5 ms·

Can you explain that further? Although I see Snowden as a whistleblower who deserves legal protection, I'm not sure that I feel that way about Guccifer. Though

Can you explain that further? Although I see Snowden as a whistleblower who deserves legal protection, I'm not sure that I feel that way about Guccifer. Though he may have exposed misdeeds, this information was not something naturally in his possession as it was with Snowden; he had to force his way in to private networks and accounts to retrieve it. Given also the Russian interest in the upcoming US presidential election and in gaining access to this sensitive data to influence the outcome towards the candidate they prefer, I also see material harm done as a result (unlike Snowden, where the nebulous "because Terrorism" was deployed to explain the damage done). If you were referring to the fact that only his crime was punished while the crimes of those he exposed were ignored, then I understand your point.

finid 10y ago
> Given also the Russian interest in the upcoming US presidential election and in gaining access to this sensitive data to influence the outcome towards the candidate they prefer... So you drank that Kool Aid being passed around by the those with a vested interest to use Russia as an excuse for anything.
tanderson92 10y ago
Why is there any particular Russian interest in this specific election? And not the previous? (Obama ridiculed Romney for 1980s style thinking for calling Russia our greatest geopolitical foe) Could it be that you believe the narratives you find in major newspapers?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I like Obama. Obama was wrong about that. It's not the only thing he's been wrong about.
- jljljl 10y ago
  Most reporting on this I've seen suggests that the DNC hack originated in Russia, and that it had the trademarks of a Russian Intelligence action: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/31/what-we-know-about-russias-role-dnc-email-leak/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/31/... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/07/russian_hack_of.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/07/russian_hack_... Is there any evidence that points to the contrary?
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    I don't know. I do know that your (well-reasoned) point does not actually address my question.
- Natsu 10y ago
  > Could it be that you believe the narratives you find in major newspapers? https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699 The Washington Post, which published the article linked by HN, has a bit of an undisclosed angle in going against these leaks. This can be seen from the leaked email above about the clandestine fundraiser the lawyers would never allow ("Great – we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."). But maybe someone can point me to where they've explained themselves, because it's entirely possible that I missed it.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Not all narratives you find in major newspapers are wrong, you know.
CaptSpify 10y ago
> Given also the Russian interest in the upcoming US presidential election and in gaining access to this sensitive data to influence the outcome towards the candidate they prefer... I hear this a lot, but I don't get how it's relevant. Sure, Russia might be trying to influence elections it should have no say in, but the data they allegedly brought forth is still valid.
mindslight 10y ago
My point was not that he deserves immunity [0]. I was pointing out that even if he had say cracked a friend's email account for purely selfish reasons, hacking in general carries draconian punishments simply because it deflates abstractions of the status quo. Burgling several sheds likely wouldn't result in 52 months in prison, but "hacker" is the modern day "witch". [0] Although I was implying that perhaps USians should appreciate the forced government transparency. It's kind of odd to talk about "material damages" due to crimes being exposed - it seems like damages are better ascribed to the original acts themselves.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This is special pleading. Charges like these are vivid because we can see ourselves as somehow sometime being in the same judicial crosshairs. But in the grand scheme of American justice, hackers do not have the rawest deal --- that probably goes to low-level gang members. Sentences are across the board too high. The US isn't accomplishing anything with a 4 year sentence in this case than it would with a sentence of 1 year. But we should be careful to remember that white dudes messing with computers are not an especially persecuted class.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    It entirely depends on the measure. Low-level gang members get their raw deal from being systematically trapped in their situation. Go to jail, get out of jail, find no other opportunities, repeat. Punishment divided by harm-caused obviously goes to drug users, being infinite. Hacking has stiff criminal penalties for many things that should be civil matters at best, precisely because it makes powerful people realize how tenuous their control actually is. Let's not succumb to identity pity politics about who has it the "worst". Each codified injustice is ultimately the result of a ruling class slowly eroding the rule of law for its own benefit. (Also, I'm pretty sure the definition of "hacker" does not imply "white dude")
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > Punishment divided by harm-caused obviously goes to drug users, being infinite. That defines the harm as being zero. I'm not sure that's the case. Some drugs (angel dust, at a minimum) greatly increase the user's propensity for violence. And the argument for saying "they haven't done anything yet, so arrest them for the violence when they do it" is similar to saying "drunk drivers haven't caused any harm yet, so wait until they cause a crash before you arrest them". The harm to others is (for drunk driving and some drugs) too likely to follow to simply wait for it to occur.
magicalist 10y ago
Are people maybe confusing this guy with Guccifer 2.0? What crimes was he exposing when he posted George W's paintings online? My understanding was that the private email server was only revealed incidentally to the material he released, when a reporter noticed a questionable email address. Even accounting for the importance of transparency, it seems weird for the GP to assert this guy didn't deserve "even four months" when a large number of the times he accessed accounts were with no noble intent but with clear maliciousness
astazangasta 10y ago
Regarding Russia: While Russia's nefarious intent or not is a subject worthy of debate, I think it's ENORMOUSLY interesting that the source of the idea that Russia is a huge problem and their interference is something we should watch out for is the Clinton campaign. I think this tells us something interesting about Clinton's foreign policy orientation, namely, she is extremely interested in antagonizing Russia. This is part of a pattern: Clinton and her foundation have been closely involved with Ukrainian oligarchs, the State Department was involved in planning out the Ukrainian government post-Yanukovych, and Clinton has waxed nostalgic about how we need to bring back our Cold War mentality (I recall her doing this in a Daily Show interview a few years ago, e.g.). This is the thing to watch out for, regarding Russia.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Guccifer and Guccifer 2.0 aren't the same thing; even if one gives weight to the sources indicating Guccifer 2.0 is connected to Russia, that has no bearing on Guccifer. The Guccifer hack predated any particular expectation that Russia would take particular interest in this specific election, and so its hard to justify judging Guccifer based on that interest.
jcoffland 10y ago
Confusing Romania with Russia is a bit ridiculous and makes Americians look ignorant. You do realize that Romania was never even part of the USSR? This has come up on HN before. It's shameful for a group apparently so highly educated.

finid 10y ago

> Given also the Russian interest in the upcoming US presidential election and in gaining access to this sensitive data to influence the outcome towards the candidate they prefer... So you drank that Kool Aid being passed around by the those with a vested interest to use Russia as an excuse for anything.

tanderson92 10y ago

Why is there any particular Russian interest in this specific election? And not the previous? (Obama ridiculed Romney for 1980s style thinking for calling Russia our greatest geopolitical foe) Could it be that you believe the narratives you find in major newspapers?

tptacek 10y ago
I like Obama. Obama was wrong about that. It's not the only thing he's been wrong about.
jljljl 10y ago
Most reporting on this I've seen suggests that the DNC hack originated in Russia, and that it had the trademarks of a Russian Intelligence action: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/31/what-we-know-about-russias-role-dnc-email-leak/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/31/... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/07/russian_hack_of.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/07/russian_hack_... Is there any evidence that points to the contrary?
- tanderson92 10y ago
  I don't know. I do know that your (well-reasoned) point does not actually address my question.
Natsu 10y ago
> Could it be that you believe the narratives you find in major newspapers? https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699 The Washington Post, which published the article linked by HN, has a bit of an undisclosed angle in going against these leaks. This can be seen from the leaked email above about the clandestine fundraiser the lawyers would never allow ("Great – we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."). But maybe someone can point me to where they've explained themselves, because it's entirely possible that I missed it.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Not all narratives you find in major newspapers are wrong, you know.

CaptSpify 10y ago

> Given also the Russian interest in the upcoming US presidential election and in gaining access to this sensitive data to influence the outcome towards the candidate they prefer... I hear this a lot, but I don't get how it's relevant. Sure, Russia might be trying to influence elections it should have no say in, but the data they allegedly brought forth is still valid.

mindslight 10y ago

My point was not that he deserves immunity [0]. I was pointing out that even if he had say cracked a friend's email account for purely selfish reasons, hacking in general carries draconian punishments simply because it deflates abstractions of the status quo. Burgling several sheds likely wouldn't result in 52 months in prison, but "hacker" is the modern day "witch". [0] Although I was implying that perhaps USians should appreciate the forced government transparency. It's kind of odd to talk about "material damages" due to crimes being exposed - it seems like damages are better ascribed to the original acts themselves.

tptacek 10y ago
This is special pleading. Charges like these are vivid because we can see ourselves as somehow sometime being in the same judicial crosshairs. But in the grand scheme of American justice, hackers do not have the rawest deal --- that probably goes to low-level gang members. Sentences are across the board too high. The US isn't accomplishing anything with a 4 year sentence in this case than it would with a sentence of 1 year. But we should be careful to remember that white dudes messing with computers are not an especially persecuted class.
- mindslight 10y ago
  It entirely depends on the measure. Low-level gang members get their raw deal from being systematically trapped in their situation. Go to jail, get out of jail, find no other opportunities, repeat. Punishment divided by harm-caused obviously goes to drug users, being infinite. Hacking has stiff criminal penalties for many things that should be civil matters at best, precisely because it makes powerful people realize how tenuous their control actually is. Let's not succumb to identity pity politics about who has it the "worst". Each codified injustice is ultimately the result of a ruling class slowly eroding the rule of law for its own benefit. (Also, I'm pretty sure the definition of "hacker" does not imply "white dude")
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > Punishment divided by harm-caused obviously goes to drug users, being infinite. That defines the harm as being zero. I'm not sure that's the case. Some drugs (angel dust, at a minimum) greatly increase the user's propensity for violence. And the argument for saying "they haven't done anything yet, so arrest them for the violence when they do it" is similar to saying "drunk drivers haven't caused any harm yet, so wait until they cause a crash before you arrest them". The harm to others is (for drunk driving and some drugs) too likely to follow to simply wait for it to occur.

magicalist 10y ago

Are people maybe confusing this guy with Guccifer 2.0? What crimes was he exposing when he posted George W's paintings online? My understanding was that the private email server was only revealed incidentally to the material he released, when a reporter noticed a questionable email address. Even accounting for the importance of transparency, it seems weird for the GP to assert this guy didn't deserve "even four months" when a large number of the times he accessed accounts were with no noble intent but with clear maliciousness

astazangasta 10y ago

Regarding Russia: While Russia's nefarious intent or not is a subject worthy of debate, I think it's ENORMOUSLY interesting that the source of the idea that Russia is a huge problem and their interference is something we should watch out for is the Clinton campaign. I think this tells us something interesting about Clinton's foreign policy orientation, namely, she is extremely interested in antagonizing Russia. This is part of a pattern: Clinton and her foundation have been closely involved with Ukrainian oligarchs, the State Department was involved in planning out the Ukrainian government post-Yanukovych, and Clinton has waxed nostalgic about how we need to bring back our Cold War mentality (I recall her doing this in a Daily Show interview a few years ago, e.g.). This is the thing to watch out for, regarding Russia.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Guccifer and Guccifer 2.0 aren't the same thing; even if one gives weight to the sources indicating Guccifer 2.0 is connected to Russia, that has no bearing on Guccifer. The Guccifer hack predated any particular expectation that Russia would take particular interest in this specific election, and so its hard to justify judging Guccifer based on that interest.

jcoffland 10y ago

Confusing Romania with Russia is a bit ridiculous and makes Americians look ignorant. You do realize that Romania was never even part of the USSR? This has come up on HN before. It's shameful for a group apparently so highly educated.