9 ms·

Russia Today's UK bank accounts frozen, says editor

71 points by tomp 10y ago

retox 10y ago
The tinfoiler in me thinks this is linked to the recent Wikileaks activity. The powers that be are scared.
- wbhart 10y ago
  It's not such a tinfoil idea. The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers. RT UK's bank accounts have been frozen, and Julian Assange's internet has allegedly been cut off "by a state actor". The push back against Russia is not secret, but quite public. Recall the recent statement by the US that the CIA would cyberattack Russia. Given the very public statements made by the US, I'd say it isn't really a fringe conspiracy theory.
  - alva 10y ago
    >The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers. The way the joint statement has been covered by the media you can easily be led to believe that the US 1. has actually blamed Russia for the DNC hack 2. this is due to evidence they have. This is not true. When the joint statement [0] is closely read, taking note of legalese, this is clear as day. [0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
    - burkaman 10y ago
      I don't see anything about concrete evidence, but "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" is a clear accusation.
      - alva 10y ago
        > Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails That is not an accusation that the Russians are behind the DNC/Podesta leaks. Read carefully. These statements are constructed with the utmost care.
        wbhart 10y ago
        "including from US political organizations"? OK, legalese can be pretty wild, but to me, this is totally unambiguous. Which political organizations do you think they could be referring to? Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.
        alva 10y ago
        > this is totally unambiguous > "including from US political organizations" edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Sorry, can you diagram the sentence or something? Not only do I not understand what you're hinting at, but I can't think of a more clear way to phrase it. If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
        alva 10y ago
        "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)" 1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago. 2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons. 2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to? >If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on." Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact. Edit: >Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about? Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
    - wbhart 10y ago
      I'm actually not certain what you are getting at. This reads as unambiguously as any media coverage I've seen, to me at least. How could you phrase this any more unambiguously than "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government..." What's more interesting to me is that Wikileaks is mentioned specifically in that release. I'm surprised they did this. They'd surely score more points by not acknowledging that Wikileaks exists. The fact that they did, really clearly supports what the OP said, in my opinion.
      - alva 10y ago
        >The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. At what point in that sentence do they refer to the DNC/Podesta hacks and leaks? These statements are crafted by teams of lawyers to get the wording absolutely correct.
- JorgeGT 10y ago
  Today's discussion about said Wikileaks activity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929
lhnz 10y ago
Does this connect to the other report about Julian Assange's internet [0] being cut by state powers? It is honestly really difficult to believe that this is a coincidence. And, although obviously this opinion is completely circumstantial, perhaps a clearer head should look closer. If it is the US government moving to constrain other powerful media establishments that could counter their voice, it does make you wonder what they are so worried about being released. Are the emails really so bad they could lose Hillary the election? That would surprise me. I guess what is particularly strange to me, is why do this now? If they knew they were badly exposed, surely they could have taken action a long while ago when the spotlight on their activity was lower. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 (HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929)
- retox 10y ago
  John Kerry's name appearing in the recent SHA256 checksums[0] might have spooked them, but it's entirely conjecture at this point. [0] pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809
  - alva 10y ago
    Not to mention the UK Foreign Office checksum [0]. UK has so far been relatively unscathed by wikileaks. If the 3 pre-commits refer to the 2013 insurance files, then the Foreign office could be royally buggered. The corresponding file is 320gb. [0] pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
  - 0x07c0 10y ago
    This also my be relevant: pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab7 pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74 claim from intelAnon that Ecuador had caved in to pressure from the Clintons: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7pNidVIAAUweO.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7pNidVIAAUweO.jpg:large The hashes then being a message from Assange, or it my be Assange being paranoid.. Or something else entirely.
tptacek 10y ago
It apparently turns out: RBS is simply dropping them as a customer. The UK has not frozen their accounts.
- lhnz 10y ago
  Is a bank suddenly dropping a company as a customer something which happens often? It seems quite unusual to me.
  - sickbeard 10y ago
    banks do this all the time. It happened to some Iranian citizens some time ago too, they'll typically do it when they think the account is being used for illegal activity.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Ironically, it happens to American citizens as well: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-tax-law-european-banks-stop-serving-american-customers-a-803742.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-...
      - AJ007 10y ago
        Very common now. The burden is on the banks to make sure their customer aren't breaking any US laws. US law extends its hand to any banks using dollars. It would be reasonable to assume that if there was a possibility principals in RT could be on the sanctions list banks would avoid doing business with RT. Personally I've found the worst way to read the news is from one single "unbiased" source and the best is to read from a bunch of sources who do not hide their bias. When I see what facts are universally agreed upon then I make my own decision. I do the same thing with business decisions too.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    Disclaimer: I worked at a bank before. Yes, it is quite unusual. The banks only do it if they expect regulatory, legal or political fallout if they keep the customer. Or if the customer is always trouble, not paying their debt or harassing employees. Obviously, a bank would never kick a customer to the curb if a normal customer relationship is possible.
sickbeard 10y ago
It's not frozen. It's a notification that they have 1 month to move their account somewhere else (or get a cheque for their money)
trymas 10y ago
[rant of my own opinion about RT, not considering their bank accounts] My blood boils when RT/Russia/Kremlin/et al. start using phrases like “Long live freedom of speech!”. They have an autocratic country, with _practically_ one party system and no opposition. They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. They blatantly go to other countries and advertise that _all_ that country's media have no second opinion and they will bring the truth to the table. [0] When some prominent news about Syria or Ukraine come up, RT either shows some opinion interviews with facts pulled out of their asses or they will not show anything like nothing happened. [1] They just simply use liberal and tolerant west, like a bully is using some nerd to bring his lunch. But they will never let something like BBC inside their own territory (with their own studios, multi-million dollar ad budgets, etc.). Personally RT looks to me, just how I would imagine Goebbels would've looked like 75-80 years ago. [0] google "russia today this is what happens when there is no seconds opinion" [1] google about ukraine RT and MH17
- avmich 10y ago
  Agree in principle, but do we have good frames to define "speech" and "propaganda" - something which can be taken differently? Some Western political media have strong bias towards one party or another, but that doesn't justify calling them propaganda and shutting them down?
- georgecmu 10y ago
  They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. Could you provide more specific information on this? Even if you could simply give a link to something like a wikipedia list of prominent people that just 'disappeared', it would be helpful.
  - dharma1 10y ago
    It's not very hard to find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
dredmorbius 10y ago
In related news: Julian Assange's Internet link has been intentionally severed by "a state party". https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/ https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/ Wikileaks also apparently triggered a dead-man's switch, releasing keys to several pre-committed posts. This has spawned (false) rumours of Assange's death, addressed in the article above. http://www.inquisitr.com/3602381/is-julian-assange-dead-viral-rumor-claims-wikileaks-founder-may-have-been-killed-after-dead-mans-switch-activated-on-twitter/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3602381/is-julian-assange-dead-vira...

71 points by tomp 10y ago

retox 10y ago

The tinfoiler in me thinks this is linked to the recent Wikileaks activity. The powers that be are scared.

wbhart 10y ago
It's not such a tinfoil idea. The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers. RT UK's bank accounts have been frozen, and Julian Assange's internet has allegedly been cut off "by a state actor". The push back against Russia is not secret, but quite public. Recall the recent statement by the US that the CIA would cyberattack Russia. Given the very public statements made by the US, I'd say it isn't really a fringe conspiracy theory.
- alva 10y ago
  >The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers. The way the joint statement has been covered by the media you can easily be led to believe that the US 1. has actually blamed Russia for the DNC hack 2. this is due to evidence they have. This is not true. When the joint statement [0] is closely read, taking note of legalese, this is clear as day. [0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I don't see anything about concrete evidence, but "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" is a clear accusation.
    - alva 10y ago
      > Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails That is not an accusation that the Russians are behind the DNC/Podesta leaks. Read carefully. These statements are constructed with the utmost care.
      - wbhart 10y ago
        "including from US political organizations"? OK, legalese can be pretty wild, but to me, this is totally unambiguous. Which political organizations do you think they could be referring to? Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.
        alva 10y ago
        > this is totally unambiguous > "including from US political organizations" edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Sorry, can you diagram the sentence or something? Not only do I not understand what you're hinting at, but I can't think of a more clear way to phrase it. If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
        alva 10y ago
        "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)" 1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago. 2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons. 2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to? >If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on." Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact. Edit: >Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about? Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
  - wbhart 10y ago
    I'm actually not certain what you are getting at. This reads as unambiguously as any media coverage I've seen, to me at least. How could you phrase this any more unambiguously than "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government..." What's more interesting to me is that Wikileaks is mentioned specifically in that release. I'm surprised they did this. They'd surely score more points by not acknowledging that Wikileaks exists. The fact that they did, really clearly supports what the OP said, in my opinion.
    - alva 10y ago
      >The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. At what point in that sentence do they refer to the DNC/Podesta hacks and leaks? These statements are crafted by teams of lawyers to get the wording absolutely correct.
JorgeGT 10y ago
Today's discussion about said Wikileaks activity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929

lhnz 10y ago

Does this connect to the other report about Julian Assange's internet [0] being cut by state powers? It is honestly really difficult to believe that this is a coincidence. And, although obviously this opinion is completely circumstantial, perhaps a clearer head should look closer. If it is the US government moving to constrain other powerful media establishments that could counter their voice, it does make you wonder what they are so worried about being released. Are the emails really so bad they could lose Hillary the election? That would surprise me. I guess what is particularly strange to me, is why do this now? If they knew they were badly exposed, surely they could have taken action a long while ago when the spotlight on their activity was lower. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 (HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929)

retox 10y ago
John Kerry's name appearing in the recent SHA256 checksums[0] might have spooked them, but it's entirely conjecture at this point. [0] pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809
- alva 10y ago
  Not to mention the UK Foreign Office checksum [0]. UK has so far been relatively unscathed by wikileaks. If the 3 pre-commits refer to the 2013 insurance files, then the Foreign office could be royally buggered. The corresponding file is 320gb. [0] pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
- 0x07c0 10y ago
  This also my be relevant: pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab7 pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74 claim from intelAnon that Ecuador had caved in to pressure from the Clintons: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7pNidVIAAUweO.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7pNidVIAAUweO.jpg:large The hashes then being a message from Assange, or it my be Assange being paranoid.. Or something else entirely.

tptacek 10y ago

It apparently turns out: RBS is simply dropping them as a customer. The UK has not frozen their accounts.

lhnz 10y ago
Is a bank suddenly dropping a company as a customer something which happens often? It seems quite unusual to me.
- sickbeard 10y ago
  banks do this all the time. It happened to some Iranian citizens some time ago too, they'll typically do it when they think the account is being used for illegal activity.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Ironically, it happens to American citizens as well: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-tax-law-european-banks-stop-serving-american-customers-a-803742.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-...
    - AJ007 10y ago
      Very common now. The burden is on the banks to make sure their customer aren't breaking any US laws. US law extends its hand to any banks using dollars. It would be reasonable to assume that if there was a possibility principals in RT could be on the sanctions list banks would avoid doing business with RT. Personally I've found the worst way to read the news is from one single "unbiased" source and the best is to read from a bunch of sources who do not hide their bias. When I see what facts are universally agreed upon then I make my own decision. I do the same thing with business decisions too.
- Kenji 10y ago
  Disclaimer: I worked at a bank before. Yes, it is quite unusual. The banks only do it if they expect regulatory, legal or political fallout if they keep the customer. Or if the customer is always trouble, not paying their debt or harassing employees. Obviously, a bank would never kick a customer to the curb if a normal customer relationship is possible.

sickbeard 10y ago

It's not frozen. It's a notification that they have 1 month to move their account somewhere else (or get a cheque for their money)

trymas 10y ago

[rant of my own opinion about RT, not considering their bank accounts] My blood boils when RT/Russia/Kremlin/et al. start using phrases like “Long live freedom of speech!”. They have an autocratic country, with _practically_ one party system and no opposition. They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. They blatantly go to other countries and advertise that _all_ that country's media have no second opinion and they will bring the truth to the table. [0] When some prominent news about Syria or Ukraine come up, RT either shows some opinion interviews with facts pulled out of their asses or they will not show anything like nothing happened. [1] They just simply use liberal and tolerant west, like a bully is using some nerd to bring his lunch. But they will never let something like BBC inside their own territory (with their own studios, multi-million dollar ad budgets, etc.). Personally RT looks to me, just how I would imagine Goebbels would've looked like 75-80 years ago. [0] google "russia today this is what happens when there is no seconds opinion" [1] google about ukraine RT and MH17

avmich 10y ago
Agree in principle, but do we have good frames to define "speech" and "propaganda" - something which can be taken differently? Some Western political media have strong bias towards one party or another, but that doesn't justify calling them propaganda and shutting them down?
georgecmu 10y ago
They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. Could you provide more specific information on this? Even if you could simply give a link to something like a wikipedia list of prominent people that just 'disappeared', it would be helpful.
- dharma1 10y ago
  It's not very hard to find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...

dredmorbius 10y ago

In related news: Julian Assange's Internet link has been intentionally severed by "a state party". https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/ https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/ Wikileaks also apparently triggered a dead-man's switch, releasing keys to several pre-committed posts. This has spawned (false) rumours of Assange's death, addressed in the article above. http://www.inquisitr.com/3602381/is-julian-assange-dead-viral-rumor-claims-wikileaks-founder-may-have-been-killed-after-dead-mans-switch-activated-on-twitter/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3602381/is-julian-assange-dead-vira...