SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On March 19 of this year, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta received an alarming email that appeared to come from Google.
The email, however, didn't come from the internet giant. It was actually an attempt to hack into his personal account. In fact, the message came from a group of hackers that security researchers, as well as the US government, believe are spies working for the Russian government. At the time, however, Podesta didn't know any of this, and he clicked on the malicious link contained in the email, giving hackers access to his account.
Months later, on October 9, WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of Podesta's hacked emails. Almost everyone immediately pointed the finger at Russia, who is suspected of being behind a long and sophisticated hacking campaign that has the apparent goal of influencing the upcoming US elections. But there was no public evidence proving the same group that targeted the Democratic National Committee was behind the hack on Podesta—until now.
The data linking a group of Russian hackers—known as Fancy Bear, APT28, or Sofacy—to the hack on Podesta is also yet another piece in a growing heap of evidence pointing toward the Kremlin. And it also shows a clear thread between apparently separate and independent leaks that have appeared on a website called DC Leaks, such as that of Colin Powell's emails; and the Podesta leak, which was publicized on WikiLeaks.
All these hacks were done using the same tool: malicious short URLs hidden in fake Gmail messages. And those URLs, according to a security firm that's tracked them for a year, were created with Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:11PM
Are these the same agencies and media establishments that said there were WMDs in Iraq? Forgive me for not believing a word they say.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @04:40PM
From various articles I've read about the whole thing, it looks like there was evidence littered all over the place pointing to the Russians. From "names left in file metadata" to using assets that were formerly known to be used by FSB agents. I'm just an asshole on the internet, but it doesn't pass the sniff test. It implies there's one of three things that could be happening:
- Russia really wanted to thumb their nose in the US's face.
- Russian security agents are sloppy.
- Someone wanted to blame Russia hard for this.
Of those, I think that the first and last one are possible. I don't believe the second one for a minute.
It's borderline off-topic, but I kind of feel the same way about the attempt to paint Assange as a pedo. You're seriously telling me that a silicon valley exec with ties to Clinton set up some elaborate, yet bizarre attempt to discredit Assange with accusations of pedophilia and then left a trail of breadcrumbs so simple that a bunch of loser reddit neckbeards could trace right back to him? I mean, maybe. It's pretty incredible though.
It definitely seems like someone is trying to fuck with this election, but I don't think it's the Russians.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:54PM
> Of those, I think that the first and last one are possible. I don't believe the second one for a minute.
Someone's razor isn't it? Attribute first to incompetence, then to malice..
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @05:22PM
I don't know if Hanlon's razor is applicable here, frankly. We're potentially talking about actors who's intentions and capabilities would directly include the deliberate use of subterfuge WRT an event that was already intended to be malicious toward another party. It's a little late for that.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 21 2016, @05:44PM
When working backwards from a conclusion it's amazing what evidence people are willing to discard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @06:07PM
Do you have some evidence that I don't have? Almost every place I've looked for actual evidence has either written a piece worthy of being a Hollywood script that chases more shadows than I do or merely said "our evidence is that we're told by the .gov and the DNC that there's evidence".
I'm not TOTALLY unreasonable. I can be swayed as long as I read something that's, ya know, swaying.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 21 2016, @06:42PM
You literally just said there was "evidence littered all over the place pointing to the Russians."
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @06:51PM
I also said that "every place I've looked for actual evidence has... written a piece worthy of being a Hollywood script".
Hey, I also fully admitted that it could well have been the Russians, but they were hella sloppy. That was in the original comment. As in, I'm allowing for it to be true, I just wonder if it's not more complicated than that. I kinda feel like you're more serious about my idle speculation than I am.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:57PM
> - Russian security agents are sloppy.
You are presuming that the guys who did it are russian security agents and not just free-lance contractors who pick up a lot of work from Moscow. They may even have done it "on spec" but I gotta assume that once they got ahold of Podesta's email they went directly to Moscow with it and the decision to give it to wikileaks rather than just keep it for intelligence purposes was directed from Moscow.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday October 21 2016, @05:17PM
"You are presuming that the guys who did it are russian security agents and not just free-lance contractors who pick up a lot of work from Moscow. They may even have done it "on spec" but I gotta assume that once they got ahold of Podesta's email they went directly to Moscow with it and the decision to give it to wikileaks rather than just keep it for intelligence purposes was directed from Moscow."
You are presuming that the guys who did it are russian security agents and not just free-lance contractors who pick up a lot of work from Beijing. They may even have done it "on spec" but I gotta assume that once they got ahold of Podesta's email they went directly to Beijing with it and the decision to give it to wikileaks rather than just keep it for intelligence purposes was directed from Beijing.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @05:30PM
Or anyone else who would have a vested interest in making sure that Russia and the US do not ever form a cozy relationship and do something crrrraaaaaazy like work together to try to stabilize the middle east or something.
Honestly, this one feels like those responsible are not trying to fuck up Hillary for the election, they're trying to piss her off enough to set the stage for Cold War II. Admittedly, I tend to chase shadows, so I'm going to be forward and just admit that it's my pet conspiracy theory, it probably belongs somewhere like zero hedge, and I'm probably crazy for suggesting it. Hey, that's cool though, I'll own that.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday October 21 2016, @08:45PM
and I'm probably crazy for suggesting it.
Remember kids, post Snowden, crazy-paranoid is the new pragmatic.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @09:24PM
Well, way I figure is that if it somehow turns out I'm right, I get to feel super hip and laugh about it over beers with friends. If I'm wrong, well, being crazy doesn't really change much in the long run.
I do think I need to disconnect from the news though. The last year and half or so of deliberately looking at any article claiming to be news no matter how mainstream or sketchy (including comments) has admittedly had a pretty negative impact on me. I wanted to see what it was like to have as many viewpoints on as many issues as I could crammed into my head all at once. Sort of some effort to try to be able to figure out where the line was between "well-informed" and just thinking you are. I think it's just got me less sure of, well, pretty much everyone's mental state, myself included.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2016, @03:04AM
Surprise, quantity over quality is a losing proposition.
You have to find sources that are trustworthy and also understand their limitations.
Uncredentialed bloggers should be the first on the trash-heap because they rarely know enough about a topic to even realize where the holes are in their own knowledge.
Anything that gets trumpkins and their alt-right fellow travelers worked up, next on the trash-heap because that crowd is so profoundly tribal that they refuse to type the word "debunk" into google since it would demolish 99% of their world view.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:30PM
> You are presuming that the guys who did it are russian security agents and not just free-lance contractors who pick up a lot of work from Beijing.
Do you have any evidence that they have also free-lanced for Beijing in the past?
No, I did not think so.
There is plenty of evidence that the same group has done a lot of work for Moscow.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday October 21 2016, @07:32PM
Okay, show me this evidence.... but it has to be evidence NOT touched in any way by U.S. intelligence agencies.
I know intelligence agencies NEVER lie, but
HAHAHAHA.... couldn't keep it together, there. Sorry.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:48PM
Oh please. Yours is the logic of conspiracy theories. As a rule intelligence agencies do not lie to the civilian management of the US government. If they do lie, there is a huge stink. If you believe they regularly lie. then you can basically make up your own reality.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday October 21 2016, @08:50PM
As a rule intelligence agencies do not lie to the civilian management of the US government.
Have you lived under a rock for the last... erm... forever?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2016, @02:20AM
> Have you lived under a rock for the last... erm... forever?
Citations? Because the OP of this sub-thread claims about WMDs have already been debunked in other posts.
I can also point you at the recent case of analysts raising holy hell about what they consider to be manipulation of their reports. [thedailybeast.com] The fact that they are complaining loudly is the huge stink I was referring to, and which you elided from your quote.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 21 2016, @05:36PM
"paint Assange as a pedo"
I've never heard that one. US media wants to paint him a rapist, but that isn't the story in Europe. Transcripts from interviews with both of the "victims" show that in each case, she seduced him, she specified that he use a condom, he did so, but the next morning when he had no more condom, he went back for seconds. Both stories are the same. There was no offense until the two women met, talked, and decided that they were outraged. But, both state very plainly that there was no rape.
It's some kind of European thing - a prosecutor decided that she had a case, then decided that she didn't, then changed her mind again. And, all at the same time, that prosecutor is in conference with authorities in the USA.
US media portrays the ongoing case as a rape investigation, but from both women's own lips, there was no rape. I can only conclude that it is entirely political.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @05:47PM
It's a pretty recent one. Last couple of days I think. Forgive the dailykos link, but it looks like it actually sums the situation up pretty well before the author gets into speculation:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/19/1584613/-The-Assange-Pedo-story-has-morphed-into-a-huge-anti-Clinton-conspiracy-theory-w-Russia-pushing-it [dailykos.com]
The graphic at the top is the one that's been circulating around. I'm honestly not sure what to make of it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 21 2016, @06:09PM
If you have time, read the second link at the bottom of TFS - it sounds plausible although cannot be verified as accurate.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @06:20PM
I've read that one. It sounds like a Hollywood script. I'll agree though, it's plausible.
Thing is, I never said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I even allowed for a possibility in my little theory for it to actually be the Russians. It was just sloppy, if so.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:44PM
Yeah, ever since Russia is trying to keep us from turning Syria into an anarchic nightmare, like we and our satellites did in Libya, Russia is being blamed for everything but the weather.
We always need to find some sinister, foreign, source to blame our fuckups on. Remember when it was supposedly the North Koreans that were fucking with a film studio? (haha)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:07PM
Well Russia is still one of the World's leading producers of fossil fuels. So if the climate is changing...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @05:07PM
> Are these the same agencies and media establishments that said there were WMDs in Iraq?
No US intelligence agencies said there were WMDs in Iraq. What they did say was that they had no current intelligence, but the intelligence they did have from ~5 years prior was that Sadam had been working on getting WMDs. The Bush administration decided that was sufficient for their purposes and extrapolated that Sadam had been working full-speed ahead on WMDs so he must have produced something in the meantime. If the internet wasn't being flakey I'd have a better citation for you, but here is one:
Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war [motherjones.com]
That sort of willful blindness does not seem to be in operation here.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 21 2016, @05:39PM
Are these the same agencies and media establishments that said there were WMDs in Iraq? Forgive me for not believing a word they say.
No.
On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer [salon.com] Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.