5 ms·

I think it's reasonable to assume that for at least the next few months, you have a strange form of "diplomatic immunity" for attacks in Russia. No jury in the

I think it's reasonable to assume that for at least the next few months, you have a strange form of "diplomatic immunity" for attacks in Russia. No jury in the US would convict you, even in the unlikely event someone wanted to prosecute (which would be political suicide here). So, have at it.

mlac 5y ago
Recognize two more things if you do this: 1) you will never be able to travel to Russia or a Russian controlled territory. Ever. 2) you will always be at risk for a hack-back or other issues when the dust settles and they seek revenge.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  Not that I would ever apply my considerable talents to this purpose, but seriously, who from the west would ever go to Russia in the next few years without family ties causing one to do so. I don’t think that is a tangible consequence for most of us capable of waging a cyber security attack in a nation state.
bink 5y ago
That's a huge gamble most people aren't willing to accept.
- mahkeiro 5y ago
  Bur remember that by treaty US and UK (and Russia of course) promised to defend Ukraine in exchange of their nukes. At least if they try to go after you, you can still argue that you were trying to comply to a treaty that both countries have decided to ignore.
  - mvkel 5y ago
    Upon orders from the government, sure. Taking the law into your own hands based on vague interpretation is different.
    - saurik 5y ago
      Yeah: my city signing an MOU saying they will enforce parking restrictions doesn't mean I have the OK to camp out on the street and write my own tickets.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Treaties get broken, and your argument will fall on deaf ears.
  - prawel 5y ago
    they promised not to attack, not defend
  - grayfaced 5y ago
    Treaties are between governments. Individual citizens are not a member of the treaty. You don't get any authority to pursue individual action.
- kweinber 5y ago
  Allies are dying today. Someone could help save them and you are talking them out of it?
  - bink 5y ago
    I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I'm just explaining how many people in my industry see this request. It's noble if some want to risk their livelihoods and supporting their families to help support the effort. Not all of us can make that sacrifice. I wish there was another option. I wish people in Ukraine weren't suffering.
- Teever 5y ago
  I guarantee you there are American veterans who are flying right now to Europe with the intention of making their way to Ukraine to help on the ground -- there were crazy fucks doing this in Syria a few years ago. That's a huge gamble. What you're talking about is not.
kfichter 5y ago
Reminder to other readers: don't take legal advice from hn
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot and pay an astounding amount of attention to who their friends are. This is sometimes a force for evil, sometimes a force for good, but it is what it is. Sure, don't take legal advice from me. Use a VPN.
  - reitanqild 5y ago
    > Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot I'd take away "by and large" here. Many of them are also exceedingly generous, open and friendly and cares deeply. This holds true for both sides of the political spectrum. They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.
    - majewsky 5y ago
      > They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start. This is even more true of the Russians, and as an outsider, I'm wondering how much of their politics is informed by those memories.
      - throwrqX 5y ago
        Their politics is overwhelming informed by their memories and they bring it up whenever they can.
      - reitanqild 5y ago
        That is a seriously good point. It never ceases to amuse me how ignorant I am in my comments despite my attempts at being smart, wise and fair. Of course you are right. That said, this invasion is still a crime and I am utterly fed up by Russian actions in neighboring states, their constant lying, especially after MH17 was shot down, getting more or less away with state sponsored cheating in sports, simulating bombing raids against Swedish power plants etc. We should have seen this coming a long time ago. (In my defense however, note that from the very start of this, even before the protests in Russia were known to me I think I have not said a bad word about the Russian people, barely a bad word about the men in boots and only after they started aggression and mostly - I hope - just about the leadership.)
deepGem 5y ago
Am not from the US but this seems very risky. Is there someone at the government who can clarify such guarantees. Am also curious what are the high level logistics to carry out something like this. Do you seek an untraceable route to Ukarine from US ? Do you unleash a worm like Stuxnet that will eventually cripple all Russian cyber attack infra ?
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Jury nullification. The idea is that a jury is allowed to make its decision without any outside interference. A jury can acquit a person even it they think the person is guilty. Thus a jury could give you a fee pass on hacking Russian systems, but you'd be relying on them to realise that and then think the moral reasons for acquittal out weigh the legal reasons for conviction. Obviously courts don't like jury nullification try to prevent it, without harming a juries independence. So possibly not a good idea to rely on jury nullification as your get out of jail free card.
  - thebradbain 5y ago
    It’s also not necessarily a legal strategy even as a Hail Mary. California’s state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that jury nullification is not a valid decision… and my understanding is if the outcome case can be attributed to “jury nullification” (i.e. could be as obvious as the defense suggesting it as an avenue to the jury, which ironically itself is legal, or as technical as the jury refusing to consider or explicitly refusing a piece of evidence that is entered in the record— think a moral objection to the law, or “evidence undeniably shows the defendant left the scene at 7pm, but we the jury contend it was 6pm”) it legally would be considered a mistrial and allowed to be re-litigated— and the sole person who has the power to attribute something to jury nullification and/or declare mistrial? The judge. https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/jury-nullification/ https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/jury-nullification/
- grayfaced 5y ago
  There is no guarantee. There is really no one that could even make such a guarantee. Opinions of DOJ change with administrations. The president could issue a pardon after the fact. Congress could make a law. Perhaps the executive could find some loophole to deputize people into US Cybercom but that would likely make them a lawful combatants which has other entanglements.
lalaland1125 5y ago
This is extremely terrible advice. You should delete your comment before you cause someone to go to jail.
- Gwarzo 5y ago
  A sort of side comment, but I absolutely despise this type of thinking. "before you cause someone to go to jail" If you take legal advice from pseudo anonymous users on aggregate websites you deserve to go to jail. Even in writing that, the users did not "cause" anyone to go to jail; the moron reading and acting on that comment did. Have some respect for individuality mate.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Oh come on man. If being a dumbarse and engaging in dangerous behaviour was a jailable offence, then we'd need to arrest every single male under the age of 21. (To any dumbarses reading this comment, launching cyberattacks against adversarial nation states will land you in prison if you're lucky, a body bag if you're not)
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    I looked at your recent comments - in almost every one of them (!) you are insulting, mocking, being a total jerk to people on here. Please stop doing that. You will be banned very soon if you keep that up. Read the guidelines - most of your comments break more than a few. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bagels 5y ago
It is not reasonable to assume this. You might get lucky, or you might spend decades in prison.
mellavora 5y ago
In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred. -- from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Contact information is in my profile. Come get me. Here's the more relevant wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism

mlac 5y ago

Recognize two more things if you do this: 1) you will never be able to travel to Russia or a Russian controlled territory. Ever. 2) you will always be at risk for a hack-back or other issues when the dust settles and they seek revenge.

bitexploder 5y ago
Not that I would ever apply my considerable talents to this purpose, but seriously, who from the west would ever go to Russia in the next few years without family ties causing one to do so. I don’t think that is a tangible consequence for most of us capable of waging a cyber security attack in a nation state.

bink 5y ago

That's a huge gamble most people aren't willing to accept.

mahkeiro 5y ago
Bur remember that by treaty US and UK (and Russia of course) promised to defend Ukraine in exchange of their nukes. At least if they try to go after you, you can still argue that you were trying to comply to a treaty that both countries have decided to ignore.
- mvkel 5y ago
  Upon orders from the government, sure. Taking the law into your own hands based on vague interpretation is different.
  - saurik 5y ago
    Yeah: my city signing an MOU saying they will enforce parking restrictions doesn't mean I have the OK to camp out on the street and write my own tickets.
- vkou 5y ago
  Treaties get broken, and your argument will fall on deaf ears.
- prawel 5y ago
  they promised not to attack, not defend
- grayfaced 5y ago
  Treaties are between governments. Individual citizens are not a member of the treaty. You don't get any authority to pursue individual action.
kweinber 5y ago
Allies are dying today. Someone could help save them and you are talking them out of it?
- bink 5y ago
  I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I'm just explaining how many people in my industry see this request. It's noble if some want to risk their livelihoods and supporting their families to help support the effort. Not all of us can make that sacrifice. I wish there was another option. I wish people in Ukraine weren't suffering.
Teever 5y ago
I guarantee you there are American veterans who are flying right now to Europe with the intention of making their way to Ukraine to help on the ground -- there were crazy fucks doing this in Syria a few years ago. That's a huge gamble. What you're talking about is not.

kfichter 5y ago

Reminder to other readers: don't take legal advice from hn

stickfigure 5y ago
Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot and pay an astounding amount of attention to who their friends are. This is sometimes a force for evil, sometimes a force for good, but it is what it is. Sure, don't take legal advice from me. Use a VPN.
- reitanqild 5y ago
  > Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot I'd take away "by and large" here. Many of them are also exceedingly generous, open and friendly and cares deeply. This holds true for both sides of the political spectrum. They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.
  - majewsky 5y ago
    > They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start. This is even more true of the Russians, and as an outsider, I'm wondering how much of their politics is informed by those memories.
    - throwrqX 5y ago
      Their politics is overwhelming informed by their memories and they bring it up whenever they can.
    - reitanqild 5y ago
      That is a seriously good point. It never ceases to amuse me how ignorant I am in my comments despite my attempts at being smart, wise and fair. Of course you are right. That said, this invasion is still a crime and I am utterly fed up by Russian actions in neighboring states, their constant lying, especially after MH17 was shot down, getting more or less away with state sponsored cheating in sports, simulating bombing raids against Swedish power plants etc. We should have seen this coming a long time ago. (In my defense however, note that from the very start of this, even before the protests in Russia were known to me I think I have not said a bad word about the Russian people, barely a bad word about the men in boots and only after they started aggression and mostly - I hope - just about the leadership.)

deepGem 5y ago

Am not from the US but this seems very risky. Is there someone at the government who can clarify such guarantees. Am also curious what are the high level logistics to carry out something like this. Do you seek an untraceable route to Ukarine from US ? Do you unleash a worm like Stuxnet that will eventually cripple all Russian cyber attack infra ?

verve_rat 5y ago
Jury nullification. The idea is that a jury is allowed to make its decision without any outside interference. A jury can acquit a person even it they think the person is guilty. Thus a jury could give you a fee pass on hacking Russian systems, but you'd be relying on them to realise that and then think the moral reasons for acquittal out weigh the legal reasons for conviction. Obviously courts don't like jury nullification try to prevent it, without harming a juries independence. So possibly not a good idea to rely on jury nullification as your get out of jail free card.
- thebradbain 5y ago
  It’s also not necessarily a legal strategy even as a Hail Mary. California’s state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that jury nullification is not a valid decision… and my understanding is if the outcome case can be attributed to “jury nullification” (i.e. could be as obvious as the defense suggesting it as an avenue to the jury, which ironically itself is legal, or as technical as the jury refusing to consider or explicitly refusing a piece of evidence that is entered in the record— think a moral objection to the law, or “evidence undeniably shows the defendant left the scene at 7pm, but we the jury contend it was 6pm”) it legally would be considered a mistrial and allowed to be re-litigated— and the sole person who has the power to attribute something to jury nullification and/or declare mistrial? The judge. https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/jury-nullification/ https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/jury-nullification/
grayfaced 5y ago
There is no guarantee. There is really no one that could even make such a guarantee. Opinions of DOJ change with administrations. The president could issue a pardon after the fact. Congress could make a law. Perhaps the executive could find some loophole to deputize people into US Cybercom but that would likely make them a lawful combatants which has other entanglements.

lalaland1125 5y ago

This is extremely terrible advice. You should delete your comment before you cause someone to go to jail.

Gwarzo 5y ago
A sort of side comment, but I absolutely despise this type of thinking. "before you cause someone to go to jail" If you take legal advice from pseudo anonymous users on aggregate websites you deserve to go to jail. Even in writing that, the users did not "cause" anyone to go to jail; the moron reading and acting on that comment did. Have some respect for individuality mate.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Oh come on man. If being a dumbarse and engaging in dangerous behaviour was a jailable offence, then we'd need to arrest every single male under the age of 21. (To any dumbarses reading this comment, launching cyberattacks against adversarial nation states will land you in prison if you're lucky, a body bag if you're not)
- yesenadam 5y ago
  I looked at your recent comments - in almost every one of them (!) you are insulting, mocking, being a total jerk to people on here. Please stop doing that. You will be banned very soon if you keep that up. Read the guidelines - most of your comments break more than a few. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bagels 5y ago

It is not reasonable to assume this. You might get lucky, or you might spend decades in prison.

mellavora 5y ago

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred. -- from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

stickfigure 5y ago
Contact information is in my profile. Come get me. Here's the more relevant wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism