'Western' meaning the usual aggressors, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance of the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Not particularly. The last known time a western aggressor hacked into such a Russian intelligence company, Kaspersky, it was revealed to be the Dutch intelligence agency, sharing their info with the US. So it could be any of the 5 eyes or any of their partners.
Unsurprisingly Yandex say that this was detected early, no damage was done and no user data was accessed via the hacking.
Obviously that rings hollow... but, I wonder, what kind of security protocol do high gov officials in RU use, do they follow better security hygiene than the West?
This release coincides with G20 meetings. Intentional or happenstance?
Oh wow! This wasn't the one I was talking about, but very cool nonetheless. It's similar, but with keyboards. I hate posting this without evidence, but I think there was also something having to do with watching a plant or a pane of glass vibrate to know what is being said inside a room. The keyboard noise and the vibrations may also be unrelated. If I can find these articles, I'll come back and post them here.
I have a bad habit of mumbling to myself what I am typing, when there is nobody around, sometimes I will even read aloud what I just typed back to make sure it makes sense.
If I was to use a Typewriter, you could probably put a recording device inside it and work out what I was writing about that way.
My recollection is that even the individual areas of the ship were not networked with each other at all, so the whole ship relies on humans to relay commands around. The whole ship was designed this way to fight Cylons, and indeed had beat them. The Cylons were thought extinct, so the new generation of ships were all networked and thoroughly pwned as soon as the Cylons reappeared.
As far as I know, Putin says that he doesn't use mobile phones and computers. Can it be considered a security measure? Other officials, like PM Medvedev, are better with technology and had their devices hacked: [1]
Regarding Yandex, they have good talents there so what they say might be true.
Really, it's a lot like the allowable amount of insect parts that the US Govt. Food and Drug Administration allows in food. You're shocked a bit to read it, but the truth is you've been living it (and eating it) for some time.
I've heard that people who think they're allergic to chocolate are actually allergic to the cockroaches bits are in most chocolate. Not sure how well proven that is though.
If we weren’t hacking into Yandex, I’d be asking for new chiefs at the intelligence agencies who would. What the heck of the point of an agency if you’re not gathering intelligence?
No. The intelligence is crap; the CIA has missed basically everything important in its history. It is frequently politicized. It only goes to the President, who might ignore it or misinterpret it. We do much better just by reading newspapers well.
> missed basically everything important in its history
Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
> Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
That sounds like conspiracy thinking. The media isn't able to suppress the CIA's good deeds, and I don't believe they'd try. "Big alien invasion averted thanks to heroic CIA agent" is a great headline. So great in fact, that fiction books are written on that premise.
With all the minor and major leaks from the intelligence community, they're supposed to have a super tight and successful conspiracy going to hide the fact that they are actually effective? I have some doubts, both on the technical part (large conspiracies are hard) and the reasoning.
Why does it have to be done this way? Can you provide more sources that show that aggresively attacking a nation's company this way is actually outweighing the downsides?
Note that I'm not questioning the existence of intelligence services, I'm asking you to provide basis that directly attacking companies like that is worth it. Also where's the line that makes this "dirty" business worth it?
It’s a dance. You complain about every hack, every interference in elections and claim moral superiority while doing the exact same hoping no one finds out but when they do always shoot the messenger instead of defending yourself. Thanks WikiLeaks for showing the world
I have tracked a number of state sponsored actors from all sorts of countries back to Yandex accounts. They are the go to account provider when you need semi-legit emails and don't want the provider to cooperate with the US.
It would give US intelligence insights in to operations from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.
Russia does not need this or any other reason, they are already doing this to the extent they can. The public nature of this will provide some political cover, but that's it.
As to 'what it gets' it entirely depends on the kind of information that was obtained, the inherent risks and cost, the targets etc..
Maybe there were specific targets, a specific needs, maybe they were casting a net - who knows.
Consider what it would take to guarantee that there are absolutely no insect parts in a given volume of food. Insects are everywhere, and it's almost impossible to eliminate them with total confidence from every step of the food supply chain. Even if it were possible, it would be incredibly expensive.
Unless you want your yoghurt to cost $100 a pot, you have to accept that some insect parts will find their way into some food. The point of regulation is to ensure that the amount is minimized. If the standard was zero parts, food prices would skyrocket, many food suppliers would go out of business, and poor people wouldn't be able to eat. So the standard is some reasonable low level.
These things are always about tradeoffs and not absolutes.
In my view, if you’re hacking for espionage purposes as a nation who defends classical liberalism, then I’d argue your actions are justified. I do not understand why sources involved with this (or related stories) would talk to reporters.
Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US. To suggest otherwise is advocating moral relativism in my opinion.
I do, however, support a pardon for Snowden and Assange.
Err? So, suggesting a uniform standard that says hacking is bad is advocating moral relativism?
There is no end to this "ends justify the means" crap. "Well, we're the good guys, so it's ok for us to torture, depose governments, nuke civilians, fix elections, assassinate foreign leaders, spy on our citizens..." Etc.
It doesn't matter whether "we're" the good guys or even if there are any good guys. Where there are groups with different interests there will always be conflict.
Given that there will always be conflict, you can choose to do nothing and be out-competed, you can act in the interest of the group to which you belong, or you can act in the interest of the other side.
It's possible to argue that these actions are not, in fact, in the interest of your group, but that has nothing to do with some facile Hollywood conception of international relations as good guys vs. bad guys.
Kind of ethically dubious to this type of work. There is moral outrage when Google tries to do military contracting, but none against when federal government doing this type of extra-legal actions.
I expect my government to spy on foreign citizens and governments. If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. Google is a private firm and subject to market forces like boycotts over military contracting. It's because governments and Google are two very different things.
If this is your 'evidence' - then you've basically made my argument for me.
A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press.
The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out.
There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world.
Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise.
Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other.
Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state.
Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced.
Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily.
You can read about Russian media here [1]
But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated?
Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA.
Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out.
Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state.
None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective.
And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this.
FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2]
Personal attacks, flamebait, unsubstantive comments will get you banned on HN. Can you please not do those? We're hoping for a site that's a bit better than internet default.
Somehow you are okay with a group of people doing bad things as long as they call themselves 'government' but you are not okay when a group doesn't get to call themselves so. What a weird moral position to take.
Because any sane person accepts the fact that some games are zero-sum or close to it, and in these games, his interests (and, by proxy, interests of his country) are more important to them. You want your country to spy on others and at the same time stop others from spying on you.
But in consequence you accept that the US committed an act of war against Russia and the Netherlands? I would be more careful with that and if I were a citizen I would request someone in charge to take immediate consequences because the cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public. Zero-sum game, non?
Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true.
But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".
I didn't use the term war crime. I used 'act of war' which is something different to my knowledge but includes attacks on digital infrastructure as defined by the US government.
Pardon my spelling, not my native tongue, but judging from your answer it must have obfuscated the meaning of my comment.
I'm not sure what zero sum game they're playing that requires hacking Yandex, but I'd strongly prefer if my government used the expertise of the hackers for fixing the security issues that enable these hacks instead of keeping them secret for the use as weapons.
> I'd strongly prefer if my government used the expertise of the hackers for fixing the security issues that enable these hacks instead of keeping them secret for the use as weapons
How have you come to this conclusion?
The reason I'm asking is not that I hold the opposite opinion. It's that I think that this dilemma is inherently hard as there are very good arguments for both points of view and I cannot see an easy way to find any solution to it.
Espionage against a country that has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at you, and practices using them, is a very responsible thing to do, and very much sanctioned by government.
Well then by your logic, spying on US citizens by the US government is perfectly fine, since it would count at 'espionage against a country that has 10,000 nukes, used it a couple of times to incinerate a few 100ks people, and is very much sanctioned by government".
Seems the exact same reasoning to me. Especially since we're talking about US, which just revoked visas to international court prosecutor, which dared to suggest an investigation, which would look into any possible war crimes that US soldiers may have commited in Afghanistan ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47822839 ).
A country which so aggresively attacks a person that merely suggests to look into possible breakage of a law cannot have clean hands or be trustworthy.
I'm rather fond of Yandex. They have great engineers and make a solid product. Being Russian doesn't bother me, as I have nothing against the Russians. Yandex search has a fantastic image search that rival most others. And the fact that one does not have to provide a mobile number is a plus.
Their search engine is not bad too, and I use it as my primary search engine. They also helpfully provide a link to other search engines so that if you are not satisfied with their search result you can search on the other search engines with just a click. This ensures that they get crucial data (the search query) to improve their search results and also doesn't leave their user disgruntled due to non-relevant search result.
On the flip side, they are just as intrusive as Google. When I installed their browser or mail app (don't remember which one) it asked for my ios PIN / password (no ios app ever requires a PIN / password for installation - and no, I am not talking about an iCloud password which is required for app installation if you have enabled it for app installation).
100 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadwe have met the enemy: they is us.
Obviously that rings hollow... but, I wonder, what kind of security protocol do high gov officials in RU use, do they follow better security hygiene than the West?
This release coincides with G20 meetings. Intentional or happenstance?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/russia-reverts...
;)
Hearing your touch: A new acoustic side channel on smartphones (http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11137)
If I was to use a Typewriter, you could probably put a recording device inside it and work out what I was writing about that way.
Avoid Tinder
https://galactica.fandom.com/wiki/Galactica
Regarding Yandex, they have good talents there so what they say might be true.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/dmitry-medvede...
Really, it's a lot like the allowable amount of insect parts that the US Govt. Food and Drug Administration allows in food. You're shocked a bit to read it, but the truth is you've been living it (and eating it) for some time.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels for example for what I mean about "allowable amount of insect parts"
Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
That sounds like conspiracy thinking. The media isn't able to suppress the CIA's good deeds, and I don't believe they'd try. "Big alien invasion averted thanks to heroic CIA agent" is a great headline. So great in fact, that fiction books are written on that premise.
With all the minor and major leaks from the intelligence community, they're supposed to have a super tight and successful conspiracy going to hide the fact that they are actually effective? I have some doubts, both on the technical part (large conspiracies are hard) and the reasoning.
They have a demonstrable history of lies and terrorist-style anti-democratic activities themselves for political and economic purposes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Can you explain the reasoning beyond "yes"?
Information is power and the "right" information, even more so.
Note that I'm not questioning the existence of intelligence services, I'm asking you to provide basis that directly attacking companies like that is worth it. Also where's the line that makes this "dirty" business worth it?
No, the West does not claim 'moral superiority' over Russia due to any kind of ostensible 'non participation' in espionage.
There is no 'hoping they don't find out' because it's accepted that it's happening. We only 'hope they don't find out' about specific activities.
It would give US intelligence insights in to operations from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.
No you haven't. If you had then you would keep it to yourself - I do.
Russia does not need this or any other reason, they are already doing this to the extent they can. The public nature of this will provide some political cover, but that's it.
As to 'what it gets' it entirely depends on the kind of information that was obtained, the inherent risks and cost, the targets etc..
Maybe there were specific targets, a specific needs, maybe they were casting a net - who knows.
lmao
why would Russia need this reason?
Unless you want your yoghurt to cost $100 a pot, you have to accept that some insect parts will find their way into some food. The point of regulation is to ensure that the amount is minimized. If the standard was zero parts, food prices would skyrocket, many food suppliers would go out of business, and poor people wouldn't be able to eat. So the standard is some reasonable low level.
These things are always about tradeoffs and not absolutes.
Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US. To suggest otherwise is advocating moral relativism in my opinion.
I do, however, support a pardon for Snowden and Assange.
If you think you hold yourself to a higher purpose, then why not behave as such. I'm not sure what "moral relativism" even means.
"there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US" - no, that's bollocks. I'll assert that and stick to it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061936
There is no end to this "ends justify the means" crap. "Well, we're the good guys, so it's ok for us to torture, depose governments, nuke civilians, fix elections, assassinate foreign leaders, spy on our citizens..." Etc.
Given that there will always be conflict, you can choose to do nothing and be out-competed, you can act in the interest of the group to which you belong, or you can act in the interest of the other side.
It's possible to argue that these actions are not, in fact, in the interest of your group, but that has nothing to do with some facile Hollywood conception of international relations as good guys vs. bad guys.
the difference is you identify the US as 'our'.
No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things.
Unlike in some regions, where journalists are murdered, sometimes by the state.
That sure helped in Iraq's case. It's not like the press just repeated what the government told it.
A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press.
The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out.
There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world.
Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise.
Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other.
Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state.
Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced.
Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily.
You can read about Russian media here [1]
But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated?
Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA.
Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out.
Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state.
None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective.
And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this.
FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So why do you war so much yourself?
Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
There is a lot of info about crimes comitted by the CIA, but this isn't about any naughtyness competition.
But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true.
But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".
Deploying Weapons of Mass Applicability i.e. nerve agents is a "War Crime" according to Geneva conventions.
Pardon my spelling, not my native tongue, but judging from your answer it must have obfuscated the meaning of my comment.
If you're going to tell someone else to spell right, you should make sure to spell "you're" correctly yourself.
In a legal sense, may be. I don't find this important though.
> cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public
It has become public, and I'm yet to see any actual cost.
How have you come to this conclusion?
The reason I'm asking is not that I hold the opposite opinion. It's that I think that this dilemma is inherently hard as there are very good arguments for both points of view and I cannot see an easy way to find any solution to it.
I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.
Espionage against a country that has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at you, and practices using them, is a very responsible thing to do, and very much sanctioned by government.
A country which so aggresively attacks a person that merely suggests to look into possible breakage of a law cannot have clean hands or be trustworthy.
On the flip side, they are just as intrusive as Google. When I installed their browser or mail app (don't remember which one) it asked for my ios PIN / password (no ios app ever requires a PIN / password for installation - and no, I am not talking about an iCloud password which is required for app installation if you have enabled it for app installation).