13 ms·
Norway officially accuses Russia for cyberattacks on parliament
- artifact_44 6y agoWhy do we keep tolerating this?
- EdwinLarkin 6y agoSimple reason. Nobody wants to start WW3 and nobody wants to buy expensive raw materials somewhere else. Other than that the only viable strategy is to do the same to Russia. Keep them busy and stretch their resources thin so their government implodes. But I guess nobody really has the balls to do it. Certainly not the EU.
- type0 6y ago> Certainly not the EU Norway isn't in EU
- threatofrain 6y agoFor strategic and trade purposes, isn't Norway tightly aligned to the EU despite non-membership? I interpret this as corralling both internal and EU support.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- type0 6y agoIt's a member of European Economic Community, the predecessor to EU. Norway will probably ask NATO for help to launch contra cyber attacks.
- TheNorthman 6y agoNorway is a part of EFTA, EEA and the Schengen agreement, so they're bound pretty tightly with the EU. I wouldn't, however, interpret any actions from Norway as having any form of EU support, unless it's explicitly mentioned.
- EdwinLarkin 6y agoAnd I have not suggested it is. Realistically the only power in the region capable of standing up to Russia is the EU. Norway could not do it even if it wanted to.
- bluGill 6y agoNorway has enough friends they believe they can count on. They are probably right.
- unixhero 6y agoNorway does not need the region. Norway is part of the NATO pact. Russia knows it. Sticks and stones will eventually come into play, aka realpolitik. The US will intervene as long as that dipshit president does not manage to stumble into the way.
- speedgoose 6y agoNATO is brain dead.
- unixhero 6y agoNATO is realpolitik. It might be that you don't know its origins, what it represents and what its mechanisms are. I recommend you study it. And by the way: It goes both ways. The defence pact is reciprocal. When the US is attacked, all members of NATO are obliged to contribute for its defense and offense as well. It is not a one way thing where the US only contributes one direction. It is most certainly NOT braindead. You Sir, are wrong.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoAbove commenter is quoting Emmanuel Macron.[1] Macron called the alliance "brain dead" after Turkey, a NATO member, invaded Syria, attacking Kurdish forces backed by Turkey's NATO allies. 1. https://youtu.be/yo5Zw4XdAfQ https://youtu.be/yo5Zw4XdAfQ
- luckylion 6y agoThere's also the simple fact that nobody wants to set a strong precedent because everybody is doing it. The US was spying on Merkel, Germany's BND was caught spying on Turkey, Turkey was caught spying in Germany (and pretty-much-caught assassinating Kurdish French citizens in France) etc pp, Norway spies on Russia, Russia spies on Norway. That's normal. Of course each one is unhappy when it's done to them, but nobody wants to do anything about it, because it might be done to them as well.
- znpy 6y agoAlthought one might argue that spying is one thing while attacking/sabotaging is another thing. I might tolerate you peeking through my window into my house from time to time to try and understand what i'm up to. I wouldn't tolerate you burning my house down to prevent me from doing my stuff.
- luckylion 6y agoThat's true, but I believe this incident was espionage, not an attack with destructive intention. Spies usually don't want your email server to stop working, because they'd lose access to your emails and you'd notice something is up.
- dogma1138 6y agoIt’s easy to say no one has balls for it, especially when it might mean that German people freeze during winter because they lose access to Russian gas. Attempts to circumvent Russia and get access to other pipelines usually escalate things Georgia was at least partially due to the Caspian pipelines and Ukraine was also due to Russia not being particularly fuzzy about the possibility of the Ukraine getting closer to the west. The EU and NATO have been expanding eastward and like it or not it does makes Russia nervous. Moscow used to be 1000’s of miles from the border now the distance can be covered by mechanized infantry in a day. Russia is essentially a landlocked country they don’t have access to the open seas, their airspace is also heavily restricted by less than friendly nations. It’s behavior is very much dictated by geography.
- thrwway34 6y ago>Russia is essentially a landlocked country they don’t have access to the open seas They have access to three seas and one ocean. Just friendly FYI.
- dogma1138 6y agoThey don’t have warm water ports that don’t require traversal through unfriendly territories. The closest they have is Vladivostok and that isn’t a warm water port (yet).
- stronglikedan 6y agoWho's "we", and do "we"? What can be done besides sanctions, like the US imposed upon Russia for the election meddling scandal?
- mikeyouse 6y agoActually enforcing and expanding the sanctions rather than have opportunistic political operatives immediately undermine them before they've even taken office and then have the administration who benefitted from the meddling water down the sanctions when actually inaugurated.
- stronglikedan 6y agoThey're still being sanctioned for that. [0] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-imposes-sanctions-over-russian-election-meddling-11599758192 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-imposes-sanctions-over-russ...
- mikeyouse 6y agoThese new sanctions are for interfering in the 2020 elections, on behalf of the Trump campaign, who didn't adequately punish them for their interference in the 2016 election. Which might go to motive for why those first sanctions were so unevenly enforced.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fractalf 6y agoThe same reason we "tolerate" NSA + friends and foes spying on the whole world?
- jorblumesea 6y agoWell, the Western intelligence agencies all have data sharing agreements, so it's not "tolerance", it's collusion. Funny how the US is the big bad evil one but even is in bed with the ideas and behaviors. It's just a game Europe plays with its electorate. Points fingers at the US while making backdoor deals.
- me_me_me 6y agoAnd why do we tolerate that? Because Russia is doing it. Bulletproof logic
- vkou 6y agoBecause this is run-of-the-mill espionage, which is as old as nation states. Older than nation states, in fact. And because we do it too. The better question is - why does your question get asked every single time that <some country> spies on <some country>. Is it because the question-asker is against espionage in general, or is it because they are fine with the concept, but are against espionage being directed at them?
- forgotmysn 6y agobecause russia has nukes.
- cnst 6y agoI have to ask the same question: why do we tolerate this Russophobia, where "Russia" is used as a boogeyman to solve the internal political problems, and redirect the outrage away from the real issues facing our societies? This whole issue has been so old, it's been one of the story plots in a popular 1980s British TV show called Yes, Prime Minister: - Why don't you expel 76 Soviet diplomats? That has been our practice in the past, when we wished to ensure that the press lose interest in something? - I can do that?! - It must be a story that nobody can disprove. - And which will be believed even if it's denied! https://twitter.com/rusembmalta/status/980521180460388352 https://twitter.com/rusembmalta/status/980521180460388352 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW10zLDI3Eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW10zLDI3Eg (Yes, Prime Minister, "Official Secrets", 1987)
- thrwway34 6y agoLooks like russophobia nowadays is everything that uncover Putin's actions. Invading Ukraine - russophobia. Shooting down MH-17 - russophobia. Trying to overthrow government in Montenegro - russophobia. Cheating in Olympics - russophobia. Hacking foreign governments - russophobia. Using forbidden chemical weapons - RUSSOPHOBIA! This line of defense looks ridiculous, though.
- tim333 6y agoTricky to do much about it. Haters gonna hate. Russians gonna hack and sow disinformation...
- marketingPro 6y ago2 solutions- Everything must happen in-person on paper, typed by computers, offline. I've already gotten in the habit of having friends leave their phones in the house and go on a walk when talking about sensitive information (tech IP) For propaganda/astroturfing, stop using websites that don't require verification. There should be a real person behind every comment. Anonymous websites still will exist, but that's less trustworthy than someone putting their reputation on the line. Edit-added emphasis on having anonymous websites since it wasn't being read.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tehjoker 6y agoI like proposition A, but proposition B is not good. Real names policies mean people who are at risk of violence or job loss (e.g. domestic abuse, transgender, religious and ethnic minorities, poor people) must either conform or risk themselves for having a political voice. Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs, real names don't even help with trustworthiness! Look at the President. Instead, I would advocate that you should read everything critically and that any news you accept must meet some evidence threshold and logically make sense in a coherent narrative. Learning real history helps. I strongly suspect that we were lied to about the rationale for real names policies on Google, FB, etc. They wanted data for their advertising business and to help enforce political conformity (their businesses benefit from a politically stable base of operations). It clearly didn't help suppress hate speech or insane conspiracy theories.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago>Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs.... This would stop. This is what we want to stop. I don't think "real name" policies are enough. FB, Google, and Twitter need to collect credit cards and take deposits that are lost when you use your account to spread lies and hate.
- 6y ago
- galkk 6y agoI will just put it here: https://i.insider.com/5271388a6bb3f7ac4756d90c?width=900&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/5271388a6bb3f7ac4756d90c?width=900&for... (Google employee, Google took it very seriously). In general, though, I think that this is normal for countries and intelligence, it's just that this is EVIL RUSSIA makes it header-worthy.
- varjag 6y agoNo, it's not normal. I really doubt Norway ever made a cyberattack on a Russian (or any other) government institution.
- hutzlibu 6y agoSo what do you think, the norwegian intelligence service is doing? Twisting thumbs? Spying is their craft. And spying nowdays mostly involves breaching into computersystems, aka cyberattack. The problem is the ambiguity of the word cyberattack. Because it covers passive reading of classified content (which is classic spycraft and sadly very normal in the realm of politics) as well as offensive disruptive cyberattacks, from slowing a service to physically damaging infrastructure.
- varjag 6y ago> So what do you think, the norwegian intelligence service is doing? Twisting thumbs? Russia has a military. Russia uses its military to attack its neighbours and quell domestic insurgence. Norway also have a military. Does it follow that Norway uses its military to attack its neighbours and quell domestic insurgence?
- hutzlibu 6y agoSo you do think, that norwegian intelligence is twisting thumbs? But not to get misunderstood, no I don't believe what norway is doing is on par with what russia is doing. But I never said that. I just challenged your claim: "I really doubt Norway ever made a cyberattack on a Russian (or any other) government institution." Because if the norwegian intelligence service never hacked any government institution then they would be very nice. But then they would be the first nice one of their kind.
- m0zg 6y agoSimple truth of the matter is, they don't even know if it's "Russia". Nor do they know if it's state sponsored. This is pure politics from politicians who don't understand how Internet works.
- elmo2you 6y ago.. in addition to that, it's not like Norway is without controversy, when it comes to accusing Russia. I'm not making any claims here. Not about Russia being behind it, nor the opposite. If Norway publicly accuses Russia, then it better have some very credible (and independently verifiable) evidence for it (just an IP address from within Russia certainly won't do). After having seen a long chain of blatantly flawed and clearly political attribution to alleged Russian wrongdoings (in all kind of matters), I'd say not a single EU country (let alone the USA) still has even remotely enough credibility left for granting them any benefit of a doubt, whenever they come with yet another finger pointing exercise towards Russia. I'm not saying Russia isn't doing anything bad, they may very well be, but that's no excuse for making accusations without credible evidence. It should pretty clear by now that both the EU and USA aren't much interested in ever providing actual proof. That alone should worry anyone, considering their own shoddy track records. When will people finally demand to either put up (the evidence) or shut up (with what mostly likely is rather dirty politics). Or maybe Russia should just start with somehow reciprocally deal with countries that make such accusations without a willingness to provide their proof. Maybe this game would stop, once it actually starts to hurt. Sure, their email system was very likely hacked .. but what better way than to blame it on Russia, instead of the many other possibilities (probably including the possibility of embarrassing personal incompetence or a royal screw-up in their security setup). "I'm not to blame, it was Russia that ate my homework!"
- jnurmine 6y agoNorway likely has irrefutable proof, at least enough so that it can confidently claim another nation was behind it all. Also, presenting detailed proof could reveal something about Norway's capabilities which they'd rather keep hidden. Now, let's play a thought game: what would happen if Norway DID in fact present evidence and proof? In the end, no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc. This has been heard already in numerous cases such as GPS jamming in Northern Norway, poisoning of an opposition politician, interference in elections, shoot-down of a civilian passenger aircraft, deploying a military nerve agent in Salisbury, failed coup plot in Montenegro, and so on.
- GordonS 6y agoA bit of a meta-comment, but why was the year included in the HN title? I thought that was only required for articles submitted to HN in a later year than they were written? I was a bit confused when I say the year in the article list - it caused me to doubt if this was still 2020!
- dang 6y agoSometimes submitters do that to emphasize that the story is current, but you're right that it breaks HN's convention. The default is the current year, so titles don't need that. I've taken it out now.
- filoleg 6y agoIt might not have been required, but imo it helps a lot with something that is somewhat similar to earlier events. For example, if there was another tariff placed on some exports from China tomorrow, listing a year and month next to the article title would have definitely helped. Mostly because there have been quite many news articles referencing similar events earlier, so if there was no year/month listed, I would have thought it is just another discussion on a tariff passed earlier this year. I don't have a strong feeling on it either way, but the default rule of "no year in the title if the article is from this year" actually makes sense and feels appropriate, as it definitely helps with keeping things a bit more standardized and easier to parse.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cnst 6y agoAnyone who believes in science can't possibly take these allegations seriously. It's beyond trivial to use proxies and malware to make it appear like your "call is coming from inside the house". It's beyond trivial to use more than one proxy, and/or Tor, where the overall mosaic and path will not be possible to assemble. It is so trivial that it's often the plot of every movie or TV show on the subject. When Putin was asked this question once, that was actually his reply as well -- that "our hackers" can change their IP address easily, and all the evidence anyone may have on IP addresses is basically worthless. Yet we still let the politicians trick us into believing their intelligence services have any sort of irrefutable evidence of something that's often impossible to determine outside of using secondary factors that would often not be available in these cases that involve international borders? --- Put it another way: for anyone to believe in these stories, you have to admit two directly contradicting assertions, (1), that the protection of these government systems was so good that only the best hackers of a single nation-state could have breached it, and, (2), that these best hackers of a single nation-state are so sloppy in their job that they never manage to hide their steps and shift any possible blame away from themselves. In other words, I find it really hard to believe that these systems are properly secured, and if they are, I find it really hard to believe that people who could break them are so sloppy that they can't hide their true tracks.
- MaximumYComb 6y agoI believe in science and I take these allegations seriously. You don't pin an attack based on what IP address it came from. You use intelligence and piece together clues found in the attack to build up a picture. Nations are really cautious about attribution. For Norway to officially blame Russia it just means they've found some pretty convincing evidence.
- cnst 6y agoWhy is no such intelligence or convincing evidence ever shared? I really find it hard to believe that it's always Russia that's responsible for every ill in the whole flat world. We've already had the evidence declassified that the whole 2016 Russiagate hoax was entirely invented by his opponent for political purposes, and then spin out by the media out of control. But, yeah, let's still believe each nation accusing Russia of all evil!
- Dobby2020 6y agoRussia who? Individuals? Government? Putin? Intelligent service? What facts? Hacked via Russian VPN? By Russian hacker? I guess there must be more information especially from the source such ad Ministry of Foreign Affairs.