5 ms·
The thing is, we know the DNC was hacked. We know that Podesta was a victim of spear phishing. The timing of the attack also lines up with the release of emails
by hackinthebochs 6y ago
The thing is, we know the DNC was hacked. We know that Podesta was a victim of spear phishing. The timing of the attack also lines up with the release of emails. While the possibility is non-zero that an insider gave Assange the emails, it requires far too many unexplained coincidences to be believable.
- jessaustin 6y agoCan we really imagine that only Russian spies could have sent this email? [0] There is nothing personal in it other than his name, "John". I'm not sure this even deserves the adjective "spear"... Podesta's emails are evidence of DNC rigging the primary against Bernie, but they are not evidence of Russian hacking. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-the-account-of-john-podesta/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-...
- hackinthebochs 6y agoYou seem to be confused about what this thread was discussing. The question was whether Assange received the emails from an insider or a third party. Who actually did the phising is a separate concern. That said, considering the context of the election, Trumps close ties with Russia and Russian agents, and the broad and multifaceted attempts at hacking the election attributed to Russia (disinformation farms, hacking state election networks), it is very likely that Russia was also behind the DNC hack. These weak attempts at casting doubt on Russia's involvement are transparent.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 6y agoYou, directly above: We know that Podesta was a victim of spear phishing. You, directly above that: Assange's denials about Russia's involvement aren't credible on its face. Yeah, I'm confused. This is all beside the point. It is lawful to publish true information about candidates that is of interest to the public.
- hackinthebochs 6y agoIt turns out you need context to understand the meaning of words. If you keep reading, you will see the rest of that context. I wasn't saying "it is obviously false that Russia didn't hack the DNC", I was saying that "Assange cannot claim to know Russia didn't hack the DNC [unless he was involved directly]". See the difference?
- Balgair 6y agoAs of 19:23 UTC, the poster's profile's 'About' section only lists: " "obvious troll" ".
- jessaustin 6y ago19:23?!? Oh shit, dude, you caught me! I had so meant to change that sometime in the last three years! After all, HN people can't be expected to understand a joke in any context!
- Tanath 6y ago> it is very likely that Russia was also behind the DNC hack. Actually it's an established fact. They were being watched live on their computers and security cameras as they were doing the hacking. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...
- hackinthebochs 6y agoI remembered that from years ago, but couldn't remember where I saw it. Thanks. Imaging burning a source so valuable for the sake of the U.S., only to have us elect Trump anyways and four years later pretend like its still an open question whether Russia was involved.
- jessaustin 6y agoThe data collected by AIVD began to pay off in November of 2014, when the agency alerted US intelligence officials that the Cozy Bear group had obtained login credentials and email from US State Department employees. enabling the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the State Department to shut down the attack within 24 hours. Is there some connection between State Dept in 2014 and DNC in 2016?