you can never trust your news organizations when you live in an authoritarian state :-(
The guys there at Sochi obviously screwed up the hospitality part. If they didn't screw up the games part, as soon as the games open, the tone would change. If they screwed up that too, the tone would stay.
People are very nice (never refuse vodka if you are offered :)). But it is really poor place. There are open manhole in the middle of road - the big one, my friend would take out battery from the car bring it up with car keys, ...
So it is not really "semi-hidden agenda" - it just that Sochi is not Moscow.
In the end, it is the general public that ends up with these ridiculous misconceptions, while only a handful of people (e.g. the readers of HN) actually see through these ridiculous stories.
And how come the haters of that Russian law, never target any of their venom at the Russian legislators who wrote and passed that law with a large majority?
Investigative journalism is dead. Journalists are now bought and paid for by rich patrons. If you want to find a source of reliable news that you can trust, then sorry, you are out of luck. That era has long since passed.
If you say that western media is corrupt, than the Russian is absolutely corrupt. I don't believe you though, why would the west 'pick' on Russia? Just because? No, I'm russian and most things are true. Russia is one fucked up place for most people who live there. In most western counties it's luckily the other way around, the majority can live prosperous lives and pursue their dreams and wishes. I'm really tired of people defending Russia, it's people and our politics. I do agree that we get what we deserve. It will take decades or probably centuries before we even get to the level of kindness, sophistication and self respect you have in the west.
>>> Investigative journalism is dead. Journalists are now bought and paid for by rich patrons.
It must be very bleak in the world you live in. Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, indeed.
"A Russian court has fined a newspaper editor for publishing an interview with a gay school teacher who was quoted as saying 'homosexuality is normal.'" http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/01/russ...
The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that activists use it as an instrument of storytelling their agenda. It's even worse when it masquerades as 'quality' journalism, dressed up in broadsheet (or more to the point, Berliner format) and verbiage.
I feel that there is just too much of the wrong motivation behind 'journalism'.
Right now it's like massively enforced, even so far as going after a schoolgirl who claimed she was a lesbian
(later dropping charges but only after effectively ruining child's life)
"Personal Privacy Note: Travelers should be aware that Russian Federal law permits the monitoring, retention and analysis of all data that traverses Russian communication networks, including internet browsing, e-mail messages, telephone calls, and fax transmissions." 
"Additionally, cyber criminals may use the games as a lure in spam, phishing or drive-by-download campaigns to gain personally identifiable information or harvest credentials for financial gain. Lastly, those physically attending the games should be cognizant that their communications will likely be monitored." 
Basically, while at Sochi, you will have very little digital privacy and if you visit Olympic game related websites, they may attempt to (broadly speaking) "hack" your computer.
Also I'd really like to know exactly how they hacked Mac OS X. Because if he downloaded something and then gave it his administrator password, that doesn't count as being hacked.
A few before the shirtless Putin article:
GATES SPENDS ENTIRE FIRST DAY BACK IN OFFICE TRYING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 8.1
CHRISTIE ASKS FOR PUBLIC’S PATIENCE WHILE HE COMES UP WITH NEW STORY
OBAMA’S CALL TO END TRAGEDIES ANGERS PRO-TRAGEDY WING IN CONGRESS
'The claims made on the blog are completely without merit,' according to a representative from NBC News."
But wait ... no need to be afraid:
"So what can you do?"
"Purchase ... antivirus software ... before you leave the country"
I can't wait coming to the US. Then I finally can connect to a US WiFi and go to these famous websites named facebook.com and google.com.
Politicians and journalists should lose their job / title FOREVER when they are caught lying.
And in the same show a native born black American girl who did not even speak Russian, made it into the knockout rounds. Her name is Karmen Moxie.
1. obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception.
I think you mean "inaccurate".
I've seen a lot of sensationalized bullshit via the corporate mass media before, but this took the cake. I wondered if it was "just me", but now I'm seeing many others online and offline also noting how ridiculous it was with more than obvious, dishonest fear mongering at play.
It got me thinking about how much Comcast must serve others in order to maintain its corrupt, despised, anti-competitive oligopoly. Considering the fact that multiple polls show that Comcast is one of the most despised corporations in America, I don't think it would be too difficult to get many Americans behind breaking up their oligopoly if the issue was pushed.
But, the government never pushes it. Comcast owes a great... no, massive debt to the government for its very existence, incredible anti-competitive growth and ability to continue to plunder Americans by becoming an increasingly gargantuan oligopoly and near monopoly (when it comes to higher speed Internet access in many areas).
I also don't think anyone who's been paying attention doubts that war profiteers have taken over our government from the outside (via lobbying) and the inside via their own politicians with Washington’s revolving door – legislators and their staff members becoming lobbyists, and vice versa.
Russia deserves a lot of criticism to say the least, but the anti-Russian propaganda from the mass media coming from the USA, etc. is getting pretty thick, heavy and over the top. It's almost palpable at this point and it's obviously stressing our relations with Russia. Between that and some interesting issues with the Ukraine I'm starting to think the war profiteers would very much like to push for and ramp up a new, profitable Cold War between Russia and the USA again.
The war on terror thing is getting old and harder to justify with limitless money and wars. With the Internet and average citizens utilizing it to spread info to each other, it's becoming increasingly difficult to start deceptive, profitable (open) wars or even just air strikes on places like Syria, for example.
I'm not saying any of this is true and I sure hope it's not true, but the propaganda is really getting laid on thick lately and I'm not sure what the end-game is here. Even though many of the criticisms are certainly true against Russia, it seems like it's really getting "poured on" in the last few years and it's increasing tension with Russia on a scale I haven't seen since our last Cold War with them.
I know it seems like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and I'll understand if anyone thinks I'm sounding looney... but, I think the risk is something to watch for even if it is remote.
I mean, for all I know this is simply a bunch of geopolitical pushing around that has nothing to do with any long term war profiteer agenda. I sincerely hope that's true. But, if there's something else going on, I hope we've all got our eyes wide open here and make sure we're not being led (yet again) into something that sucks away lives and treasure for the benefit of the very few. It's happened before (see Iraq) and I see no reason why the war profiteers won't keep trying and trying again.
We should remember that... around the time of the next election.