[HN Gopher] FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Acc...
___________________________________________________________________
FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email
Claims
Author : mrzool
Score : 490 points
Date : 2021-05-14 11:09 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| rickdeveloper wrote:
| Related thread from 6 days ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27086290.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm surprised she has anything valuable on Apple (or Google)
| services. She clearly has the technical expertise to operate her
| own.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Can anyone look up that case number?
| einpoklum wrote:
| Why would anyone concerned with privacy have an apple account?
|
| I would like to believe ElBakyan is wise enough not to have
| anything significant/private on such an account.
| swiley wrote:
| Why would you use Apple software/services for anything like this?
| You know it's backdoored.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| What are you going to switch to? Android?
| fsflover wrote:
| GNU/Linux phones?
| swiley wrote:
| You don't have to do everything on a phone.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| You don't have to do anything on a phone!
| kube-system wrote:
| Even if you use pen and paper it can still be subpoenaed.
| ta988 wrote:
| Harder if you don't know that the paper exists and it is
| not in US controlled territories.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sure, because at least then I can have a top-down view of my
| security, instead of having it abstracted away into corners
| where I have to trust Apple to do the right thing (see
| article above as for why we don't do _that_ ).
| rozab wrote:
| Nobody said she did. Likely there's nothing useful on there,
| it's just a way to intimidate her
| squarefoot wrote:
| > Why would you use Apple software/services for anything like
| this? You know it's backdoored.
|
| Why would anyone use closed proprietary
| software/hardware/services for anything like this? You know
| it's backdoored, or soon will be, since putting backdoors in
| software is both a profitable business for corporations, and a
| convenient cheap way to find unwanted people for governments.
| ProAm wrote:
| Good luck finding something that isn't
| nerbert wrote:
| It's a spectrum, not a black or white issue.
| supercheetah wrote:
| It sounds like she hasn't actually used it in a long time, and
| probably forgot about it.
|
| > According to the Sci-Hub founder, the Gmail account
| associated with her Apple account (and from where she received
| the email) was registered by her a "long time ago" when she
| "was at school perhaps." However, a cursory Google search
| reveals that the address is public knowledge and has been
| associated with Elbakyan for many years, so it's not beyond the
| realm of possibility that someone is having 'fun' at her
| expense.
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| > The email's authenticity (or otherwise) has indeed been
| considered by Elbakyan who says that after examining the
| metadata, has concluded that "it is too complicated and useless
| to be a spoof." Indeed, the Sci-Hub founder also posted the
| email's headers which at first blush do suggest that the email is
| genuine.
|
| Has the founder confirmed whether or not Gmail reports DKIM and
| SPF passed?
| mrzool wrote:
| Seems like both DKIM and SPF checks have passed:
|
| https://twitter.com/ringo_ring/status/1391415257881530376/ph...
| upofadown wrote:
| That would confirm that it was sent from an Apple controlled
| email server. Then you would have to confirm that Apple does
| not allow a sender to spoof the "From:" address to
| "noreply@apple.com" somehow.
|
| Stuff like this should just be sent with a regular email
| signature...
| shockeychap wrote:
| If the email is genuine, then we are officially lost. Apple has
| gone from the company that refused to break into the San
| Bernadino shooter's phone (Anyone remember the feature by Last
| Week Tonight and Tim Cook talking about writing "the software
| equivalent of cancer"?) to the company that dutifully does what
| the authorities demand when they bring down the hammer over
| copyright claims.
| pc86 wrote:
| This comment shows a gross misunderstanding of the technical
| differences between 1) basically breaking encryption for all
| iPhones on the market simultaneously, and 2) copying a file.
| shockeychap wrote:
| Only if the file contents are accessible. Why isn't end-to-
| end encryption utilized for storage of email on Apple's
| servers, the same way they do for iMessaging?
| thinkmassive wrote:
| Because 99.9999999% of emails are not encrypted before
| being sent.
| shockeychap wrote:
| True. But I'm not talking about end-to-end between sender
| and receiver. I'm just talking about using public key
| encryption to encrypt received contents with one key and
| decrypt with another. There are a lot of technical
| challenges - particularly with maintaining compatibility
| with email clients - but it can be done.
|
| The inability of MTAs to negotiate and utilize any kind
| of SSL-style encryption when relaying messages is also a
| gross travesty in the year 2021.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I read somewhere that Apple were going to encrypt backups
| but that would mean if a user lost their key the data would
| be lost and as such decided that for usability they would
| keep back ups as is.
| justinclift wrote:
| And apparently the request to Apple happened in Feb 2019.
|
| So, not a recent change?
| aeontech wrote:
| Apple has always been subject to US law, and as such, was
| always required to provide information that they do have access
| to. If it's in iCloud, most of it can be extracted by the law
| enforcement with court order.
|
| Nothing changed between now and the San Bernardino case. The
| difference was that FBI wanted Apple to compromise device
| encryption, which capability does _not_ exist now.
| shockeychap wrote:
| So why hasn't end-to-end encryption been utilized _for years_
| with the storage of email and other files, like they do with
| iMessage content?
| aeontech wrote:
| You can certainly use E2E encryption (ie, S/MIME) for your
| email, whether it's using Apple Mail or not. I'm not sure
| what you suggest Apple can do about it if you don't use
| PGP/GPG on your side though (and yes, you can use S/MIME
| for email both with iOS and macOS).
|
| How Apple CloudKit security works is documented [0] and
| what Apple can provide to the law enforcement is pretty
| easily googleable [1], and has been subject to much media
| coverage over the years. All I was saying is that this is
| not some recent change.
|
| [0]: https://support.apple.com/en-
| gb/guide/security/sec3cac31735/...
|
| [1]: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-
| guidelin...
| kube-system wrote:
| The hardest thing about a service trying to end-to-end
| encrypt an email, is that any given email service provider
| only controls one end.
| upofadown wrote:
| You only need regular client side encryption to protect
| things in the cloud. Just generate a key on the phone and
| keep it there. Probably the reason they don't do that is
| that it would make it so that a lost phone would result in
| the loss of cloud stored data. People store things in the
| cloud to prevent that sort of loss.
|
| Email when encrypted end to end in the traditional ways is
| safe on the IMAP server but also has a requirement to back
| up a key off the device to prevent loss of old emails on
| loss of device.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Email can't be secured for many reasons; use a modern,
| secure messaging app for that, such as Signal. Regarding
| encryption in particular:
|
| Encrypting email metadata prevents emails from being
| delivered and processed. Metadata is as valuable as the
| content of the email.
|
| Encrypting emails at rest prevents server-side services
| from operating, such as webmail.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| I hope she will be OK, Kazakhstan isn't safe to hide from the US
| and made deals to resettle[1][2] former gitmo inmates now under
| surveillance 24/7 (payrolled by the US). If the charges are spun
| as _working with Russian intelligence to "steal U.S. military
| secrets..."_ she will remain vulnerable.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Bin_Ali#Transfer_to_Kaza...
|
| [2]
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Lotfi+Bin+Ali+k...
| capableweb wrote:
| I hope so too. Not sure we have to worry though, the email is
| referring to a data request that happened in February 2019. If
| they would have found something they could act on, it's likely
| they would have already.
|
| This case is just the "Apple Privacy & Law Enforcement
| Compliance" team being extremely slow at sending out
| notifications.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I think she moved to Russia since then?
| janandonly wrote:
| Seriously: why would a public figure, who _knows_ she will be the
| target of the FBI, use her own name to make an Apple ID? Or didn
| 't she and did the agency use her phone number and SIM card and
| IMEI to track her to whatever device she happend to be using?
| johnisgood wrote:
| Is anyone downloading those articles and such for archival
| purposes in case it actually shuts down?
| darksaints wrote:
| Google security in the face of a LE request: We'll need you to
| get a warrant, but here's a list of friendly judges with
| extremely efficient rubber stamps. We're here to serve you!!
|
| Apple security in the face of a LE request: We'll need you to get
| a warrant.
|
| The security we actually need and LE actually deserves: We'll
| need you to get a warrant, and then you can have access to that
| specific customer's E2E encrypted shitblob. Good luck.
|
| Maybe that sort of security wouldn't be needed or deserved if our
| government was well intentioned and we had good laws and a
| functioning judicial system. But no...we have the world's top
| security agency that would rather hoard zero days than protect
| its citizens, law enforcement that will never respect
| constitutionally-protected rights, and judges that play along for
| political points and appointment nominations.
| thunkshift1 wrote:
| Why is fbi interested? Can anyone explain
| xgulfie wrote:
| The FBI's job is basically to quietly enforce the status quo
| and the interests of established powers. Look up cointelpro and
| it will make more sense.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Likely private interests. With college-running mafiosos
| breathing down their neck, I'm sure the US government has no
| trouble justifying the seizure of someone's personal
| information.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Because the main purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the
| property rights of the wealthy and well-connected. Things like
| catching murderers and rapists is a secondary concern that
| occasionally happens by accident.
| machinelearning wrote:
| Who have vested interests in stopping something like sci-hub?
| mrweasel wrote:
| I'm fairly certain that it's not the authors of the papers.
| Hiding away research behind paywalls and subscriptions is
| extremely weird and counter productive to free and open
| research.
|
| If you know that a paper exists, you can just email the authors
| and ask if they'll send you a pdf. My guess is that most will
| just send it to you, along with instructions on how to
| correctly cite them.
|
| Years ago I had a Danish university lawyer look at me weird and
| ask if I was serious, when I asked what right a public funded
| university had to sell a patent to a US company. My logic was,
| and still is, that Danish companies already paid for the
| research and the patent via their taxes, so they should be
| legally allowed to use it for free. Apparently it's crazy talk
| to assume that something paid for by the tax payers should
| actually belong to those tax payers.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| So far I have not met a researcher who held the opinion that
| sci-hub is a bad thing.
|
| Actually the way I learnt about sci-hub a few years ago was
| when I asked an acquaintance of mine whether he'd share a
| copy of a paper he co-wrote with me, what I got from him was
| a sci-hub link.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Existing journal publishers.
|
| Also the FBI are sort of infamous for going after foreign, easy
| targets in order to make their numbers. Sci hub is run by a guy
| in one of the -stans as a non profit community type org I
| believe?
| pg_bot wrote:
| It's run by a lady in Kazakhstan
| dredmorbius wrote:
| In the interests of accuracy:
|
| Yes, a woman, Kazak by birth, though AFAIK she's been
| residing in Russia of late. Her precise whereabouts are
| generally kept vague.
|
| Sources:
|
| _My name is Alexandra Elbakyan, I 'm a web developer who
| created this website. I was born in Almaty, Kazakhstan and
| I'm 32 years old. I'm a native speaker of Russian, know
| English very well, and some German and ancient languages._
|
| https://sci-hub.st/alexandra
|
| Her academic work has been at Satbayev University (in
| Almaty, Kazakhstan), internships and work in Italy and
| Germany, from 2005--2010.
|
| She returned to Kazakhstan in 2011:
|
| _I was 23 and I returned to Kazakhstan and started working
| as a freelance programmer._
|
| ... and has since done academic work in Russia.
|
| _2017 started a masters program in Linguistics * Biblical
| Languages Saint-Petersburg State University in Russia_
|
| _2019 graduated from masters program * with huge troubles
| suspected for being Russian spy by US authorities_
|
| Applied for Russian citizenship but was rejected (in 2016).
|
| See: https://sci-hub.st/alexandra#bio
|
| Elbakyan identifies as multiracial with armenian, slavic,
| and asian roots:
|
| https://nitter.cc/ringo_ring/status/700626318124134400#m
| afandian wrote:
| For-profit subscriptions publishers, to be clear. Not all
| journal publishers. An increasing number are open-access and
| have no interest in bringing down scihub (and the feeling is
| no doubt mututal!)
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| this company: https://www.linkedin.com/company/elsevier
| machinelearning wrote:
| Let me rephrase, who is trying to take this down and has
| sufficient leverage to have the FBI focused on this instead
| of the multitude of other important things they could be
| doing.
| adventured wrote:
| During the Obama Admin years Hollywood called in Joe Biden
| [1] to use the US Government's resources to pursue Kim
| Dotcom in New Zealand, to destroy Megaupload.
|
| One can probably safely assume Elsevier has powerful
| friends in DC doing their bidding, trading favors.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/kimdotcom/status/1288926291949838336
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| > and has sufficient leverage to have the FBI focused
|
| RELX is certainly big enough to do this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELX#Controversy
| ta988 wrote:
| And the American Chemical Society that has never liked open
| science unless they can make money out of it.
| SoonYoullKnow wrote:
| If you think Elbakyan is stealing secrets, wait until you find
| out how close Epstein was to the creation of COVID
| [deleted]
| dflock wrote:
| She's doing good for the world; leave her alone.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Unless US citizens regain oversight of their government, the
| only people who have any say in the matter are those throwing
| dollars. It's quite barbaric, excepting vague thrusts at
| plausible deniability.
| karxxm wrote:
| Research funded by the public should always be public domain,
| change my mind!
| ur-whale wrote:
| Your tax dollar at work
| roody15 wrote:
| Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? Seriously Sci-Hub is
| more of a public good than a serious threat to the US.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| You must be new here. The flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein's jet
| were obtained via subpoena and published in the press and not a
| single indictment was brought forth from it.
|
| Every time there's a mass shooting we hear the shooter was
| "known to the FBI".
|
| The FBI has better things to do than harass Elbakyan, but it
| won't do them.
| Sleepytime wrote:
| Considering the FBI's history of stopping terror attacks that
| they manufactured[1], I suspect many of those 'known to the
| FBI' shooters were actually working with the FBI in some
| capacity or another.
|
| [1] https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-
| plots-te...
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The FBI is a political organization and domestic spying
| machine. The US is a police state.
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| The same US that wouldn't even enforce their mask mandates
| is a police state?
|
| This is like running around and calling anything slightly
| bad a country does Nazi Germany.
|
| Nuance matters, think about the world a little more
| complexly.
| Sleepytime wrote:
| Selective enforcement of laws to political ends is a
| hallmark of a police state.
|
| Also the US has the highest prison population per capita.
|
| If it quacks like a duck...
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| > the highest prison population per capita
|
| That's true, but the more horrifying fact is that it has
| the highest prison population in absolute numbers: http:/
| /news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarc
| era...
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| And was there some great selective enforcement of the
| mask mandate to target a political group and lock them
| up?
|
| No.
|
| It wasn't enforced by the state at all.
| Sleepytime wrote:
| And yet they have no hesitation to use the entire
| national security apparatus to chase a foreign national
| around the world for publishing some scientific papers.
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| An American law enforcement agency requesting data from
| an American company is a far cry from "chasing a foreign
| national around the world".
|
| I think it's a waste of time as much as anyone else but
| Sci-hub is clearly against US law. Just because you
| disagree with the value of a law enforcement action
| doesn't mean you are living in a "police state"
| fareesh wrote:
| The FBI has shown that it will doctor emails in order to get FISA
| warrants. This fact is subverted by the narrative that one person
| was caught doing it, as if to imply that he woke up one morning
| and chose to do it all on his own.
| calibas wrote:
| I dream of a golden age where scientific knowledge is freely
| available to everyone. Unfortunately, the "people in charge" seem
| hellbent on a different path...
| londons_explore wrote:
| I assume that when the FBI sends a request to a tech company
| about a user, they probably also contact lots of other tech
| companies too about the same user...
|
| Which raises the question: Where is the Google notification about
| the FBI request... How about the Facebook notification? The VK or
| OK notification? How about the Twitter notification?
|
| Did these tech companies hand over data without notice, even
| though the orders presumably had the same gagging timeout?
| rrdharan wrote:
| > I assume that when the FBI sends a request to a tech company
| about a user, they probably also contact lots of other tech
| companies too about the same user...
|
| You assume a lot. I know it's fun to pontificate about dragnet
| surveillance, but in general when issuing / granting a warrant
| there has to be some kind of specific target and scope. In this
| case it's likely the FBI knew the Sci-Hub founder was using
| iCloud email and so they could get a warrant for that specific
| account for a specific time range.
| hassancf wrote:
| Would they take a chance and miss a juicy account at
| Google/Facebook etc? I don't think so.
|
| Therefore it's likely they issued requests but
| Google/Facebook etc were less "inclined" to talk about these
| things.
| foobiekr wrote:
| This is the correct take. When have they _ever_?
| gowld wrote:
| No, it's absolutely false.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03
| -24...
|
| > In Google's case, the company typically lets users know
| which agency is seeking their information.
| hluska wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens.
|
| 2.) It's hilarious when someone starts a reply with
| egotistical language (like "you assume a lot") and then miss
| the most important fact in a scenario.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Regarding: _The US Constitution only applies to American
| citizens._
|
| False.
|
| _In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme
| Court ruled that the term "person" under the Fifth
| Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue
| Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, "like
| all other aliens residing in the United States," are
| entitled to protection of the laws._
|
| _" There's no dispute at the absolute core," said Andrew
| Kent, a constitutional scholar at Fordham Law. "If somebody
| is picked up by police they the have same Miranda and due
| process rights in all contexts except immigration law."_
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-
| th...
| [deleted]
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Ok, then: the US constitution only applies on US soil.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Also false.
|
| https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-
| do-in...
|
| (Please try ... at least a _little_ harder, people.)
| gowld wrote:
| You're being misleadingly pedantic.
|
| This article is about people who are US citizens abroad,
| or foreigners who came to USA or who are under the
| jurisdiction (imprisonment) of territory controlled by
| the USA government.
|
| Non-resident non-citizen non-present people violating US
| national security (rightly or wrongly, that's per the
| government's judgment) don't have Constitutional rights.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Statutory or case law citation requested.
| daperor630 wrote:
| Does this case establish precedent that the fifth
| amendment applies to people in Kazakhstan?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Onus of precedent would have to be that it does _not_.
|
| If you're able to find any such, I might have further
| interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even
| that.
| gowld wrote:
| You think the US Constitution of the _United_ States* of
| _America_ restricts what the US can do to non-citizens
| who aren 't in the US at all?
|
| What possible reason could you have for that thought?
|
| Precedent is that protections like that are created by
| treaties like the Geneva Convention.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The question isn't about whether the constitution
| restricts non-citizens, but about whether it protects
| them by preserving their rights.
|
| In fact I'm not sure the constitution _restricts_ any
| entity other than the government. It's laws that restrict
| people. And laws apply to everyone, assuming jurisdiction
| can be established, or extradition will be enforced. I
| can't murder someone in Japan just because I'm a non-
| citizen there. But I could break US law by doing
| something not-illegal in Russia, and they probably
| wouldn't extradite me.
| daperor630 wrote:
| United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),
| was a United States Supreme Court decision that
| determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply
| to searches and seizures by United States agents of
| property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign
| country.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Points for a case in which a protection was held not to
| apply ... on a 5/4 decision. (Hand grenades, horse shoes,
| H-bombs, ... and SCOTUS decisions.)
|
| Which still doesn't establish that _no_ Constitutional
| rights (that is, limitations on government action) apply
| to extraterritorial noncitizens.
|
| But props all the same for a relevant citation rather
| than more smoke-blowing as others have been.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| If a country's constitution has the possibility of being
| interpreted in such a way that non-citizens outside its
| borders are entitled to zero protections, then that
| option should be rejected under a generalised version of
| what has been called "the Auschwitz rule of
| interpretation":
|
| "in case there are two plausible interpretations of the
| text of a human rights treaty, one should favour that
| interpretation under which Auschwitz would be considered
| a human rights violation."
|
| https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-
| righ...
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true for non-US citizens.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Legal requests need at least one unique identifier to make a
| request. First and last name is rarely enough; there are too
| many people with the same name and the proper response to that
| kind of request is "we can't identify a unique subscriber with
| that information". Email addresses, user IDs, phone numbers,
| profile urls, screen names, etc. are the kinds of unique
| identifiers for specific service providers. Not every online
| service records phone number or email address though, so
| identifiers are generally chosen specifically for each service
| when making a legal request.
|
| https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ if you pick the drop-
| down for Account shows about a 60% success rate; in the other
| 40% of cases there's nothing to alert a user about because no
| data was produced, for a few possible reasons. The legal team
| comes up with a review process for requests and how to respond
| to each kind under different circumstances. Presumably Google
| and Facebook have similar transparency reports.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| They did this to Rudy Guilliani too. FBI was going into his
| iCloud for over a year. What makes it more egregious was that
| Guilliani was Trump's lawyer during the impeachment. So the
| government was both prosecuting him, and spying on his defence's
| lawyers private emails with his client. If they can do it to a
| presidents lawyer with no consequences. They can do it to anyone.
| RankingMember wrote:
| Are we sure this actually happened? The only source I'm finding
| on this is Giuliani himself.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| The government disclosed that they did this to Rudy's lawyer
| after the fact.
|
| https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-feds-got-rudy-
| iclou...
|
| Rudy made a video detailing the FBI breach of his iCloud
| account. [Starts at the 18:30 minute mark]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjaaBcmUVg
| smoldesu wrote:
| The "government" didn't make any such statement. A lawyer
| who was a longtime friend of Rudy came out and made a claim
| that was never corroborated or even acknowledged by the
| government, by the looks of it.
|
| Remember, it'll be fine in the end. The RNC's push to
| eliminate domestic encryption ensures a future where
| _everyone_ has access to Giuliani 's iCloud!
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I did not claim "government: made a statement". The
| government need not make statements when they disclose
| information to counsel, typically they don't. As per
| article, the government declined comment.
|
| If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant.
|
| Cool! By that logic, we'll stack the jury with people who
| hate him, since obviously personal relationships don't
| matter in the legal system. How do you think that case
| will turn out, Atticus Finch?
| caspper69 wrote:
| > They can do it to anyone.
|
| Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
|
| I fully expect that any American, involved in half the shit
| that drunk found his way into, would also be under double top
| secret surveillance.
|
| That's reality Jack.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| That's a very low standard you are setting for your
| democratic government. Political prosecutions and spying on
| counsel is something that the Communists and Nazis did. But
| even they tried to follow their own laws.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If Rudy Guilliani is defending the democratically elected
| president of the United States, he should be beholden to
| the interests of the people. If our government has the
| legal ability to attain this data, this is a textbook
| example of how and why to use it.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| This is mostly nonsense. The only legal duty of lawyer is
| to defend his client. No lawyer has the burden to be
| "beholden to the interests of the people" whatever double
| speak that means.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Well it's a good thing this has already been settled in a
| court of law then. No sense in arguing it online if our
| wonderful nation has already made an official ruling.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Yes, it went to full trial in the senate. Where he was
| ultimately not found guilty. The legal process played
| out.
|
| But not before the prosecuting team was found to have
| been doctoring evidence against him. By adding a blue
| checkmark to tweets, they were then using to try and
| convict him. Its what happens when people try to use the
| ends justifies the means thinking.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Not really sure what you're prattling on about, I haven't
| used Twitter in the better half of a decade. Either way,
| Giuliani is the dude who tried jerking off in the Borat
| movie. You're going to have a hard time convincing
| America that he's some sort of bastion of innocence, and
| that we should really care about how poorly the system is
| treating an old white man defending another old white
| man. There are bigger metaphorical fish to fry here.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I posted to corroborate that FBI is able to access iCloud
| accounts, with what appears to me, minimal legal
| oversight. Not really trying to convince anyone. But even
| the best arguments only fall on reasonable people's ears.
|
| That would be a heavy burden to try convince someone that
| gets their world view from Borat, based on a staged scene
| in a fictional movie. You are right.
|
| On a side note, tricking people to laugh at them, and to
| make money from their moment of ambush, and racial
| stereotypes is gross on many levels.
|
| Instead of viewing people as only representatives of some
| ethnic group like "white man". Try treating them as
| individuals. People very more inside an ethnic group
| anyway. Perhaps your scorn should be directed towards
| tall people, or short people, the intersectional list is
| endless.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Buddy, you're the person who's comment history is full of
| begging people to investigate hallucinative realities and
| conspiracy theories. Maybe you'd be better received on
| Facebook, or perhaps a place like Tik-Tok where they
| respect hysteria.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| The Universe being a holographic projection is a legit
| theory! Do you throw in the kitchen sink into every
| argument? To actually go through my comment history to
| find something to "win" is kind of a low move. So I'm
| done.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Excuse me for being curious, I simply _had_ to see what
| other words of wisdom you were sharing around here.
| [deleted]
| londons_explore wrote:
| I am disappointed Apple didn't attach a copy of the data sent to
| the FBI to the email.
|
| Since it's all Elbakyan's data, there shouldn't be any privacy
| reason not to attach it.
| mc32 wrote:
| Oh boy, that ever useful boogeyman
|
| >"In December 2019, the Washington Post reported that Elbakyan
| was being investigated by the US Justice Department on suspicion
| that she "may" be working with Russian intelligence to "steal
| U.S. military secrets..."
|
| When you start trotting that out, you know it's a witch-hunt
| because if they had real reasons they'd have stated them, since
| they don't they offer vague insinuations couched with ten ton
| weasel words like _may_ and _suspicion_...
|
| But now they "have cause" and that's all they need to go to town
| on her.
|
| And whatever happened to Apple who refused to work with FBI on
| the San Bernardino _shooter_ but here is only happy to comply in
| a much less interesting case?
| p_j_w wrote:
| >weasel words like may and suspicion
|
| On the other hand, do we want law enforcement to NOT use words
| like this, as though everyone they suspect of committing a
| crime is definitely guilty? I personally think it's preferable
| that they keep those "weasel words" in there until the whole
| "due process" thing has run it's course.
| temp8964 wrote:
| If the FBI can use the Russia thing on a presidential
| candidate, they can use it on anybody.
| mc32 wrote:
| The sad thing about this is I understand many people disliked
| Trump and were pleased by this, but, unfortunately that sword
| is double edged and all candidates have to dance to their
| tune, meaning they have to let them go beyond their purview
| or mission and maintain inertial agendas --which should not
| be the case. They are supposed to look at interstate crime
| among some other things.
| tored wrote:
| Yes, remember that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
| also got smeared with Russian interference, so it is not
| something only used on Trump or Trump supporters. In my
| country, Sweden, alleging connections to Russia or Putin is
| often used in the political discourse to silence
| individuals or groups, without any sort of proof. It has
| happened both on the right and the left.
|
| We have to remember that many journalists in the west are
| funded by the security apparatus or any of it subsidiaries.
| mint2 wrote:
| Fox News and conservatives supporting sources smeared
| sanders that way. Part of it was likely to muddy the
| waters since Trump had an actual Russia thing, and part
| was to play up the gops age old boogie man, socialism.
| tored wrote:
| What Russia thing would that be?
| merpnderp wrote:
| That smear against Bernie was pretty easy when there are
| like a dozen videos of Bernie praising communism, being
| sad that Reagan was so popular in Russia in the 80's,
| thinking Castro was a really great guy, or generally
| publicly sucking up to the USSR or USSR clients.
| tored wrote:
| Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is _not_ the same
| entity as the Russian Federation, two totally different
| political entities with not that much in common (except
| maybe KGB /FSB).
|
| Usually socialist in the west, that supported the USSR,
| are anti-Russia today because the perceive Russia as
| nationalistic and conservative. It is okay to criticize
| Sanders past political praise of USSR, but mixing that up
| with Russia today is just nonsense.
| gowld wrote:
| USSR was a Communist expansionist, militaristic
| authoritarian tyranny. Russian Federation is a oligopoly
| market-based, expansionist, militaristic authoritarian
| tyranny composed of largely the same people.
|
| The current President of Russia (and now dictator for
| life) dislikes communism because it was an economic
| failure that didn't sustain his dictatorship.
| tored wrote:
| Soviet republics are gone, they are independent from the
| Soviet empire. Warsaw Pact does not exist, most of the
| old membership countries are part of EU now. All that
| military power is mostly gone.
|
| Soviet was expansionist to spread communism around the
| world.
|
| Russia interfere in countries that has a large Russian
| minority, like Crimea or Georgia. Not really the same as
| how the Soviet Union worked.
|
| Russians can now travel freely. Orthodox Church is no
| longer forbidden.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Did FBI investigate Bernie Sanders and his associates?
| tored wrote:
| Not officially to my knowledge, so it is not exactly the
| same, but he was briefed by the "intelligence community"
| about it and that was used to smear his campaign.
| mc32 wrote:
| The accusation stuck enough that nothing further had to
| be put forth.
| teclordphrack2 wrote:
| Na, cause Bernies team did not speak with the russians
| unlike trumps team whom spoke with, meet with, and gave
| information to the russians.
| tored wrote:
| What information to whom?
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| Treasury: Manafort associate passed 'sensitive' campaign
| data to Russian intelligence [1]
|
| The government finally connects the line from Trump's
| campaign to Russian intelligence [2]
|
| [1] https://thehill.com/policy/national-
| security/548447-treasury...
|
| [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/15/go
| vernmen...
| tored wrote:
| Thanks. Manafort seems to be a dirty player and I
| wouldn't be surprised if he was involved in some shady
| businesses with people you shouldn't associate with,
| however that report is based on one line taken from a
| press release from the Treasure Department providing zero
| evidence for that claim. I will keep my skepticism on
| until more evidence is shown.
|
| Aaron Mate and Glenn Greenwald discusses this on the
| Grayzone
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXcjwX-JGA&t=853s
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| Interesting that you comment on the part from the
| Treasury Department, and not the WP piece. The latter
| references the Senate committee, stating that Kilimnik
| received highly sensitive campaign data and designated
| him as a Russian agent. If anything needs skepticism its
| people like Mate and Greenwald.
| tored wrote:
| What type of information was shared from the Trump
| campaign? Polling data and strategy to beat Hillary
| Clinton. Gates has testified that the polling data was
| non-sensitive and also dated. I think the only real
| significant claim the Senate report does is when says the
| DNC leaks of 2016 was done by GRU and then sent to
| WikiLeaks and report says "Kilimnik _may_ have been
| connected to the GRU 's hack and leak operation targeting
| the 2016 U.S. election", but that proof builds on
| speculation based redacted material in the Senate report.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| > I think
|
| What you think is irrelevant, US intelligence classifies
| the data as sensitive. The fact is that Manafort lied
| about sharing the data with Kilimnik, that Barr tried to
| keep it a secret.
|
| But lets see what the Senate report actually says:
|
| "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the
| Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence
| services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S.
| electoral process[,] and _Trump and his associates '
| participation in and enabling of this Russian activity_,
| represents one of the single most grave
| counterintelligence threats to American national security
| in the modem era."
|
| _Trump and his associates ' participation in and
| enabling of this Russian activity_
| tored wrote:
| > US intelligence classifies the data as sensitive.
|
| Where can I read about that classification for this
| polling data?
|
| That part of the report your are quoting is from the
| addendum of the senators Heinrich, Feinstein, Wyden,
| Harris and Bennet, all five are members of the Democratic
| party, so it is not what the report concludes, it just
| their viewpoints. Nice try.
|
| What the report does concludes is
|
| "The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the
| Campaign and proximity to Trump created _opportunities_
| for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence
| over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump
| Campaign. The Committee _assesses_ that Kilimnik _likely_
| served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence
| services, and that those services _likely_ sought to
| exploit Manafort 's access to gain insight info the
| Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access
| and willingness to share information with individuals
| closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence
| services, particularly Kilimnik, _represented_ a grave
| counterintelligence threat. "
|
| _Likely_ is something you use when you don 't have hard
| evidence.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| > Where can I read about that classification for this
| polling data?
|
| I see that you get your talking points from Mate. But the
| fact that he or you don't have access to classified info
| doesn't mean you get to decide that the data is not
| sensitive. Manafort lied about it and both he and
| Kilimnik tried to tamper witnesses, that's not something
| one does over top-level polling data.
|
| That fact that Mueller didn't get enough hard evidence to
| secure a conviction doesn't mean that there is no
| evidence. Clinging to 'Russia hoax' doesn't do justice to
| the amount of circumstantial evidence there is. Lawfare
| [1] did a much more honest attempt at discussing the
| report then Mate/Greenwald will ever do.
|
| [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-
| what-did...
| tehwebguy wrote:
| A benefit of having committed innumerable crimes is that
| talking heads, politicians and anonymous accounts
| everywhere can defend you by simply picking one and
| fighting about it endlessly, as if in a vacuum, and keep
| moving the goalposts while they do.
| [deleted]
| mint2 wrote:
| Let's be real. There was a trump Russia thing. It's beyond
| sketchy to have your campaign manager and his aid literally
| provide internal polling data to Russian intelligence. And
| Russia was undeniably trying to help trump win, and trump was
| undeniably pleased that was happening. I don't get why people
| deny this happened.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| There was a lot of Russian collusion going into 2016, just
| not from the people you expect it.
|
| For example, Fusion GPS paying Veselnitskaya, using her to
| lobby _against_ the magnitsky act, and also supplying the
| infamous "dossier" which was paid for by the DNC.
|
| The whole thing is a cobweb or power players who use
| connections and ignorant US media to parrot back
| narratives, divide events into political tribes, and
| isolate people from the truth. It's a dumpster fire where
| people end up believing things that are untrue and they
| don't even know why.
|
| https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-mueller-
| and...
| the_optimist wrote:
| If you look at source documents, the "provided material"
| was polling data of the kind one could find on the news.
|
| Thus, this is the thinnest conceivable gruel for spying on
| a campaign with FISA warrants, framing an incoming national
| security advisor, multiple impeachment efforts, four years
| of media hysteria deeply interned with leaks and special
| council, and countless lives ruined. In the course of
| history, there are simply no excuses for this kind of
| casual slander, excepting smack dab in the middle of an
| outrageously powerful police-bureaucratic state.
| tored wrote:
| Can you provide a source on that claim of polling data to
| Russian intelligence?
| tw04 wrote:
| His own lawyers admitted to it in documents they tried
| (and failed) to redact:
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-
| department/manafort...
|
| Because apparently we're going to pretend that NBCnews is
| somehow not a reputable news source, the link to the
| actual document so we can stop trying to change the
| subject:
|
| https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafo
| rt-...
|
| Page 6, copy and paste the blacked out text:
|
| >The same is true with regard to the Government's
| allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling
| data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential
| campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6). The simple fact that Mr.
| Manafort could not recall, or incorrectly recalled,
| specific events from his past dealings with Mr. Kilimnik
| - but often (after being shown or told about relevant
| documents or other evidence) corrected himself or
| clarified his responses - does not support a
| determination that he intentionally lied.
| the_optimist wrote:
| This page is loaded with repeated headline statements but
| no substance. A collaborator to many of the NBC stories
| on the page you've provided is Ken Dilanian, a reported
| fired from the LA Times for his "collaborative
| relationship with the CIA." I surmise this is consistent
| with the rest of the entire episode from LeavesTea
| onward.
| tw04 wrote:
| I'm not sure I follow your point, nothing you've stated
| contradicts the fact that his own lawyers admitted to him
| supplying Russians with polling data. You can't refute
| the facts so refute the site to try to distract the
| discussion? It is LITERALLY in the redacted court
| documents:
|
| https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafo
| rt-...
|
| If you have an issue with that site you can go to
| literally dozens of others, how about the BBC?
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46804127
| tored wrote:
| What do you think the punishment should be for giving
| mostly outdated, partially public and top line polling
| data (Trump 50% vs Clinton 48%) to Russians (as in
| citizens)?
| tw04 wrote:
| I would need you to go back and edit your posts
| insinuating there was no proof before I have any interest
| in continuing the conversation. I get the impression
| you're more interested in trolling than having a
| conversation based in facts.
| tored wrote:
| Please point me to when I said there was no proof for
| Manafort giving Kilimnik polling data. (I didn't, what I
| was skeptic about was that Manafort gave Russian
| Intelligence sensitive campaign data and that there was
| connection from the Trump campaign to Russian
| Intelligence).
|
| Now, please answer my question.
| the_optimist wrote:
| My point is exactly this: this has been puffed to sound
| nefarious. It is a zero.
|
| Fuzzy thinking around it was and is being used to excuse
| extraordinary abuse of the law and legal system.
|
| To be illegal, information sharing has to violate some
| law. This does not. It is simply not illegal to share
| information with Russia citizens, the Russian government,
| or anyone affiliated with Russia.
|
| Not even "secret" information, unless that information is
| governed under very specific laws. All this media puffery
| is absolute manipulation, and your distributing it shows
| that you either don't understand the law or don't wish
| to.
| tw04 wrote:
| >To be illegal, information sharing has to violate some
| law. This does not. It is simply not illegal to share
| information with Russia citizens, the Russian government,
| or anyone affiliated with Russia.
|
| I can't tell if you're intentionally stating falsehoods
| with the hope nobody will fact check you, or if you're
| just completely ignorant of the law. He was accused and
| convicted of acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Is
| it absolutely, unquestionably illegal to be a political
| operative for a foreign government and not register. For
| good reason. He broke the law, he went to prison. It was
| entirely illegal.
|
| And NONE of that has anything to do with the original
| question or answer. Which is: what proof is there that he
| gave polling data to the Russians. Which I provided, and
| you still haven't refuted.
| the_optimist wrote:
| This is a non-argument. I do not dispute that he did or
| not.
|
| I assert strongly that no one on earth should care in the
| slightest.
| [deleted]
| nawgz wrote:
| I googled "polling data to Russian intelligence"
|
| https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-
| russia...
| tored wrote:
| Thanks. Answered this here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995
| spankyspangler wrote:
| Not just a presidential candidate, but a president.
|
| Did you know that after all those years of investigations,
| all those years of the house intelligence committee chairman
| and others insisting that there was "ample evidence" that
| Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election... in the end,
| The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found
| to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever
| working with Russians to interfere with the election?
|
| I found that really crazy when I found that out. What's even
| crazier is that everyone just quietly kind of stopped talking
| about it. Nobody wants to confront the fact they were badly
| manipulated, deluded, and lied to. Or they're comfortable
| with their own reality in which their enemies are the
| ultimate evil and their side is pure and good.
|
| That's why these things will never be fixed.
| temp8964 wrote:
| But the Mueller team was good at covering their own ass.
|
| At Least 27 Phones from Special Counsel's Office Were Wiped
| before DOJ Inspector General Could Review Them
| https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-
| counsel-21293...
| [deleted]
| teclordphrack2 wrote:
| And? Standard IT practice.
| gowld wrote:
| No, it's not standard IT practice for dozens of people
| (>10% of the team?) to suddenly spam incorrect passwords
| into their phones at approximately the same time.
| [deleted]
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| Trumps campaign manager Manafort worked for some shady
| ukrain/russian oligarchs. Trumps future NSA worked for the
| turks the whole campaign. Trumps son arranged a meeting
| between the campaign and representatives of the criminal
| russian influence campaign.
|
| It really seems like they were not able to establish an
| effective cooperation but would you not want the FBI to
| investigate such cicumstances?
| runjake wrote:
| The fact that multiple people very close to Trump
| (Manafort, Stone, Gates, Flynn), both personally and
| operational, met with Russian intelligence agents and
| assets helps the argument that the DOJ should be looking
| into Trump himself.
| mc32 wrote:
| Hmm, should they likewise look into J Kerry meeting with
| foreign diplomats whilst not being in the then current
| administration too?
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| Only if he pretended to represent the US administration.
| Did he do that?
|
| Otherwise it's just a private citizen meeting with
| foreign diplomats, which happens all the time and there's
| nothing nefarious about that.
| mc32 wrote:
| Things like these: https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-
| foreign-minister-says-joh...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-
| pompeo/pompeo-sl...
|
| Maybe it's all politicking, but then if it's good for the
| goose it's good for the gander.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| The NY Post isn't a credible source, sorry.
|
| If Pompeo had evidence of Kerry having illegal talks, he
| had the opportunity to provide this evidence to the FBI,
| seeing as he was part of the administration at the time.
| Instead he chose to 'slam' Kerry during a news
| conference.
|
| But still no answer to the question if Kerry pretended to
| represent the US government, which would have been
| illegal.
| runjake wrote:
| Sure, if it is warranted. I am not partisan. I presume
| you do not mean while he was acting SecState.
| delecti wrote:
| Knowing nothing about that situation except how you've
| just described it, of course.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| >the DOJ should be looking into Trump himself.
|
| Anyone still trying to stir up this nonsense partisan
| battle is just distracting from the recent major world
| events.
| sk1459 wrote:
| Contextualizing events with the knowledge that the FBI
| has shown itself to be a modern NKVD and the
| "intelligentsia" in journalism are happy to be
| mouthpieces of the US oligarchy actually saves you a lot
| of confusion.
|
| Being lost in the moment of a blizzard of "crises" that
| really aren't is intellectually paralyzing. Probably
| intentionally so.
| knightofmars wrote:
| The phrase "Russian collusion" has become a catch-all for
| anything involving Russian influence, it's ridiculous and
| it over simplifies reality.
|
| The basis for the (actual) Russian collusion investigation
| had a reasonable starting point. Joseph Mifsud[0], the guy
| that nobody can find right now. It was absolutely worth
| investigating and it's disappointing that it became the
| dog-and-pony show it did.
|
| And Russia interfering with foreign elections is real[1].
| There are plenty of other sources as well that cover the
| ongoing efforts by GRU and other Russian groups to
| influence the election process in many countries.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud [1]https://w
| ww.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html...
| spankyspangler wrote:
| No I don't think it did have a reasonable starting point
| at all. Extra-ordinary claims require extra ordinary
| evidence, and as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's
| report), there _never_ was any evidence for it. I 'm not
| talking about vague suggestions of Russian interference,
| I'm talking about the conspiracy theory that Trump or his
| campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise
| subvert) the election.
|
| It never should have got past a few low level
| intelligence lackeys. The fact you had the chairman of
| the house intelligence committee as well as countless
| other powerful politicians, "trusted" journalists, ex-
| intelligence agency heads, etc. all insisting for years
| that there was "ample evidence" for it, is just utterly
| insane in my view. It was obviously just pure lies and
| dishonesty for political advantage.
| tylerhou wrote:
| > as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's report),
| there never was any evidence for it.
|
| Can you actually quote the report to support your claims?
| The report actually says that there was evidence to
| support communication/collusion between the Trump
| campaign & Russian officials, but not enough evidence
| [that we know of] to support criminal charges.
|
| This is for two reasons: 1) The "dirt" given at the Trump
| tower meeting was not valuable enough to prosecute under
| campaign finance laws. 2) The individuals present at the
| meeting did not know that their conduct was illegal, so
| they could not be charged under the law.
|
| So really, Mueller's report said that there was not
| enough evidence to meet a criminal prosecution, but there
| was evidence. That's a very different claim than "no
| evidence."
|
| It's also not possible to prove a negative ("there was
| never evidence"), and given the numerous cases of
| obstruction, it is possible that the evidence needed to
| support criminal charges was covered up.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politic
| s/t...
| the_optimist wrote:
| There was no evidence that would support a criminal
| prosecution. You say it yourself. What exactly are you
| trying to rebut here?
| tylerhou wrote:
| The original poster said:
|
| > in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no
| evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his
| associates or campaign ever working with Russians to
| interfere with the election?
|
| and
|
| > there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy
| theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to
| hack (or otherwise subvert) the election
|
| These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many
| instances where the Trump campaign directly worked with
| Russian officials in order to "get dirt on" Clinton or
| provided demographic information to Russian officials
| that helped those officials run (illegal)
| advertising/marketing campaigns for Trump. Just none of
| them were prosecutable based on the available evidence,
| according to Mueller.
| the_optimist wrote:
| You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller
| report and found there no statements consistent with
| yours.
|
| Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and
| dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided,
| which is legally meaningless.
| tylerhou wrote:
| My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased,
| so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These
| statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for
| yourself.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/downloa
| d.
|
| > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an
| email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-
| client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate
| developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr.
| that the "Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to
| provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents
| and information that would incriminate Hillary and her
| dealings with Russia" as "part of Russia and its
| government's support for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr.
| immediately responded that "if it's what you say I love
| it," and arranged the meeting through a series of emails
| and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June
| 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.")
|
| They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't
| even my interpretation, which you would know if you had
| actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up
| the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason
| why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not
| have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because
| the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict
| doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a
| political opponent from an agent of a foreign government.
|
| > On the facts here, the government would unlikely be
| able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9
| meeting participants had general knowledge that their
| conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed
| evidence that the participants in the meeting were
| familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the
| application of federal law to the relevant factual
| context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.)
|
| > The Office would also encounter difficulty proving
| beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised
| documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold
| for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000
| threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)
| the_optimist wrote:
| You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior
| must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior
| is specified by law. Actions which are not prosecutable
| under the law are very specifically what you say they are
| not: legally meaningless.
|
| > "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or
| his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to
| interfere with the election"
|
| Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who
| would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal
| obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a
| legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they
| tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations,
| so desperate were they to find a crime.
| tylerhou wrote:
| > Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are
| very specifically what you say they are not: legally
| meaningless.
|
| Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an
| individual are illegal only if the government can
| successfully prosecute that individual for their action?
| Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to
| prosecute an action are separate concepts.
|
| > It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under
| campaign FINANCE violations
|
| This very obviously falls under campaign finance
| regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from
| accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and
| opposition research on a political opponent is also
| clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people
| to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a
| political opponent also obviously falls under something
| that would be revealed by opposition research.
|
| > Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who
| would be "interfering?"
|
| The Russians would be interfering in our elections
| through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing
| things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump
| campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals
| (through accepting information or giving the Russians
| demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really
| quite simple to understand.
| the_optimist wrote:
| "Are you really trying to suggest..." No, I am directly
| stating this: Actions which are not illegal should not be
| prosecuted. This, and every other single aspect of
| Russia-mania were grotesque attempts to divine
| illegality. I know you'll disagree from your insistence,
| but we can agree to disagree.
|
| I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to
| your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like
| the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask
| those very questions.
|
| In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US
| government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected
| influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb
| through their documentation for a crime, in full public
| political and media theatre.
|
| Would that it happened to you, you might object.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| > Mueller found many instances where the Trump campaign
| directly worked with Russian officials in order to "get
| dirt on" Clinton
|
| So did Clinton. The Steele dossier had information from
| Russian officials and other Russians. Steele himself
| isn't an American either.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| > there was "ample evidence" for it
|
| Funny you don't mention the Senate committee (led by
| Republicans) which found the same evidence.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Also convicted spy
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina
| temp8964 wrote:
| There is nothing new about Russia interfering with
| foreign elections. What is new is that a presidential
| candidate can be accused of colluding with Russia. You
| can't just go back to say "Russian collusion" means
| something else, when in fact the mainstream media and the
| Democrat Party members at the time was claiming Trump
| colluded with Putin.
| teclordphrack2 wrote:
| There was collusion. Manafort gave polling data to the
| russians.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| So did the media. Are wr going to arrest any news
| commentator who was viewed by a Russian?
| wavefunction wrote:
| Throwaway account because you're not proud to take credit
| for what you're claiming? Don't worry, I didn't downvote
| you, other than with this post.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Thanks. I feel I said lots of stupid things in the past,
| so I created a long-term throwaway account.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| It's also new for a presidential candidate to literally
| ask for their assistance on live TV.
| the_optimist wrote:
| The deep-state circus that followed was clearly rooted in
| this. Don't make them mad.
| twic wrote:
| It's not just that - some people will still, today, insist
| that Trump was working with Russia. When you point out that
| investigations found nothing, they point to some random
| minor finding as if that vindicates them. It's genuinely
| concerning.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| The Mueller investigation didn't find hard proof that
| Trump et al. conspired with Russia because there was
| plenty of perjury and obstruction. When a investigation
| is limited by politics and vague policies, you can't
| blame the investigator. Mueller declared in his public
| hearing that he would have indicted Trump, if he wasn't
| president.
|
| The fact that the Senate committee (led by the
| Republicans) also found plenty of connections between the
| Russia government and the Trump campaign says enough.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| >Mueller declared in his public hearing that he would
| have indicted Trump, if he wasn't president.
|
| Is that true though? He didn't present any evidence of a
| crime. Congress could have impeached Trump successfully
| with some hard evidence, so was Muller protecting Trump
| by only insinuating there was evidence but not presenting
| any? I don't think vague connections "says enough". If
| the president really was conspiring with Russia I would
| want the FBI to present its findings instead of giving
| more vague insinuation.
| gebruikersnaam wrote:
| "Mueller: A president can be charged with obstruction of
| justice after leaving office" [1]
|
| Statements that Congress could have impeached Trump can
| only be viewed as stated in bad faith. Congress did
| impeach Trump, but for political reasons the Senate
| refused to remove him.
|
| [1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/2
| 4/rober...
| anoonmoose wrote:
| I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned "If it is what you
| say it is, I love it", which they admitted was a true
| thing written in email and meant what it obviously meant,
| completely justified the entire Mueller investigation.
| pessimizer wrote:
| People will still insist that Saddam Hussain did 9/11.
| penultimatename wrote:
| I find it more odd that people hand-wave a political
| campaign meeting with a foreign government for political
| dirt on an opponent. That is truly genuinely concerning.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| You mean like how the Clinton campaign paid a foreign
| intelligence broker in the UK to dig up dirt about her
| opponent?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
|
| I find that "truly genuinely concerning" and totally
| expected given who the Clintons are. Trump has so much
| dirty on him but this isnt it.
|
| Feigning outrage over one if these corrupt politicians
| but not the other is purely political partisanship and
| not productive.
| penultimatename wrote:
| I think your failure to acknowledge the difference
| between a private company paid for services and a foreign
| government offering their services for free says who is
| the partisan one here.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| The Clintons and Trump (and the Bidens and the Kushners)
| are corrupt. Saying one is more corrupt as a defense of
| another is just playing into the idea that you have to
| support one of them. You don't.
|
| Edit: going around flagging my comments with your main
| account doesnt make you right.
| tootie wrote:
| This is a very weasely statement. The FBI and multiple other
| agencies investigated a very real campaign of election
| influence that swirled around a particular candidate. No one
| ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. There
| was no concerted effort to punish a candidate. Proxies to the
| candidate were tried and convicted for their very real
| crimes.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Your statement is simply false. There were four years of
| allegations and strong innuendo floated in congress and the
| press, as well as extraordinary use of carefully worded
| statements to sustain extralegal focus with zero evidence
| of behavior that would violate an actual law. No one was
| charged with or found guilty of anything other than
| conjured process crimes. History will not forgive, and it
| will not forget.
| temp8964 wrote:
| "No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by
| facts. " Wow.
| laggyluke wrote:
| > And whatever happened to Apple who refused to work with FBI
| on the San Bernardino shooter but here is only happy to comply
| in a much less interesting case?
|
| Nothing. It's just a matter of technical means. They had no
| means of unlocking that phone without potentially compromising
| all the rest of the phones they've made before that point. But
| Apple account / emails are "in the cloud", so Apple has full
| access to it.
| mtgx wrote:
| > But Apple account / emails are "in the cloud", so Apple has
| full access to it.
|
| PSA: So are your iCloud backed-up "e2e encrypted iMessages".
| shockeychap wrote:
| Apple has always bragged about iMessage content being end-to-
| end encrypted, and thus inaccessible even to Apple. Why
| aren't they doing the same with email and other files, like
| other providers? (ProtonMail, to name one example)
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| If you do end to end encryption, you can't persist the
| mails. So when you logout or clear cache or change browser
| or email client your past mails will be lost, which
| drastically reduces the purpose of mail as a long term
| thing.
| ognarb wrote:
| You can persist end to end encrypted mails on the server
| just fine. The important thing is that the keys for
| encrypting/decrypting the mails are not stored on the
| server too.
| bumbledraven wrote:
| modeless wrote here in Feb, 2021
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25778758) :
|
| > It's also important to realize that the backup includes
| your encrypted iMessage messages, and the key required to
| decrypt them. Meaning that if you have backups enabled, all
| the "end-to-end" encryption in iMessage is defeated. Apple
| and by extension the FBI can read your messages. This is
| documented by Apple here: https://support.apple.com/en-
| us/HT202303
|
| > Even if you disable backups, whenever you correspond with
| someone that has backups enabled those messages are still
| accessible to Apple.
| ndeast wrote:
| I have long since switched to only doing local encrypted
| backups, but for some reason it never clicked that of
| course all of my messages are included in other people's
| backups. Frustrating that its E2E with a bunch of
| caveats.
| oneplane wrote:
| It's also how data collection still works if you
| personally 'block' it but communicate with others who
| don't.
|
| Your messages, phone book, pictures you share with others
| etc. are still 'readable' on the remote end and thus
| still get collected. And if you connect the dots when you
| have a large collections your personal data can be
| reconstructed from that.
|
| If you have persons A, B, C and D in your phone book, but
| your phone book is 'secret', it doesn't prevent someone
| from knowing that you know A to D if those still have you
| listed.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| E2EE only applies to data in transit, not data at rest.
| Talking via E2EE chat client means _only_ that third
| parties in between cannot read what you write. It doesn
| 't imply the messages cannot be recovered from your
| device, or your conversation partner's device, and it
| definitely does not imply said partner can't just leak
| them, whether accidentally or on purpose.
|
| I'm not sure how E2EE came to be interpreted as to mean
| "totally secure against everything".
| iudqnolq wrote:
| I think it's the colloquial meaning of "end", as in "be
| all end all". I'd think something like "full in-transit
| encryption" or even "phone to phone" would be clearer.
| [deleted]
| conradev wrote:
| [EDIT: I misread]
|
| > Even if you disable backups, whenever you correspond
| with someone that has backups enabled those messages are
| still accessible to Apple.
|
| That last bit is not true. From Apple's security PDF:
|
| > When Messages in iCloud is enabled, iMessage, Business
| Chat, text (SMS), and MMS messages are removed from the
| user's existing iCloud Backup and are instead stored in
| an end-to-end encrypted CloudKit container for Messages.
| The user's iCloud Backup retains a key to that container.
| If the user later disables iCloud Backup, that
| container's key is rolled, the new key is stored only in
| iCloud Keychain (inaccessible to Apple and any third
| parties), and new data written to the container can't be
| decrypted with the old container key.
|
| https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1902/en_US/
| app...
| solaarphunk wrote:
| It's worth noting that if you use iMessage for MacOS, all
| of your messages are stored unencrypted, in plain text,
| on your computer HD.
| ibigb wrote:
| I'd guess most macos systems (laptops) have encrypted
| hard drives.
| notafraudster wrote:
| The quoted parent says that if Adam sends a message to
| Bob, and Adam has backups off, but Bob has backups on,
| that Bob's copy of the message Adam sent is accessible to
| authorities.
| mprovost wrote:
| Bob is one end of end-to-end.
| conradev wrote:
| I see! I misread
| esolyt wrote:
| > Apple has always bragged about iMessage content being
| end-to-end encrypted, and thus inaccessible even to Apple.
|
| Majority of iPhone users have backup enabled so Apple can
| certainly access most iMessages.
| gok wrote:
| It is technically impossible to end-to-end encrypt email.
| upofadown wrote:
| People routinely do end to end encryption with email
| every day using either OpenPGP or S/MIME. Heck, email
| encryption is where the term "end to end encryption" came
| from. When someone claims E2EE for some other sort of
| messaging system they have to at least be as good at it
| as the email case to be taken seriously.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > People routinely do end to end encryption with email
| every day using either OpenPGP or S/MIME.
|
| Those solutions encrypt only the content and not the
| headers, which are just as important. Also, encrypting
| the content prevents some webmail services from
| functioning, such as search.
|
| Email can't really be made secure.
| upofadown wrote:
| The headers are mostly protected with the TLS used for
| the connections between the server and the clients and
| other servers. Email is no worse than most things these
| days and better than many.
|
| * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:anonemail
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > Those solutions encrypt only the content and not the
| headers, which are just as important.
|
| There are implementations which encrypt the headers, for
| example Delta Chat, which says[0] in its FAQ:
|
| 'Many other e-mail headers, in particular the "Subject"
| header, are end-to-end-encryption protected, see also
| this upcoming IETF RFC.'
|
| If you mean that the sender's server and the recipient's
| server can see the recipient's and sender's
| (respectively) addresses, then I would say that this is
| equivalent to most other "end to end encrypted" messaging
| apps, which usually rely on a trusted third party to
| connect the two ends.
|
| In fact, I would argue that the situation with email is
| better, because although Alice and Bob's providers might
| know that they are communicating with each other, Carol's
| provider will have no record of this at all (and Alice
| and Bob may not know that Carol or her provider exists).
|
| The situation with email could be made even better than
| that, though, since email servers could provide a
| dedicated "switchboard" address, such that Alice sends
| her email for Bob as an encrypted inner-message of an
| email sent to Bob's server's switchboard address. That
| way Alice's server wouldn't know who the intended
| recipient was, only their server address. Similarly
| Alice's server could rewrite the headers of her outer-
| message so that Bob's server doesn't know that Alice was
| the original sender. This would effectively implement a
| type of anonymous remailer.[1]
|
| > encrypting the content prevents some webmail services
| from functioning, such as search.
|
| You've shifted the goalposts here from "email can't be
| secure" to "webmail can't be secure". In any case, I
| disagree. It is possible to implement a client-side full
| text search[2], even if it means decrypting the index for
| every search, and re-encrypting the index whenever a new
| email is added to it.
|
| [0] https://delta.chat/pt/help#how-does-delta-chat-
| protect-my-me...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer
|
| [2] https://lucaongaro.eu/blog/2019/01/30/minisearch-
| client-side...
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| PGP begs to differ.
| msbarnett wrote:
| Anyone who's worked on the PGP project would be the first
| to tell you that PGP does not and cannot encrypt the
| email's metadata (to/from, subject, timestamps, etc).
|
| All PGP does is encrypt the inner message body. All of
| the metadata that TLAs love to analyze is sent in the
| clear (at best inside a TLS connection, although the SMTP
| protocol unfortunately makes it incredibly easy for well-
| positioned network attackers to downgrade these
| connections to in the clear)
| giantrobot wrote:
| While not a silver bullet, anonymous remailers can strip
| out a lot of metadata. Mixmaster remailers can also help
| against traffic analysis.
|
| While not as popular as they once were networks of
| remailers are fairly easy to spin up.
| seppin wrote:
| The other person you are communicating with has to use
| PGP for the e-2-e to work.
| __s wrote:
| Not technically. You'd just have to apply encryption at a
| higher level
|
| Send email bodies encrypted to base64 along with a public
| key fingerprint, then receiver's client would decrypt if
| it had the private key for that fingerprint
|
| But this isn't compelling enough to get a network effect
| to topple in-browser gmail
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Base64 is an encoding, not encryption. But yes PGP or
| S/MIME encrypted email would work.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Charitably, they mean take the whole message with
| headers, encrypt it, and base64 it so you can stick it in
| a body. Probably still a bad idea.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| This could work on top of GMail, with the help of a
| browser plugin.
| input_sh wrote:
| https://mailvelope.com/en
| kodah wrote:
| Common misconception. The three letter agencies do not
| really need to know the contents of _your_ email body.
| They 're much more interested in to/from, timestamps, and
| subject. Establishing that you communicate with a person
| and then getting their emails is much easier than playing
| with your encrypted email body.
| megablast wrote:
| This is just such an obviously ridiculous statement.
| kodah wrote:
| Feel free to elaborate. This is fairly common knowledge
| if you Google parts of what makes ProtonMail (and others)
| susceptible to state actors.
| upofadown wrote:
| I think this is a common misconception of its own. The
| three letter agencies would _love_ to be able to see the
| content of messages. But the code makers have run so far
| ahead of the code breakers that this is effectively
| impossible. So they settle for only meta information and
| tell the people that are funding them that this is now
| sufficient for them to continue to do their job.
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What is this based on? How do you know their
| capabilities?
|
| Per published reports, they (and others) have exploits
| for many things, including many cryptography
| implementations.
| freshair wrote:
| Exactly right. The American government considers
| associations inferred from this "metadata" to be
| sufficient evidence to execute people via drone.
| piokoch wrote:
| I am only surprised child porn has not been found on her
| computer yet. And there is no report from some hotel room
| cleaner that he or she was raped by Elbakyan.
|
| Those "stolen" military secrets published in journals anyone
| can purchase for a few bucks does not even sounds scary.
|
| Apparently FBI got lazy these days, maybe because of all that
| Covid mess.
| fao_ wrote:
| > Apparently FBI got lazy these days, maybe because of all
| that Covid mess.
|
| The FBI has always been lazy. They sent notes to MLK stating
| he should commit suicide, after all.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Seems more malicious than lazy.
| fao_ wrote:
| You can be lazy with your malice, I think.
| Wistar wrote:
| Malazeice?
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Of course it's malicious. In context they were making a
| tongue-in-cheek joke intended to expose those that never
| heard about the MLK letter(s) to their existence.
|
| In other news, I only learned about the assassination of
| Fred Hampton quite recently. That's a fun one.
| defqon wrote:
| To save anyone a Google search:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
| sam_4675 wrote:
| I am skeptical about FBI but 1969 was over 50 years ago
| and that was under Hoover. Different FBI now. They have
| jurisdiction over copyright issues so no need for any
| international intrigue. Maybe there actually is one here.
| mc32 wrote:
| If the FBI wanted to catch spies, I bet they could find a few
| at Los Alamos labs. I'm sure there are. Besides, military
| contractors are constantly "inadvertently" sending classified
| materials to questionable third parties and get fined at most
| and no one gets prosecuted and sent to the penn.
| godzulu wrote:
| they could also visit Eric Swalwell's infested office
| njarboe wrote:
| "I bet they could find a few at Los Alamos labs".
|
| They have, but unfortunately they get innocent people and
| lock them in solitary confinement for months eventually
| resulting in $1.6 million dollar pay outs and presidential
| apologies to the accused.[1]
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I can't find anything in your link about presidential
| apologies. The judge in his case apologised:
|
| _Lee pleaded guilty to one felony count of illegal
| "retention" of "national defense information." In return,
| the government released him from jail and dropped the
| other 58 counts against him. Judge Parker apologized to
| Dr. Lee for the unfair manner in which he was treated.
| The judge also regretted being misled by the executive
| branch into ordering Dr. Lee's detention, stating that he
| was led astray by the Department of Justice, by its FBI,
| and by its United States attorney. He formally denounced
| the government for abuse of power in its prosecution of
| the case.[20][21][22] Later, President Bill Clinton
| remarked that he had been "troubled" by the way Dr. Lee
| was treated.[23][24][25][26]_
| njarboe wrote:
| Wikipedia is not a great source for truth of specific
| facts, but in the "Government investigation" section
| there is the line "President Bill Clinton issued a public
| apology to Lee over his treatment by the federal
| government during the investigation.[5] "
|
| Which references a CNN article that states: "Then-
| President Clinton issued a public apology to Lee over his
| treatment."
|
| [5] http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/22/scotus.wenholee/
|
| It would be nice to find a full quote or video of the
| apology to be more certain that it happened and it was
| not a sorry, not really sorry, apology.
| [deleted]
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Elbakyan is a woman, and sex crimes are mostly a man's thing.
|
| Of course, women can do it too but since it is less common,
| people are going to take a closer look.
|
| There is less gender bias with espionage.
| freshair wrote:
| Perhaps Elbakyan should promptly convert to Islam so she can
| claim she's being persecuted by Islamophobic investigators. I'm
| only half joking. As dumb as that may be, I think it does
| actually have some purchase in America.
| tootie wrote:
| I think it's equally naive to think that Russia doesn't have
| their mitts into a lot of shady business. You have a right to
| be skeptical but this could easily be true.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I really hope for the best for Elbakyan.
|
| Sorta related, the Darknet Diaries podcast just did an ep on the
| Pirate Bay. The ways in which US capital flexes it's interests on
| sovereign nations makes me deeply uncomfortable.
|
| https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/92/
| tiahura wrote:
| They're not really sovereign then, are they?
| rickdeveloper wrote:
| Off topic, but that podcast is amazing. Stories, guests,
| production quality, narration, music, everything. It's one of
| the only worth listening to at 1x speed. I highly recommend it.
| avh02 wrote:
| waaaaay too slow talking to be at 1x speed. I don't listen to
| podcasts that fast, but darknet diaries definitely needs a
| speed bump.
|
| I like the episodes I've listened to though (so far only 5-10
| of them)
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| Is Apple's domicile what makes this possible? or can any country
| demand to see your data?
|
| It makes me wonder about the state of the art on small countries
| becoming data havens, it seems like a natural thing to construct.
| swiley wrote:
| Apple's imports could be threatened so there's leverage.
|
| Really you shouldn't depend on the good nature of some large
| organization to protect your data. That means not using iOS
| though since it's pretty much unusable without Apple services
| (even push notifications go through them.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-14 23:01 UTC)