7 ms·

Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data

53 points by tcoppi 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
luma 9y ago
So the GOP is directly admitting to collusion with Russian agents in order to disrupt US elections. Are we OK with this as a country?
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  I'd wager that in the abstract the answer is "NO!" But then again IOKIYAR probably takes precedence here... And the Republicans are in charge of all the checks/balances at the moment.
- dfaga 9y ago
  How is this collusion with Russians? This is Fake News. Stop and think for a while if a news perfectly fits the cognitive biases of your echo chamber.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gragas 9y ago
  So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest? How is being more informed a bad thing?
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    I think it's very clear the parent is questioning the original actions that took place and not the confession/coming-clean itself.
    - gragas 9y ago
      "I'm not okay with knowing the truth if we have to talk to [INSERT BAD GUYS HERE] to know it!"
  - ItendToDisagree 9y ago
    This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
    - gragas 9y ago
      >Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents. I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.
      - ItendToDisagree 9y ago
        Your post quoted: "So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest? How is being more informed a bad thing?" Where did you 'clearly say' it was in Russia's interests for the GOP to win? It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up and no leak of RNC corruption could ever be big enough to sway you anyway.
        gragas 9y ago
        My bad, I was referring to another comment thread. >It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up I'm just interested in making the most informed decision I can.
        maxlybbert 9y ago
        I think the argument is "knowing information that is truthful, even if it's incomplete."
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        In a court of law, rules of evidentiary procudure apply such that one side is not unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged, by unequal law or process. No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal. An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play. One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that. Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst. A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.
  - allemagne 9y ago
    RTA >DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics. This was not about informing voters, it was about specifically giving Republicans an advantage.
- uncle_d 9y ago
  Has anyone publicly presented any concrete evidence whatsoever that the Russians were involved in any way in influencing the U.S. election as yet? Just asking, for a friend :)
  - moduspol 9y ago
    The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government. The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniques. Also, none of us have ever read history books, which are full of wars and witch hunts started over unverifiable claims by people in power that turned out to be mistaken (at best) or lies (at worst) to push their agenda. So I'm not sure why you're asking for concrete evidence. They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      "They said <some stuff>. Is that not good enough for you?" Generic answer for all questions of that general format. NO!
    - at-fates-hands 9y ago
      > They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you? Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't. If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was also on several of the corporate the boards of said company. Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"), the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established relationships with? If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes 110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.
- moduspol 9y ago
  The hack was public knowledge in June of 2016, and it's only fairly recently that it's been known (asserted?) that Guccifer 2.0 was acting on behalf of the Russian government. It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.
  - maxlybbert 9y ago
    Especially since the "collusion" occurred after the breach. --- I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr.drink https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - tiles 9y ago
    Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      Well, the leaks themselves revealed some pretty troubling (although not terribly surprising) friendliness between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, so it's not like we have nothing to compare it to. The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info. The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1] This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage. [1] http://www.anonews.co/wikileaks-emails-hillary/ http://www.anonews.co/wikileaks-emails-hillary/
- criddell 9y ago
  > So the GOP is directly admitting I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
  - _jal 9y ago
    Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point. If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change. I'm sure there's a member or three of the Penn State frathouse recently in the news who weren't culpable in that kid's death, too.
    - criddell 9y ago
      I'm not a fan of the bad apples argument. The same reasoning is used by some to defend attacks on Muslims.
      - acdha 9y ago
        There's a fairly key difference in the levels of opposition: you can easily find Muslims criticizing every extremist attack, rejecting the theology used to justify them, setting up education programs to reduce future recruitment, and working with law enforcement. I think the strongest form of the bad apple argument comes not from the presence of a problem but rather the strength of counter-efforts.
      - _jal 9y ago
        I probably wasn't clear. I'm not either. What I was alluding to was how common we hear a corruption of the phrase as a defense. "Just a few bad apples." Somehow the cautionary part of the cliche is disappeared.
zentiggr 9y ago
Ok, for a report with the possible meaning and impact as this, to have zero dates, no timeframe at all, is either very cagey or very "rush this online!". I'll assume oversight before incompetence. However, given the piece as written, these communications could have happened years ago or yesterday (hyperbole I know but ???)
- dfaga 9y ago
  As long as it gaslights the far far far left communist to generate enough outrage, it has done its job.
- mcphage 9y ago
  Are you talking about the ArsTechnica article, or its Wall Street Journal source? (Which I can't read because of the paywall)
  - ItendToDisagree 9y ago
    https://outline.com/hswuDt https://outline.com/hswuDt For the Wall Street Journal article text It has some dates in the screenshots and more accurately portrays the timeline.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      Oh, nice! Thanks.
gragas 9y ago
Why does this have a negative twist? Is it not a good thing that voters were more informed of the darker sides of the DNC and the Democratic party before voting?
- DonbunEf7 9y ago
  Can I have all of your personal data? It's okay, I just want to be more informed about your darker side before my next vote.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rubyfan 9y ago
    Not that I agree with gp but a political party vs personal is a little different.
    - akhilcacharya 9y ago
      Yeah that's why Nixon resigned after all.
  - gragas 9y ago
    What if the DNC did some really not okay things? Nah, you're right, we shouldn't know about them because the DNC wouldn't want that... Of course I wouldn't like you to have all my personal data. But the point of an election is for the people to make the most informed decision, not for me to feel good.
    - tiles 9y ago
      What informed decision do we learn from a member of a political party getting to frame the narrative about their opponent's secrets though? This isn't journalism, it was a smear campaign.
    - GVIrish 9y ago
      Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction. This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone, it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda. This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.
baldeagle 9y ago
Seems like this was closer to 'Lyft obtains a leaked copy of the Uber go to market strategy for FL, TX, etc' than 'Waymo obtains notice that Uber bought secrets'. As such, there was nothing moral/truth-y to be learned from it, but a lot of tactical knowledge. I'm all for transparency, but this is more akin to corporate espionage than whistle blowing. I think this is trying to show second order effects of the hack, in that it changed ground level tactics in addition to influencing hearts and minds. What ever you believe about the source of the hack, this event damages the idea of a noble hacker seeking to expose wrong doing.
pdkl95 9y ago
The Russia/"hacked election" meme is amazing. With very little actual evidence, careful use of linguistic framing, and a lot of angry rhetoric on all sides, the public was successfully scared into wasting their time and energy fighting among themselves over hearsay and rumor, instead of addressing any of the numerous actual, known problems that are already known and far more likely to impact the average citizen. If there's actual evidence of an actual crime, then present it to the public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess, regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC), systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians - regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war. There is a lot of important work to do, but this denial of service attack against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful distraction. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  Your first paragraph sounds like it contains all the markings of a successful psyops campaign to be totally honest. Whisper campaign to erode public trust and increase partisan divide while diverting attention from more important matters. If it WAS interference by any nation state (Russia or not; uncovered or not) it seems to have been pretty successful right?
  - dang 9y ago
    > all the markings of a successful psyops campaign Internet commenters are much too quick to sling such tropes at others whom they disagree with. Please don't do that here. Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage are not allowed on HN without evidence, and this goes beyond even that.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      I could easily be mistaken, but I think that wasn't intended to be an accusation/insinuation? > ... sounds like it contains ... I interpreted that as referring to the "Russia/'hacked election' meme" having psyops-ish markings, not my paragraph. That seems to fit with the final comment about it appearing to be "pretty successful".
ItendToDisagree 9y ago
1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. Anecdotally most Russians I've met would bristle at Russia being called a "European" territory. 2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions. 3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in someone's pocket.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  >1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in "European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is rightly classified European. Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing. >2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions. I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources, but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an irrefutable reality. I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia
  - ItendToDisagree 9y ago
    He lied in his confirmation hearing after being pressed on an issue. Then admitted he was not truthful after it was publicized. Lots of people (especially in Gov) get away with that sort of stuff without conviction. That seems to have been a large point of the last election no? Different set of rules for everyone else and all that. I'd say my posts were drenched in bias from the very start. I'm amazed you missed it ;)
creaghpatr 9y ago
Related: A federal prosecutor in Florida turned up dead on a beach this morning. http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-found-dead-florida/story?id=47652909 http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-fo...

53 points by tcoppi 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

luma 9y ago

So the GOP is directly admitting to collusion with Russian agents in order to disrupt US elections. Are we OK with this as a country?

ItendToDisagree 9y ago
I'd wager that in the abstract the answer is "NO!" But then again IOKIYAR probably takes precedence here... And the Republicans are in charge of all the checks/balances at the moment.
dfaga 9y ago
How is this collusion with Russians? This is Fake News. Stop and think for a while if a news perfectly fits the cognitive biases of your echo chamber.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gragas 9y ago
So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest? How is being more informed a bad thing?
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  I think it's very clear the parent is questioning the original actions that took place and not the confession/coming-clean itself.
  - gragas 9y ago
    "I'm not okay with knowing the truth if we have to talk to [INSERT BAD GUYS HERE] to know it!"
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
  - gragas 9y ago
    >Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests. I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents. I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.
    - ItendToDisagree 9y ago
      Your post quoted: "So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest? How is being more informed a bad thing?" Where did you 'clearly say' it was in Russia's interests for the GOP to win? It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up and no leak of RNC corruption could ever be big enough to sway you anyway.
      - gragas 9y ago
        My bad, I was referring to another comment thread. >It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up I'm just interested in making the most informed decision I can.
      - maxlybbert 9y ago
        I think the argument is "knowing information that is truthful, even if it's incomplete."
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      In a court of law, rules of evidentiary procudure apply such that one side is not unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged, by unequal law or process. No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal. An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play. One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that. Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst. A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.
- allemagne 9y ago
  RTA >DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics. This was not about informing voters, it was about specifically giving Republicans an advantage.
uncle_d 9y ago
Has anyone publicly presented any concrete evidence whatsoever that the Russians were involved in any way in influencing the U.S. election as yet? Just asking, for a friend :)
- moduspol 9y ago
  The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government. The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniques. Also, none of us have ever read history books, which are full of wars and witch hunts started over unverifiable claims by people in power that turned out to be mistaken (at best) or lies (at worst) to push their agenda. So I'm not sure why you're asking for concrete evidence. They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    "They said <some stuff>. Is that not good enough for you?" Generic answer for all questions of that general format. NO!
  - at-fates-hands 9y ago
    > They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you? Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't. If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was also on several of the corporate the boards of said company. Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"), the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established relationships with? If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes 110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.
moduspol 9y ago
The hack was public knowledge in June of 2016, and it's only fairly recently that it's been known (asserted?) that Guccifer 2.0 was acting on behalf of the Russian government. It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.
- maxlybbert 9y ago
  Especially since the "collusion" occurred after the breach. --- I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr.drink https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- tiles 9y ago
  Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    Well, the leaks themselves revealed some pretty troubling (although not terribly surprising) friendliness between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, so it's not like we have nothing to compare it to. The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info. The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1] This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage. [1] http://www.anonews.co/wikileaks-emails-hillary/ http://www.anonews.co/wikileaks-emails-hillary/
criddell 9y ago
> So the GOP is directly admitting I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
- _jal 9y ago
  Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point. If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change. I'm sure there's a member or three of the Penn State frathouse recently in the news who weren't culpable in that kid's death, too.
  - criddell 9y ago
    I'm not a fan of the bad apples argument. The same reasoning is used by some to defend attacks on Muslims.
    - acdha 9y ago
      There's a fairly key difference in the levels of opposition: you can easily find Muslims criticizing every extremist attack, rejecting the theology used to justify them, setting up education programs to reduce future recruitment, and working with law enforcement. I think the strongest form of the bad apple argument comes not from the presence of a problem but rather the strength of counter-efforts.
    - _jal 9y ago
      I probably wasn't clear. I'm not either. What I was alluding to was how common we hear a corruption of the phrase as a defense. "Just a few bad apples." Somehow the cautionary part of the cliche is disappeared.

zentiggr 9y ago

Ok, for a report with the possible meaning and impact as this, to have zero dates, no timeframe at all, is either very cagey or very "rush this online!". I'll assume oversight before incompetence. However, given the piece as written, these communications could have happened years ago or yesterday (hyperbole I know but ???)

dfaga 9y ago
As long as it gaslights the far far far left communist to generate enough outrage, it has done its job.
mcphage 9y ago
Are you talking about the ArsTechnica article, or its Wall Street Journal source? (Which I can't read because of the paywall)
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  https://outline.com/hswuDt https://outline.com/hswuDt For the Wall Street Journal article text It has some dates in the screenshots and more accurately portrays the timeline.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Oh, nice! Thanks.

gragas 9y ago

Why does this have a negative twist? Is it not a good thing that voters were more informed of the darker sides of the DNC and the Democratic party before voting?

DonbunEf7 9y ago
Can I have all of your personal data? It's okay, I just want to be more informed about your darker side before my next vote.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rubyfan 9y ago
  Not that I agree with gp but a political party vs personal is a little different.
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    Yeah that's why Nixon resigned after all.
- gragas 9y ago
  What if the DNC did some really not okay things? Nah, you're right, we shouldn't know about them because the DNC wouldn't want that... Of course I wouldn't like you to have all my personal data. But the point of an election is for the people to make the most informed decision, not for me to feel good.
  - tiles 9y ago
    What informed decision do we learn from a member of a political party getting to frame the narrative about their opponent's secrets though? This isn't journalism, it was a smear campaign.
  - GVIrish 9y ago
    Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction. This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone, it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda. This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.

baldeagle 9y ago

Seems like this was closer to 'Lyft obtains a leaked copy of the Uber go to market strategy for FL, TX, etc' than 'Waymo obtains notice that Uber bought secrets'. As such, there was nothing moral/truth-y to be learned from it, but a lot of tactical knowledge. I'm all for transparency, but this is more akin to corporate espionage than whistle blowing. I think this is trying to show second order effects of the hack, in that it changed ground level tactics in addition to influencing hearts and minds. What ever you believe about the source of the hack, this event damages the idea of a noble hacker seeking to expose wrong doing.

pdkl95 9y ago

The Russia/"hacked election" meme is amazing. With very little actual evidence, careful use of linguistic framing, and a lot of angry rhetoric on all sides, the public was successfully scared into wasting their time and energy fighting among themselves over hearsay and rumor, instead of addressing any of the numerous actual, known problems that are already known and far more likely to impact the average citizen. If there's actual evidence of an actual crime, then present it to the public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess, regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC), systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians - regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war. There is a lot of important work to do, but this denial of service attack against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful distraction. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

ItendToDisagree 9y ago
Your first paragraph sounds like it contains all the markings of a successful psyops campaign to be totally honest. Whisper campaign to erode public trust and increase partisan divide while diverting attention from more important matters. If it WAS interference by any nation state (Russia or not; uncovered or not) it seems to have been pretty successful right?
- dang 9y ago
  > all the markings of a successful psyops campaign Internet commenters are much too quick to sling such tropes at others whom they disagree with. Please don't do that here. Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage are not allowed on HN without evidence, and this goes beyond even that.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    I could easily be mistaken, but I think that wasn't intended to be an accusation/insinuation? > ... sounds like it contains ... I interpreted that as referring to the "Russia/'hacked election' meme" having psyops-ish markings, not my paragraph. That seems to fit with the final comment about it appearing to be "pretty successful".

ItendToDisagree 9y ago

1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. Anecdotally most Russians I've met would bristle at Russia being called a "European" territory. 2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions. 3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in someone's pocket.

cookiecaper 9y ago
>1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in "European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is rightly classified European. Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing. >2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions. I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources, but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an irrefutable reality. I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  He lied in his confirmation hearing after being pressed on an issue. Then admitted he was not truthful after it was publicized. Lots of people (especially in Gov) get away with that sort of stuff without conviction. That seems to have been a large point of the last election no? Different set of rules for everyone else and all that. I'd say my posts were drenched in bias from the very start. I'm amazed you missed it ;)

creaghpatr 9y ago

Related: A federal prosecutor in Florida turned up dead on a beach this morning. http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-found-dead-florida/story?id=47652909 http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-fo...