Hacker News Reader

Comment by dencodev | Hacker News Reader

You're missing the other obvious answer: he got the emails from someone directly at the DNC who wouldn't need a hacker. Assange has mentioned and discuss Seth Rich multiple times with the implication that he's somehow tied to work at Wikileaks. Even if it wasn't Seth, there are a lot of people who could have given him those emails other than hackers.

View on HN

The thing is, we know the DNC was hacked. We know that Podesta was a victim of spear phishing. The timing of the attack also lines up with the release of emails. While the possibility is non-zero that an insider gave Assange the emails, it requires far too many unexplained coincidences to be believable.

Can we really imagine that only Russian spies could have sent this email? [0] There is nothing personal in it other than his name, "John". I'm not sure this even deserves the adjective "spear"... Podesta's emails are evidence of DNC rigging the primary against Bernie, but they are not evidence of Russian hacking.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-...

You seem to be confused about what this thread was discussing. The question was whether Assange received the emails from an insider or a third party. Who actually did the phising is a separate concern.

That said, considering the context of the election, Trumps close ties with Russia and Russian agents, and the broad and multifaceted attempts at hacking the election attributed to Russia (disinformation farms, hacking state election networks), it is very likely that Russia was also behind the DNC hack. These weak attempts at casting doubt on Russia's involvement are transparent.

You, directly above: We know that Podesta was a victim of spear phishing.

You, directly above that: Assange's denials about Russia's involvement aren't credible on its face.

Yeah, I'm confused. This is all beside the point. It is lawful to publish true information about candidates that is of interest to the public.

It turns out you need context to understand the meaning of words. If you keep reading, you will see the rest of that context. I wasn't saying "it is obviously false that Russia didn't hack the DNC", I was saying that "Assange cannot claim to know Russia didn't hack the DNC [unless he was involved directly]". See the difference?

As of 19:23 UTC, the poster's profile's 'About' section only lists: " "obvious troll" ".

19:23?!? Oh shit, dude, you caught me! I had so meant to change that sometime in the last three years! After all, HN people can't be expected to understand a joke in any context!

> it is very likely that Russia was also behind the DNC hack.

Actually it's an established fact. They were being watched live on their computers and security cameras as they were doing the hacking.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...

I remembered that from years ago, but couldn't remember where I saw it. Thanks.

Imaging burning a source so valuable for the sake of the U.S., only to have us elect Trump anyways and four years later pretend like its still an open question whether Russia was involved.

The data collected by AIVD began to pay off in November of 2014, when the agency alerted US intelligence officials that the Cozy Bear group had obtained login credentials and email from US State Department employees. enabling the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the State Department to shut down the attack within 24 hours.

Is there some connection between State Dept in 2014 and DNC in 2016?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com