4 ms·

There's a good chance that you're failing to properly intuit their motivations. If it really is an organization that is out to make money, then it wouldn't want

There's a good chance that you're failing to properly intuit their motivations. If it really is an organization that is out to make money, then it wouldn't want to destabilize a country like the US in the first place, any more than a dairy farmer wants to destabilize the health of a cow. It might happen accidentally, as an unintentional side effect of efforts to extract a greater yield. (e.g, Colonial Pipeline.) But nobody wants to actually wreck the source of their livelihood. And I don't think we have any reason to infer any other motive. This is certainly well outside my area of expertise, but their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me.

indigochill 5y ago
> their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me. This is the fascinating thing about Russian hackers to me. Maybe sometimes political favors change hands, but ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets. IMO Russia's brilliant in how they've managed their offensive hacking assets.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  The downside is that this approach seems to only be available to nation-states that aren't particularly governed by rule of law.
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    Wait, that was supposed to be a downside?
- jopsen 5y ago
  > ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets You could say the same for Afghanistan 20 years ago, but plausible deniability will only go so far.. If these hackers eventually end up hurting a lot of people, then who knows what happens next?
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    Well, exactly. The gang in question rather publicly issued a mea culpa and said they will be taking steps to make sure that doesn't happen again specifically because they're worried about that. I doubt things would ever progress as far as Afghanistan, but I'm sure they're thinking that their government might not continue to let them do their thing if the specter of international sanctions should arise.

indigochill 5y ago

> their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me. This is the fascinating thing about Russian hackers to me. Maybe sometimes political favors change hands, but ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets. IMO Russia's brilliant in how they've managed their offensive hacking assets.

mumblemumble 5y ago
The downside is that this approach seems to only be available to nation-states that aren't particularly governed by rule of law.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  Wait, that was supposed to be a downside?
jopsen 5y ago
> ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets You could say the same for Afghanistan 20 years ago, but plausible deniability will only go so far.. If these hackers eventually end up hurting a lot of people, then who knows what happens next?
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  Well, exactly. The gang in question rather publicly issued a mea culpa and said they will be taking steps to make sure that doesn't happen again specifically because they're worried about that. I doubt things would ever progress as far as Afghanistan, but I'm sure they're thinking that their government might not continue to let them do their thing if the specter of international sanctions should arise.