Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvogel | Hacker News Reader

You've added something that was not in the article. The IP address was not necessarily in the GRU HQ. The IP was in Moscow. The IP allowed the agent to be identified. That might mean the IP was in the GRU HQ but not necessarily. Once the agent was identified, they knew (possibly based on other intel collection) that he works out of (has as a "home" office) the GRU HQ.

View on HN

It is in the article:

> U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow.

That seems WILDLY unprovable.

Tell me; how did The Daily Beast, an org that has Chelsea Clinton on their board, get the external IP addresses of the Russian Intellegence headquarters?

The Clinton boogie man at it again eh?

Did I post something incorrect? Do you want to explain who maintains the current and past list of external IP addresses belonging to Russian Intel?

The NSA and/or the CIA?

Please read the article properly before commenting - It helps you to stop jumping to wild, crazy conclusions

It wasn't the DailyBeast conducting the investigation, they are just reporting on it

Tracked to a specific office in their HQ... by an external IP address... lol, ok.

You are not as anonymous as you think when you are online - An IP address can easily identify a particular office in a government building

There are many, many cases where a journalist has tracked down specific wikipedia edits to a particular office or intranet in a government building all from their IP address

You can find a ton of stories with a quick google search: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-w... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/investigation-into-o...

Yep. I agree - it's pretty easy to slip up and public IPs are fairly easy to monitor.

It reminds me of this project https://github.com/edsu/anon which "lets you tweet about anonymous Wikipedia edits from particular IP address ranges"

You can see it working at Congress Edits - https://twitter.com/congressedits

>Yep. I agree - it's pretty easy to slip up and public IPs are fairly easy to monitor.

Public IPs are NOT easy to monitor correctly when A. It's supposedly Russian Intelligence HQ B. They are claiming they can identify the specific office it came from

This quote still leaves open the details on how they connected the IP to the officer or actual locale.

Ha ha. I'll go get the complete top secret NSA report and post it here, and then we can arrange a Q&A with the NSA officers to address your further questions, as there certainly will be some.

Which we should take at face value

> (How much faith to put in an anonymously sourced claim about what was in the logs of an unnamed social network is a separate question, of course.)

Parent already addressed this. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the "what if" game does not take us very far.

With any intelligence information 'what if' is most reasonable approach. It is absurd to trust anyone that has the objective to spread misinformation.

In comparison why would you trust anybody who is a professional liar on any information? Just because you have no other more reliable information does not turn the liars lie into a truth.

I like to play the "what if" game as well as the "who profits" and "what has happened historically" game...

As well as the whatabboutism game ("what about the other side pointing fingers? Who has done worse?").

I don't like thought stoppers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com