Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data
arstechnica.comSeems like this was closer to 'Lyft obtains a leaked copy of the Uber go to market strategy for FL, TX, etc' than 'Waymo obtains notice that Uber bought secrets'. As such, there was nothing moral/truth-y to be learned from it, but a lot of tactical knowledge. I'm all for transparency, but this is more akin to corporate espionage than whistle blowing.
I think this is trying to show second order effects of the hack, in that it changed ground level tactics in addition to influencing hearts and minds. What ever you believe about the source of the hack, this event damages the idea of a noble hacker seeking to expose wrong doing.
The Russia/"hacked election" meme is amazing. With very little actual evidence, careful use of linguistic framing, and a lot of angry rhetoric on all sides, the public was successfully scared into wasting their time and energy fighting among themselves over hearsay and rumor, instead of addressing any of the numerous actual, known problems that are already known and far more likely to impact the average citizen.
If there's actual evidence of an actual crime, then present it to the public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess, regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC), systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians - regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war.
There is a lot of important work to do, but this denial of service attack against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful distraction.
With all the stuff that's come out over the past six months, I don't see how you can dismiss it out of hand like this.
For anyone reading who is not super engaged with these matters, please know that this is a lot more than just a "meme".
Here's a comprehensive timeline if you want to take a deep dive: https://lawfareblog.com/realnews-trump-et-laffaire-russe-res...
But I'll just list a simple sequence of three verifiable events that should demonstrate clearly that there is at least something real here.
* On March 20, 2017 FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”" [0]
* On May 9, 2017 the President fired FBI Director Comey [1]
* On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (acting in this matter as AG due to Sessions' recusal) appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the investigation, effectively removing the President from it's chain of command. [2]
I'm not saying this is proof-positive that collusion occurred, but it's sufficiently compelling.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investiga... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-f... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-muelle...
Edited to remove insinuations of bad faith
> It almost feels like a kind of gaslighting, like you're trying to confuse people and muddy the waters.
Please don't let such insinuations of bad faith creep into your comments on HN.
There is widespread disagreement about this matter (e.g. the GP comment was both upvoted and downvoted, obviously not all by trolls) and those who disagree need to remain civil on HN. That includes (a) responding to the argument and (b) assuming good faith.
sorry, edited
Your first paragraph sounds like it contains all the markings of a successful psyops campaign to be totally honest.
Whisper campaign to erode public trust and increase partisan divide while diverting attention from more important matters.
If it WAS interference by any nation state (Russia or not; uncovered or not) it seems to have been pretty successful right?
> all the markings of a successful psyops campaign
Internet commenters are much too quick to sling such tropes at others whom they disagree with. Please don't do that here.
Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage are not allowed on HN without evidence, and this goes beyond even that.
I could easily be mistaken, but I think that wasn't intended to be an accusation/insinuation?
> ... sounds like it contains ...
I interpreted that as referring to the "Russia/'hacked election' meme" having psyops-ish markings, not my paragraph. That seems to fit with the final comment about it appearing to be "pretty successful".
So the GOP is directly admitting to collusion with Russian agents in order to disrupt US elections. Are we OK with this as a country?
The hack was public knowledge in June of 2016, and it's only fairly recently that it's been known (asserted?) that Guccifer 2.0 was acting on behalf of the Russian government.
It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.
Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.
Well, the leaks themselves revealed some pretty troubling (although not terribly surprising) friendliness between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, so it's not like we have nothing to compare it to.
The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info.
The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1]
This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage.
I think it's interesting that George Washington, in his Farewell Address[0], warned of political parties being an enemy of the government, and could provide a route to foreign governments and interests to have influence on our government. That linked section provides almost an exact description of what seems to be going on in the US currently. I would like to see the RNC and DNC dismantled by the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
Especially since the "collusion" occurred after the breach.
---
I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.
“Fairly recently” in this case meaning “within hours of release” – CrowdStrike was already publicly connecting the dots to military intelligence by June 15th:
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
A number of people find it easier to act as if this was a big post-election surprise but that's just wishful thinking to avoid having to consider the implications of many people knowing but not caring as long as it got the political outcome they desired or, in the case of the media, accepting responsibility for their coverage decisions.
A private third party making claims is not the same as the claims of the collective US intelligence agencies, which were made much more recently.
It's also irrelevant, because it was public knowledge by the time it was reported. My post is to debunk the assumption that the contractor knew the hacker was a foreign agent.
Has anyone publicly presented any concrete evidence whatsoever that the Russians were involved in any way in influencing the U.S. election as yet?
Just asking, for a friend :)
The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government.
The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniques.
Also, none of us have ever read history books, which are full of wars and witch hunts started over unverifiable claims by people in power that turned out to be mistaken (at best) or lies (at worst) to push their agenda.
So I'm not sure why you're asking for concrete evidence. They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?
> They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?
Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't.
If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was also on several of the corporate the boards of said company.
Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"), the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established relationships with?
If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes 110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.
Sources on any of this conjecture?
What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?
Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more leaks during one of the presidential debates?
Seems like you have your information pretty mixed up (or simply made up).
Can you post a substantial source for any of your claims?
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (details Trump's many ties to Russia and was written by a Republican to boot.)
>Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?
On this note, I just want to point out that Russia is the only European country in the world's 10 most populous countries, and that Russia controls more land than any other country on earth (almost twice as much as the second-largest landholder, China).
It should be no surprise that Americans involved in international business will have substantial connections to such a significant world entity.
It's really kind of silly to hear people holding any previous dealing in Russia against anyone that has a remote connection to Donald Trump.
You might want to double-check your sources. Try to avoid news sources with a far-right or far-left slant. They can be entertaining, but they're generally not trust-worthy: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Vault 7 proved that "signs of Russian hacking" mean nothing.
"They said <some stuff>. Is that not good enough for you?"
Generic answer for all questions of that general format.
NO!
Unfortunately no. All we have right now is the highest "levels of confidence" from our major intelligence agencies with their belief that Russian-promoted hacking agencies hacked the DNC, and released that information to wikileaks in order to make Hillary look worse.
The caveat is that they aren't disclosing the methods by which they came to this conclusion, so we can't know 100% for sure. It's dependent on our belief in our intelligence agencies to be acting independently and presenting true, unbiased information.
Full-disclosure, I voted for Johnson, and while I am sympathetic to the leaks, had the DNC not been doing shady stuff, there wouldn't have been anything to leak. That being said, I personally believe in our intelligence agencies, so I think it's reasonable to believe that Russians were involved in the U.S. elections. But I hold the DNC more accountable for their loss than the Russians.
For those interested: [0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
[1] Link to the actual report: apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/
[2] From DHS: dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
Yes. Multiple times over now. Same group involved with election hackery were also phishing my peers after they caused Moscow trouble regarding MH17 and Syria[1].
This is an on-going prolific attack against civilians in addition to the usual military/political targets. Much as Ru MoD regularly targets civilians in Syria such as medics and emergency responders.
All part of Russia's war on the world.
[1] https://citizenlab.org/2017/05/tainted-leaks-disinformation-...
No, no concrete evidence was ever presented. The entire premise of this huge ongoing media sensation has still not been proven and begs for quality, in-depth investigative journalism, but only fringe ultra-right or ultra-left media outlets seem to take any interest in this. The likes of New Yorker or NYT Magazine seem utterly uninterested in digging, or readily assume this as a proven fact, for no apparent reason. Except maybe "what's wrong with blindly trusting CIA and NSA to be truthful?"
The closest to an in-depth critical look at the evidence presented by the government I've seen so far is probably this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-real...
That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over.
Nevermind that the target of the hacks, hacks who share the same infrastructure, all focus on entities of Moscow's interest.
Navalny, MH17, DNC, Syria, Bellingcat. Gee wonder what the common thread here is.
> That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over.
You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it.
And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way".
>And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way".
"“If the guys are really good,” says Chris Finan, CEO of Manifold Technology, “they’re not leaving much evidence or they’re leaving evidence to throw you off the scent entirely.” How plausible is it that Russian intelligence services would fail even to attempt such a fundamental step?"
"On the other hand, sloppiness on the part of developers is not entirely unknown. However, one would expect a nation-state to enforce strict software and document handling procedures and implement rigorous review processes."
"The strings in the code quite transparently indicate its intent, with no attempt at obfuscation. It seems an odd oversight for a nation-state operation, in which plausible deniability would be essential, to overlook that glaring point during software development."
Acting befuddled is not a reasonable means of helping to cast suspicions aside.
Nothing can change who these attacks, sharing the same infrastructure, targeted. Opponents of Russia's current ruling order. Very specific frame up jobs against Putin's political opposition and phishing against civilian analysts who just happened to be making news regarding MH17? Come on now.
Your account has been using primarily (actually exclusively) for political battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of their politics. Especially when they cross into incivility, which you've done repeatedly.
The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity, not smite enemies. The lines aren't sharply drawable, of course, and it's understandable if discussion crosses into political topics sometimes—but that's quite different from using the forum as a political or ideological platform. We use the 'primarily' test: if an account is primarily using HN that way, it's abusing the site and we ban it.
" (actually exclusively) "
I guess you didn't check my submission history then. If you want to discuss incivility, trying to frame someone up to meet the metrics for banning seems awful uncivil.
Of course I checked it. But that phrase was in parentheses for a reason: it's parenthetical. The main point holds either way.
One of the characteristics of a lot of Russia's attempts at exerting influence is that they don't particularly care if we know they did it. Part of Putin's goal is to bolster Russia's standing as a world power, so if people know he's pulling the strings it actually achieves that goal.
There's a lot of space between "wouldn't possibly do that this way" and "is it plausible that they've done it that way?"
> So the GOP is directly admitting
I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point.
If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change.
I'm sure there's a member or three of the Penn State frathouse recently in the news who weren't culpable in that kid's death, too.
I'm not a fan of the bad apples argument. The same reasoning is used by some to defend attacks on Muslims.
There's a fairly key difference in the levels of opposition: you can easily find Muslims criticizing every extremist attack, rejecting the theology used to justify them, setting up education programs to reduce future recruitment, and working with law enforcement.
I think the strongest form of the bad apple argument comes not from the presence of a problem but rather the strength of counter-efforts.
I probably wasn't clear. I'm not either. What I was alluding to was how common we hear a corruption of the phrase as a defense. "Just a few bad apples." Somehow the cautionary part of the cliche is disappeared.
So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest?
How is being more informed a bad thing?
This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
>Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests.
I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents.
I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.
> I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.
Unfortunately, you weren't given the opportunity to find out how corrupt the RNC and the Republican party were before you voted in November. But that's okay, half the picture being blocked from view I'm sure is just like seeing the whole picture, right?
Your post quoted: "So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest?
How is being more informed a bad thing?"
Where did you 'clearly say' it was in Russia's interests for the GOP to win? It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up and no leak of RNC corruption could ever be big enough to sway you anyway.
I think the argument is "knowing information that is truthful, even if it's incomplete."
My bad, I was referring to another comment thread.
>It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up
I'm just interested in making the most informed decision I can.
In a court of law, rules of evidentiary procudure apply such that one side is not unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged, by unequal law or process.
No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal.
An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play.
One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that.
Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst.
A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.
RTA
>DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics.
This was not about informing voters, it was about specifically giving Republicans an advantage.
I think it's very clear the parent is questioning the original actions that took place and not the confession/coming-clean itself.
"I'm not okay with knowing the truth if we have to talk to [INSERT BAD GUYS HERE] to know it!"
I'd wager that in the abstract the answer is "NO!"
But then again IOKIYAR probably takes precedence here... And the Republicans are in charge of all the checks/balances at the moment.
Ok, for a report with the possible meaning and impact as this, to have zero dates, no timeframe at all, is either very cagey or very "rush this online!". I'll assume oversight before incompetence. However, given the piece as written, these communications could have happened years ago or yesterday (hyperbole I know but ???)
Are you talking about the ArsTechnica article, or its Wall Street Journal source? (Which I can't read because of the paywall)
https://outline.com/hswuDt For the Wall Street Journal article text
It has some dates in the screenshots and more accurately portrays the timeline.
Oh, nice! Thanks.
Related: A federal prosecutor in Florida turned up dead on a beach this morning.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-fo...
1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. Anecdotally most Russians I've met would bristle at Russia being called a "European" territory.
2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in someone's pocket.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14424279 and marked it off-topic.
>1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'.
As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in "European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is rightly classified European.
Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing.
>2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources, but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an irrefutable reality.
I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit.
He lied in his confirmation hearing after being pressed on an issue. Then admitted he was not truthful after it was publicized. Lots of people (especially in Gov) get away with that sort of stuff without conviction. That seems to have been a large point of the last election no? Different set of rules for everyone else and all that.
I'd say my posts were drenched in bias from the very start. I'm amazed you missed it ;)
Why does this have a negative twist? Is it not a good thing that voters were more informed of the darker sides of the DNC and the Democratic party before voting?
>DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics.
How exactly are these documents showing the "darker sides of the DNC"?
it was no longer a level playing field. I never expected that the DNC was full of angels but I also expect that the GOP is also hiding some dark secrets.
This was internal tactical and polling information.
The popular narrative has been GOP colluded with Russia, hence the negativity (not that I agree one way or the other)
Can I have all of your personal data? It's okay, I just want to be more informed about your darker side before my next vote.
What if the DNC did some really not okay things? Nah, you're right, we shouldn't know about them because the DNC wouldn't want that...
Of course I wouldn't like you to have all my personal data. But the point of an election is for the people to make the most informed decision, not for me to feel good.
Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction.
This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone, it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda.
This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.
>> Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem
So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu?
According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-funded grants to a political group in Israel to build a campaign operation, which subsequently was used to try to influence Israelis to vote against conservative Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 2015 election for prime minister.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350...
This is the definition of whataboutism. It wasn't okay when Russia did it, and it wasn't okay when Obama did it. Saying Obama did it doesn't make something okay?
Huh? I'm talking about illegal hacking by a hostile intelligence service interfering in our election. What you linked has nothing to do with any illegal activities, which is what the point of the whole thread is.
Even from the article you linked, it says that "OneVoice did not use State Department funds directly for political activities, or seek State Department grants in anticipation of the Israeli elections" but that it indirectly allowed that non-profit to campaign against Netanyahu. Not exactly the same kettle of fish.
Just the same I don't support our government trying to fund political campaigns against our allies either.
What informed decision do we learn from a member of a political party getting to frame the narrative about their opponent's secrets though? This isn't journalism, it was a smear campaign.
You could if I was running for President. What a dumb thing to say.
No you couldn't?? That's now how the American presidency works at all. We don't even have access to Trump's tax returns or other basic financial information and he isn't legally obligated to release them.
I didn't say there was a legal obligation. Clearly we are in agreement that Trump is in the wrong here. We can say Trump should release his tax returns without requiring them or any other citizen to do so.
Not that I agree with gp but a political party vs personal is a little different.
Yeah that's why Nixon resigned after all.