5 ms·

The real issue with these indictments is that they put US operators in a tough position. These are military hackers following lawful orders. We are not dealing

by FDSGSG 6y ago

The real issue with these indictments is that they put US operators in a tough position. These are military hackers following lawful orders. We are not dealing with criminal acts, but diplomatic issues. Foreign powers are more than capable of identifying individual US operators, but so far they've opted to not participate in this game. Here's an op-ed on the subject by an ex-NSA hacker https://www.thedailybeast.com/dont-punish-a-north-korean-hacker-just-for-following-orders https://www.thedailybeast.com/dont-punish-a-north-korean-hac...

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
It's a dicey situation. That said, Jake's not being completely truthful about the risks here. The office he worked in (TAO and Specifically the ROC), was a volunteer office, and it was made clear what your actions could lead to. Future travel restrictions and concerns were brought up for this exact reason, just as anyone working field work is given the explanation. In a more basic awareness, simply working a position that is cleared, has you go through plenty of discussions / classes / onboarding videos, that discuss the risks. At the end of the day, he has to accept that he is accountable for his action as should others, it comes with the job. I'm more concerned with how candid Jake is (as are most of is former co-workers), but that's another story for another day and not really related here...
cameldrv 6y ago
Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention. Covert action that is illegal in the target country has always made operatives subject to the local laws. If you want to be treated like a soldier, wear a uniform and fight in a declared war. Otherwise you're subject to the rules for spies.
- Stierlitz 6y ago
  @cameldrv: “Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention” Question: Which military power has threatened to bomb the International Criminal Court in the Hague, if its military are brought before the court. a) The Russian Federation or b) The United States of America. * and the answer is ‘b’ https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
  - osobear 6y ago
    The ICC hasn't been given any power by the United States (nor by Russia or China). If US _military_ personnel were brought there, it's obviously going to have a diplomatic/military response. It would be be an act of aggression.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    I don't see the relevance here. If you do something that's illegal in the U.S., don't go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. The only exception is war. If your country invades the U.S., and you are a normal soldier and shoot some people, if you're captured you'll be treated as a prisoner of war and released when the war is over. If you covertly come to the U.S. and shoot some people, you'll be put on trial, convicted, and then imprisoned or executed. If the other side has someone to trade for you, you might get released. This is how spying works.

by FDSGSG 6y ago

ganoushoreilly 6y ago

It's a dicey situation. That said, Jake's not being completely truthful about the risks here. The office he worked in (TAO and Specifically the ROC), was a volunteer office, and it was made clear what your actions could lead to. Future travel restrictions and concerns were brought up for this exact reason, just as anyone working field work is given the explanation. In a more basic awareness, simply working a position that is cleared, has you go through plenty of discussions / classes / onboarding videos, that discuss the risks. At the end of the day, he has to accept that he is accountable for his action as should others, it comes with the job. I'm more concerned with how candid Jake is (as are most of is former co-workers), but that's another story for another day and not really related here...

cameldrv 6y ago

Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention. Covert action that is illegal in the target country has always made operatives subject to the local laws. If you want to be treated like a soldier, wear a uniform and fight in a declared war. Otherwise you're subject to the rules for spies.

Stierlitz 6y ago
@cameldrv: “Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention” Question: Which military power has threatened to bomb the International Criminal Court in the Hague, if its military are brought before the court. a) The Russian Federation or b) The United States of America. * and the answer is ‘b’ https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
- osobear 6y ago
  The ICC hasn't been given any power by the United States (nor by Russia or China). If US _military_ personnel were brought there, it's obviously going to have a diplomatic/military response. It would be be an act of aggression.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  I don't see the relevance here. If you do something that's illegal in the U.S., don't go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. The only exception is war. If your country invades the U.S., and you are a normal soldier and shoot some people, if you're captured you'll be treated as a prisoner of war and released when the war is over. If you covertly come to the U.S. and shoot some people, you'll be put on trial, convicted, and then imprisoned or executed. If the other side has someone to trade for you, you might get released. This is how spying works.