Hacker News Reader

Comment by bink | Hacker News Reader

This thread is mostly full of jokes, and that's cool. But more seriously I'm exactly the kind of person I suppose this is meant to appeal to. I've spent the last 2-3 decades breaking into systems. Many of these systems comprise what the US calls "critical infrastructure". That's pipelines, power generation, transmission, distribution. Air traffic control systems. Government agencies.

I'm based in the US. The problem is that the US, unlike Russia, will not simply agree to allow attacks against foreign targets so long as its suits their strategic purposes. And I suppose that's for the best. In the meantime, myself and people like me simply aren't going to risk our entire careers to retaliate. I suppose if we felt strongly enough we would've joined the NSA and done this legally. I wish Ukraine the best and hope our "official" hackers are doing their best to assist or will be unleashed soon.

View on HN

If you don't want to engage on the offensive side, there is plenty of work on the defensive side of things.

* Detect and notify the Ukrainian government about threats or upcoming attacks.

* Identify coordinated manipulative behaviour on social media.

* Last but not least contact Patreon's management to release the funds that have been donated to Ukrainian veterans (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30461038)

Feel free to add to the list, as there is going to be a lot of work in the upcoming days.

Sorry but what?

* It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days.

* Manipulative behaviour has been identified on twitter and Facebook almost every day for the last few years, and it hasn't really led to much anything. The Ukrainian government can't do anything about that, if the independent banana republics of FAANG don't decide to act, nothing is gonna change.

* Likewise for patreon. It's a private Company and thus sadly, regrettably, out of reach of public scrutiny or regulation. Thoughts and prayers are free and abundant though! Besides, what is the Ukrainian government gonna do with money right now? I bet tanks and air defense systems have long lead times these days, chip shortage and all.

Sorry for the overboarding sarkasm... I guess. But these are my points.

Edit:

Collecting downvotes for that. Not surprised, but I'm not seeing any counterpoints, really. It's okay if you just need a valve to let off your frustration, have at it, but what the parent suggested seems.... pointless, sorry to be blank. I mean, this sort of soft influence might be useful, but we ("the west") have been proving, on an ongoing basis, for multiple years now, that corporate decisions shall not and will not be questioned by our governments, that essentially an american-based platform has unbridled control over what they want to do, and that if they don't care about trolls and bots and harassment and nationalism andandand then there's not much "we" (read: the government, first of all the US government) can^Wwill do. What is the ukraininan government gonna do with more intel on russian propaganda? What's the actionable on that? Start a war with twitter?

As for the first point. Yeah... I don't see the mechanism by which any of this will slow down the physical process of soldiers marching on Kyiv. No NATO state will enter into this conflict, Putin has been pretty openly threatening with nuclear annihilation. And I would doubt that the russian soldiers will be hanging out on twitter enough to really get distracted by some well thought-through anti-propaganda measures.

> It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days.

I don’t see why this would be true. The legitimate government doesn’t have to be in kiev to coordinate the defense of the country.

But an illegitimate government can be installed fairly easily in Kiev instead.

And the legitimate government can operate in exile, ready to return if it becomes viable. Inusrgents fighting on their behalf could coordinate with them. I'm very out of my depth but it seems like this must be a common scenario, particularly when the displaced government is legitimate.

Certainly, but that is fairly pointless if the existing government still controls 90% of the country.

I think the psychological effect of losing Kiev would be much lower if they planned on that from the start too, but I guess that bird has flown.

>* It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days.

Do you know the future for 100%? If not doesn't it worth a try?

It's the same "into Kyiv in two weeks" narrative for last 8 years.

Surely you agree that the situation today is quite different than it has been in the last 8 years?

You are probably downvoted for - voluntarily or involuntarily (I cannot judge) - running the errands of the enemies of the free world by suggesting that it is hopeless while it is absolutely not.

(Why is it not hopeless? Russian forces suffer large losses and their morale is breaking, after all, what sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neigbours and relatives? Russians are already taking to the streets to protest the madness one day into this stupid war, who would have expected such bravery from the already suffering Russian people? Half of the European population is already looking for anything they can do to support Ukraine, ordinary Russians raising up or to make Putin and his closest people suffer. Pro Russian trolls who were previously tolerated since we wanted to hear all sides are now kept down. The list probably goes on.)

Every free human is now at war, and for now, for us it is information warfare.

So lets make sure the madmen get nothing for free. Don't run their errands.

The phrase "the free world" rubs me the wrong way. I'm obviously against what Russia is doing, any sane man would be. But as a middle eastern, the US to us has been 10x worse than Russia: They killed a million Iraqis, they killed Syrian civilians by bombing hospitals and schools. They overthrew a functional government in Libya, and they supported Syrian/Iraqi separatists (Kurds). They forcefully tried to build a military base in Lebanon. Not only that, but they also tortured, raped, and humiliated innocent Iraqis in Abou Gharib, without any major repercussions.

Just because the US did it, doesn't mean that Russia is justified or less wrong, both are wrong, and neither get to call out the other for humanitarian reasons.

All good points. I am ashamed for both some of the things that happened and that way too few has been held responsible.

Please forgive those of us who where tricked into it, too young to vote etc.

I'll try to do my part to prevent more of it.

Edit: as for the phrase "the free world", read it to mean "freer to those inside it" if that helps.

> Please forgive those of us who where tricked into it, too young to vote etc.

Then you blame the voters of America when their government started an illegal war based on falsehoods.

Yes, UK and US foreign policy has been, and in many places around the world, is currently, ethically, morally questionable.

As a UK citizen, of voting age for 20 years now, I'm guilty as charged. I voted for Blair before the Iraq war, but like many others protested on our streets in the build up (and I haven't voted for them since).

Doesn't make us wrong about Putin though.

I'm right there with you. I voted for Bush in 2000 based on his education platform; when it was clear the war was a major mistake that he wouldn't admit to, I tried to vote him out in 2004.

So you’re to blame for an illegal war started after 2000? Because that was the initial, implied claim.

Elections have consequences but electors sometimes need to come face to face with those who bear the consequences to remember that.

Voters aren’t responsible for war crimes unless war crimes were part of the election program. But blame yourself all you want. Your impotent guilt is not my problem.

If you think the US has been worse for the Syrians than Russia’s indiscriminate bombing of its cities, I cannot take the rest of your argument seriously.

The US overall has been worse to the Middle East overall than Russia is my argument. You knew that, of course, but you chose the vaguest claim in my argument, and ignored the rest which are also valid just to make yourself feel better. Which is fine, of course.

Reading this for a second time and sticking to what I said about being ashamed for many of the things the west did I'd also like to remind that Russia hasn't really done much at all in the middle East.

But I can remember stories from my childhood about Russians tying up Afghan fighters and driving over them with tanks to make an example, so again without defending drone strikes on weddings or Abu Ghraib or anything other spectacularly bad I

1.) think it wouldn't have been much better if it was the Russians who went in

2.) think the reason why the Russian government hasn't been involved in more badness in the middle east until recently has not been its peaceful nature but the fact that they have been cash strapped.

Looking at history, Russia seems like the lesser evil here. It makes far more sense to have security concerns over your backyard. Attacking the local mosque on the other side of the river, because a Muslim robber came by is not self-defense

Ukraine is sovereign European country, not Russian backyard.

Tell that people living in ukraine at the moment. They certainly think the same way.

Your first response is very respectful and much appreciated. As for this comment, you have a fair point. I don't doubt that if you ask Ukrainians right now, they will say that Russia is 10x worse than the USA, and they would be correct. Looking at the big picture, all current superpowers are genocidal power hungry tyrants, to various degrees.

While I think that’s true to some extend, I have the feeling that Afghanistan is regressing now, which means that it must’ve arguably been better than it was before. at least for some half of the population.

You can certainly question whether that was worth the cost.

If you want to be historically (more) accurate, you might want to go back to Churchill's decision to extend UK power to this region of the world, in an attempt to get the UK fleet to move from coal to oil power.

You could also look at some of the responses and choices made by the people/cultures native to this region over the years since then. Yes, "cultures" is plural.

I agree with your point that "the free world" seldom lives up to the values it proclaims.

The difference might be that at least it proclaims them, and good people like yourself can hold them accountable to those values.

> good people like yourself can hold them accountable

Seems to me you can't really hold the US military to account, any more (or less) than you can the US police. Maybe a win here-and-there for political PR, but overall no.

Lol, what? Remember when US Navy shot down a commercial airliner, killing some two hundred people? None of the responsible was punished for that; they got decorated instead.

I suppose then if Nazi Germany just killed Jews and other undesirables in Germany and didn't try take over Europe then we should just stand back and do nothing because otherwise millions of Germans would also die? I wonder why people here seem to consider violent dictatorships and other such governments in equal standing with democracies.

There are plenty of countries with active genocidal events going on right now. Should we invade all of them?

Well in a perfect world yes we would. However the world is not perfect, and most "white" people so to speak care more about white people than some Muslims in the Middle East or some Africans in Africa, that's just the reality of the situation. Hence why they're more interested in what goes on in European countries than in other ones.

So we go in, kill everyone doing the genocide, leave, and then another group takes power and starts doing more genocide.

Do we do it again?

In a perfect world we do that and develop a plan that allows the country to develop and hence stop the circular rot like that.

Genocide the genociders... what could go wrong

Yes but at least the US had probable cause to go into Iraq. The world was pretty much behind that decision. We were attacked, civilians were attacked directly, none of that conflict would have occurred if Iraq or neighboring countries stopped their terrorism.

The world was not 100% behind the US invasion of Iraq, or even 20%. The US had the world's support, after 9/11, to go into Afghanistan. The US was emboldened by that and attacked Iraq with very little global support, for reasons unrelated to the 9/11 attack.

What you’ve just said isn’t any different from Russian propaganda.

Uhuh, isn't any different from calling Ukraine fiction, that it basically never existed, everyone is neonazi. Annexing Crimea, East of country and then attacking under deluaion claims.

> everyone is neonazi

No, but to say that the instigators of anti-russian sentiment in Ukraine are not mostly Neo-nazi's is ignorant. These articles go back years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right...

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/136008/commentary_56.pdf

https://euromaidanpress.com/tags/azov-battalion/page/2/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40871070

I would question if you were alive at the time then because the world basically thought our evidence was bullshit to go into Iraq but we went in anyway and the evidence turned out to be bullshit.

> Yes but at least the US had probable cause to go into Iraq.

Oh my, this is disturbing. What was the probably cause? WMD's? :^/

Assad and Putin intentionally bombed hospitals in Syria

Not the US. Maybe they did some time unintentionally, but with Putin it was part of his plans.

> they supported [the] Kurds

Of course, the Kurds and the US and Iraq were fighting together against Daesh (the so called Islamic State).

You're giving the impression that you like Assad, Putin, Erdagon, possibly Daesh as well. What kind of person are you, I start wondering.

Agreed that the US has done lots of bad things in the middle east though. (Eg helping the Talibans climb to power, supporting Saddam Hussein for quite long etc)

USA unsupervised services created Daesh, and supplied most of its weapons. This was done to destabilize Assad, and of course to enrich the weapons manufacturers. The idea that Assad and Daesh were ever allies is bizarre.

> The idea that Assad and Daesh were ever allies

No one here said they were.

You're misreading.

"Seems someone likes Assad, maybe X" does not mean "Assad and X are allies".

It's possible for someone to like both Stalin and Hitler although they weren't allies (in the end).

> They overthrew a functional government in Libya

That's not really an argument in itself tho.

It is if you look at the state of Libya today. They overthrew Ghadafi for the sole reason of him being anti-Imperialist, killing and ruining the lives of millions in the process.

More or less. They overthrew Gadaffi, but the country tore itself apart.

I’m all for blaming the US where it’s warranted, but I don’t think that particular instance is it.

I'd like (or hate, actually) to see what would happen to the US if a foreign power was able to fund a terrorist militia and overthrow their government. You have too much faith in the morals of humans who don't have a strong leadership that can hold them accountable.

Obviously that's an important point, but OP's assertion has more to do with the cultural and practical history playing a role in the aftermath of a government falling. The US has been at relative peace internally for 150 years and has a relatively strong bent towards republican government. That's not something that can be quickly undone. The government "falling" in some countries is as simple as a particular leader being eliminated. In the US a leader being permanently removed from power on a regular cadence is not only normal but required. If someone came in and eliminated the current president (and his cabinet), the most likely outcome is we would just elect another. The second most likely is we would fracture into sub-nations / states, but still elect another. I don't see the scenario where we all start trying to kill one another -- there's very little difference between people across the US and most of us have family on both sides of the political spectrum / physical location.

The differences between Libya and other nations were not unknown before France and USA started destroying its government.

And yet the USA would be all pissy if some other country overthrew their government.

The difference is the voters of the U.S. punished the presidents who did those things with huge political defeats that have now made most oversea invasions and hawkishness very unpopular political positions at the moment. Russians have a much tougher road to hoe to do the same thing, but it needs to be done for the moral reasons you lay out here.

Not true, both got re-elected.

The most important part in what you wrote:

> no sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neighbors and relatives

and this is the case for all Russians even most of the ones in the army in Ukraine, right now. People do not want war. Period. For a human being to go to war, he/she needs to be heavily indoctrinated to the point of partially losing is normal references. Even today, with heavily indoctrinated armies, only a small subset of the forces are effectively shooting bullets.

War is decided by crazy leaders (and I am polite) far away from the lines.

Luckily this also favours the defending side somewhat I hope:

From listening to people who grew up with the veterans here in Norway I've learned that:

- Germans were told they came here to protect us against the British so they would - in the beginning of the war - shoot to suppress, not to kill. I guess Russian soldiers coming into Ukraine has been tricked to believe the "peace keeping" nonsense too and had a rude awakening.

- Norwegians however were already mad and shot to kill. I guess this holds true for Ukrainians too. This is natural and we've seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq etc too I think.

- German soldiers would cryingly admit to POWs already at the start of the war that they were absolutely not voluntarily there, they'd just be shot if they refused.

>German soldiers would cryingly admit to POWs already at the start of the war that they were absolutely not voluntarily there, they'd just be shot if they refused

No shit they weren't there voluntarily, no sane people want to go to their death, but those were the rules for mandatory conscription for them back then.

Even today some European countries still have mandatory conscription, and while they won't shoot you for refusal, if you don't show up for conscription, military police will come to your house and arrest you, and if you run away, an arrest warrant will be issues on your name.

So yeah, you have to do your mandatory service, even if you don't want to.

Ironically given the comment you replied to, Norway is one of them. I had military police trying to reach me the last few weeks before I moved to the UK to try to hand deliver a conscription notice as a necessary step before charging me if I again failed to show up (I'd ignored several prior notices).

I didn't leave because of that, but I did delight I telling them I was beyond their reach. Finally picked up the phone the very day I left.

My dad and uncle both served 3-4 months in prison for refusing as a matter of principle, and my intent was to do so too until we decided to move our startup at the time to London.

Of course the main reason for that conscription was the Soviet Union/Russia. It's gotten very lenient since I left in 2000, as the size of the Norwegian military has been scaled back to the point they only need a small portion of potential recruits.

In Austria and Switzerland military service is also compulsory, but not really because of defense (Austrian military is a joke if push came to shove), but because it's an vast source of free labor for the state.

Unless you decide to go full career in the military, once you're done with the month long boot camp, if there's no war, national crisis or natural disaster that will get the grunts mobilized, the rest of the 5 months of service, are spent by the recruits dicking around on the taxpayers' money, doing useless busywork around the garrison.

And there's almost no way to avoid it unless you suffer from a severe physical or mental illness making you unsuitable for service, as even after you get out of prison for refusal, you'll be drafted back in.

PS: funny that you moved from Norway to London as many Brits I've met look up to Norway as a role model, so I'm really interest in your story

> PS: funny that you moved from Norway to London as many brits I've met look up to Norway as a role model

If you're a lower earner, quality of life in Norway is much better, but if you're a higher earner, London is great. And at the time funding in Norway was tricky. But, yeah, I look on British politics with great bemusement and a some sadness - so many lost opportunities.

My grandfather on my dads side refused military and got away with prison.

My grandfather on ny mothers side served and helped hold the nazis back for a few days in his home country and maybe helped some people get away. He later had to surrender and spent a short time in a POW camp before being released.

I respect both very much but I decided to do as my dad and serve.

It absolutely felt like the right thing to do for me.

I absolutely think there are situations where the right choice is to serve and I don't have an issue with people choosing to do so.

My main objection was not with the service in itself, but with it being compulsory under threat of prison. Of course today the "compulsory" nature of it is mostly a charade - if you want out it's trivial.

I'd sit in a jail cell before I got drafted into an unjust war. Doesn't seem like a hard decision to me. Now if you're repelling aggressive invaders, that's a different story.

FWIW going abroad has so far always been voluntary for drafted soldiers in most (all?) NATO countries as long as article 5 is not invoked.

I shyed away from education / officer training because I felt the risk of being sent on peace keeping to the middle east, but 20 years later I see I could safely have done it.

I'm in the US, we remember vietnam.

"what sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neigbours and relatives?"

Apparently ethnic Russians were being killed in Ukraine (or they have been the last 8 years, but more serious shelling started on February 17, 2022) and that is why Russia invaded.

> Apparently

At least according to Putler's propaganda.

> ethnic Russians were being killed in Ukraine

Far, far more ethnic Russians were not being killed in Ukraine.

Sure, some of the instigators, perpetrators, and fellow travellers of the armed insurrection in East Ukraine are (or were) ethnic Russians, but they:

A) Are being killed for being armed insurrectionists, not for being ethnic Russians.

B) Are (or were) themselves killing ethnic Ukrainians in the course of their armed insurrection.

C) Probably themselves killed quite a few ethnically Russian members of the Ukrainian armed forces.

> (or they have been the last 8 years,

Yeah, exactly: Since they started an armed insurrection.

> but more serious shelling started on February 17, 2022)

Oh, what a convenient date.

> and that is why Russia invaded.

Putler says that is why Russia invaded.

Oh: And so do you. Coincidence?

Luckily Russia had anticipated the increased shelling months before and therefore just happened to have 180000 soldiers surrounding Ukraine before this increased shelling happened right?

Wow, I guess it's hat-eating time. Glad to see they are holding up much better than I anticipated. I mean, not surprising that I'd be way off-base, given that I know jack shit about all of this.

I'm guessing you're getting downvoted for aggresive tone.

But you are right that social media networks are strong enablers of evil and helpers to enemies of freedom and democracy. Facebook and Twitter could easily stop (almost) all the misinformation and propaganda, but they don't because it makes them money.

I think we confuse though doing data science on historic data to spot these manipulative communities vs doing that same data science in near real time to have any real counter effect on it.

I really doubt they could stop propaganda before the message is sent without deleting a ton of accounts that are false positives.

What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points.

I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda.

> What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points.

If they are actual misinformation and propaganda and you are unwilling to even admit existence of that category, then you yourself are threat to freedom - of speech or otherwise.

> I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda.

Nah. Defenders of free speech not being willing to criticize misinformation and propaganda, calling those "valuable vantage points" and being quick to criticize and attempt to shut up criticism of those is what is dangerous for free speech.

Pointing out misinformation and propaganda as such is a good thing.

I agree, drowning out normal voices in fake news and bots is as much censorship as banning them outright - it is just a form of censorship that (some) free speech advocates are complicit with.

But the biggest issue in my mind is that fake news, misinformation and bot bullying makes social media money, so they are never going to stop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU

"The answer to the speech is... more speech"

And I agree that this is exactly the problem - winners are who have more energy and opportunity to speak. "Drowning the voices" as you pointed out.

But, how to determine which voice is normal?

Per your suspicion that fake news and misinformation make money, fact checking is alleged to make money to Facebook and fact-checking Facebook affiliates. The links on fact checking materials divert viewers from one arrticles to other and increase clicks and retention at Facebook.

Yes, you are right again - misinformation may bring money to FB, at the very least, when FB tries to fight it. I guess it is a nature of capitalism, to try to make money out of everything.

I think I clearly pointed out that there is misinformation and there is propaganda.

Yet those are classes of speech.

Let me point out that I was answering the call to stop these classes of speech nearly completely, using magic of Twitter and Facebook.

> No NATO state will enter into this conflict, Putin has been pretty openly threatening with nuclear annihilation This basically means 2 things: 1. NATO is dead. 2. Putin is free to do whatever he wants wherever he chooses.

Neither of those points follow from the premise.

NATO's mission has always been mutual defense of members. Ukraine is not a member.

The threat of Russian nuclear weapons has been more poignant in the past than today. Neither of your conclusions was true before.

"Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize. In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum." [0]

We can see this security guarantee in action right now. Same will happen with NATO's mutual defense guarantee.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...

I don’t know how that means NATO is dead. Ukraine is (unfortunately for them at this moment) not a part of NATO, so the response is different. If Russia continues and invades Lithuania, etc, the rest of the countries are obligated to defend it.

I can't understand how chaps like Mendelev are welcome on Twitter, but the president is permanently suspended. (Orwellian phrasing, too)

I’m sure you could work out why Twitter suppressors speech that the deem effects them as Americans doing that overseas would just cost them money

Ukraine VPNs are probably still up - in which case, another way you could serve is by doing analysis and writing documentation on Russia's cyberattack methods, where they come from, patterns in their design, but most importantly, how they may best be prevented or reduced in their effectiveness.

Documenting the behavior and collecting intelligence is a difficult skill and intensely valuable even if it is not direct retaliation.

I have a limited understanding of large scale networking. Can you explain how using a vpn to an endpoint in the Ukraine allows someone to observe behaviour?

I imagine if you are on an isp or IX backbone you could observe flows of packets. But how do you do that from a vpn?

Or should they break in to target systems first, shore up the defences, and then document who else tries to break in?

Also preemptive detection of flaws in their own safety.

>Identify coordinated manipulative behaviour on social media.

You mean the Russian propaganda, or the West's propaganda?

Seriously, two years after "two weeks to flatten the curve" everyone is at it _again_ and it's embarrasing.

I wonder if Reuters is trying to create a cyber war much like the BBC has been blasted by some in the UK for sparking Xmas panic buying and the fuel crisis.

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1506903/BBC-blast...

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1497043/BBC-backl...

So let me get this straight, on 27th September it’s the BbC causing panic, despite every petrol forecourt in the country having the print press on display showing these headlines

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/09/27/what-...

And the government promising the send the army in?

The BBC broke the news first. Today's media are quite rapid and who knows what's been discussed down the pub the night before.

When looking at the 30-40min delays in filling in which was largely concentrated in cities, how many people sat queueing for fuel were considering an electric car? And then those filling up were limited to £20 or £30 of fuel so they experienced the same range anxiety as someone with an electric car.

Sometimes its not the message that is important, its the resulting changes that are more important. So the fuel crisis created an uptick in electric vehicle sales.

Its not just Govt discounts for new tech like solar cells that cause a change in behaviour, other entities can also take advantage of situations, or just be manipulated into reporting it.

Take the chip shortage and the Ukraine crisis when thinking of Ukraine being the largest Neon producer and its relevance to the chip supply chain. Neon production is a global supply change risk at the moment so events are making changes occur. Bosch is now fabricating their own chips albeit 300mm https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/07/bosch-opens-1-2-billion-ch... and Intel have also announced a new chip fab in Germany. https://siliconangle.com/2021/12/23/report-intel-build-new-c...

So Russia going into secure Ukraine and thus Neon means the EU & US get a stick poked into their bike wheel!

Nothing is ever what it seems!

Daily Mail headline at 0930BST on 24th was

Panic buying begins

Prepare for the worst

Winter of discontent

Fuel rationing

ARMY to step in

BBc headline was

“Petrol shortage, don’t rush to buy say ministers”

BBC has more clout for serious issues than the Daily Mail.

> I'm exactly the kind of person I suppose this is meant to appeal to.

Quote from the article:

> "Ukrainian cybercommunity! It's time to get involved in the cyber defense of our country," the post read, asking hackers and cybersecurity experts to submit an application via Google docs, listing their specialties, such as malware development, and professional references.

If you're not Ukrainian, I guess the request is not aimed at you. Probably exactly for the reasons you mention. And if you were, the request is to fill in the form, not to go rogue.

Edit: @dang maybe change the title to "[...] calls on its hacker underground [...]" to make this a bit more clear?

That's a very important clarification. Thank you.

You are though, allowed to offer educational training to Ukraine nationals.

Maybe there could be some formal initiative to clear out the grey/black area's so white hats can not fall upon their ethics.

I am surprised this is the top comment. Not that it's not well argued but what seems to imply of the reading by most of the current situation.

The joke of sanctions implemented by the EU and the US, and they are a joke, since EU continues to import gas from Russia, and SWIFT use continues by the Russian Federation, is a symptom of the same attitude seen on many Ukraine residents just 48 hours ago.

A kind of cognitive disconnect between the obvious war coming your way, and a refusal to accept it, until it is at your door.

You have a ex-president of the United States openly praising the Russian president on the media, and also US TV networks openly doing the treasonous job of promoting Russian views in the US. If the Russian army quickly overtakes Ukraine you have Russian troops staring across the border to Polish troops. Some of the small countries that are now members of NATO, still have small pockets of Russian speaking communities. You think Russia will not claim they are also being discriminated and need another peace keeping operation?

In case of a conflict between Russia and a NATO member, it's mushroom clouds we are looking into. So I find your legalistic concerns incredibly detached from the seriousness of the current situation.

> sanctions implemented by the EU and the US, and they are a joke, since EU continues to import gas from Russia

Arguably, gas is of military value, so maybe it's more advantageous to allow Russia to have the money and have the gas than the other way around. Depends on if the money goes towards other armaments - but I'm sure Russia has plenty of those in any case.

That said, why wouldn't Russia stop selling? Hmmm.

> ex-president of the United States openly praising the Russian president on the media

> US TV networks openly doing the treasonous job of promoting Russian views in the US

Can you clarify, I feel there might be a dubious definition of 'praising' and 'promoting' at play here.

I mean the Russian agents of disinformation and Russian money, as always, is at work behind enemy lines, in this case in the US.

You had US military and ex-military, doing work for Russian's since the 2014 Obama administration. That explains a lot of what has emboldened Russia.

"Trump being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favors closer Russia ties" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-adviso...

"Michael Flynn—Once Indicted Over Russia Communication—Voices Support For Russia Ahead Of Potential Ukraine Invasion" https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/01/24/michael-fl...

That Op-ed is shocking TBH, is discredits Flynn as an advisor. However I think you still need more to back up the accusation of Flynn, let alone Trump, being a (compromised) Russian asset. There seemed to be a lot of politicking around his prosecution, for example (complicated by the fact that these kind of coercive plea-deal threats are actually common in the US). Also, The headline is partially (but not entirely) manipulative in describing the op-ed as "Support For Russia" - it sound like a whole lot of shilling, esp the stuff justifying Russian opposition to NATO and border fortification, but it's not wholly supporting it either; the fact they cram the incitement into the headline shows what message they are trying to convey.

But I think the other stuff (Flynn in Trump admin) is old-news; Biden administration had also talked of better diplomatic ties with Russia recently, before the invasion started. Dems have been somewhat more pro-China than Trump also, and I'm somewhat hesitant to distinguish being "pro-China" vs "pro-Russia"; both are strong mutual allies, at least in backing each other up both in terms of resources and PR.

You missed the detail that Flynn was pardoned....of talking to the Russian ambassador and lying about it, to US law enforcement.

I didn't.

Also, could you respond in full e.g. "Flynn was pardoned by Trump, meaning that..." so I don't have to guess what you mean.

EDIT: ok it was done, thanks. Although I'd add he was caught not disclosing talking to an ambassador (he is afaik allowed to do so), and then accused of lying about it to the FBI.

Per my post, there was a lot of politicking in that incitement that by itself would have justified the pardon.

TBH, I just don't know - which is what I mean by "politicking"; The more I read the more I feel I'm either missing something, or fed mis-information or a skewed perspective.

There was a whole thing about altered or manipulated notes during the Flynn incitement - yet Wikipedia page for Flynn barely mentions it, or McCabe, and McCabe's page mention his firing (which he says was based on an attempt to discredit him) but barely mentions Flynn..

Was that important? Was the DOJ justified in dropping charges, or was Barr corrupt? Was the Pardon justified given the FBIs shady tactics (although shady tactics might be their modus-operandi..), or not? Or maybe the pardon was more motivated by Flynn being "inner-circle" than anything FBI or Russia based. I just don't know.

What politicking there is, on a active and retired US military travelling to Russian since 2013, having high level contacts with the Russian government, and then lying about it, to its own country Law enforcement?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1015126/download

Again, these characterisations are easy. They are made on both sides. I can construct a similar line about the FBI incitement, casually throwing in disputed or hard-to-verify facts.

I'd pick you up on "lying about it" - I consider the FBI to be heavily politically active, esp in the Trump/Comey times, so describing them as "law enforcement" in these situations is misleading.

I added detail to my previous comment, but I don't really trust the outcome of an incitement where the FBI held all the cards - you get the same thing when people accept one-sided plea deals from the police - "they even admitted they did it".

There's a whole lot of context around this. For example, you can characterise the FBI as simply "Law enforcement", but you could characterise the DOJ-under-Barr the same. If you have reason to doubt/discredit the DOJ, them you should equally allow for the same wrt the FBI-under-Comey.

In 2015 Flynn was on RT, a Russian state-controlled international television network, funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government. He advocated for the US foreign policy actions across the world to work closely with Russia.

He was paid $45,000 for his appearance, but again "forgot" to report that income. What is the US bar for the word "treasonous"?

Apparently Flynn earns millions as a paid speaker - how much of that income was reported? Poor tax reporting/fraud isn't treason.

You are cherry picking facts without context, and just repeating tabloid headlines.

That’s a good point. I visited Latvia a few years ago and was struck by how large a section of society there identifies as Russian, to the extent that in some places you were more likely to hear people speaking Russian than Latvian.

Poland would be a more difficult target to justify than the Baltics; only 0.1% of Poles speak Russian; 30% of Latvians are native Russian speakers. I could see Putin going there next.

All three Baltic nations are NATO members. An attack on any NATO member requires a response by NATO.

So, not likely that Latvia is next.

For the sake of all of us let's hope you are right:

"‘If a war starts, they will come here first’: Latvia mounts a wary border watch"

https://www.politico.eu/article/war-russia-ukraine-latvia-mo...

>An attack on any NATO member requires a response by NATO.

I am not, even slightly, sure that this is the case anymore. Economic sanctions is as far as anyone is willing to go anymore it seems - and half-assed ones at that.

I absolutely cannot see the US, England, or any other NATO countries sending people to die in Latvia. There just is zero stomach for that in most of the world.

And people like Putin know that, is the problem, I think.

That is exactly why the situation is so dangerous. If there is even a hint that the US and the whole of NATO will not come in strong, then yes there is the possibility that he could go further.

There is another very dangerous scenario that has not been considered. A Russian inspired coup in one of the existing NATO countries with a not so small large Russian speaking population. That government then saying they want to leave NATO.

On another side, it's not even mentioned that in the middle of the war action in Ukraine, nobody seems to have noticed Putin just annexed another country, Byelorussia. The Russian troops were supposed to leave at the end of their 3 week long exercises, but they are now leaving...never.

> On another side, it's not even mentioned that in the middle of the war action in Ukraine, nobody seems to have noticed Putin just annexed another country, Byelorussia. The Russian troops were supposed to leave at the end of their 3 week long exercises, but they are now leaving...never.

Belorussia has been a Russian puppet since the collapse of the USSR, nobody's noticed it because nothing has changed.

True, but weeks ago their dictator was still trying to maintain the farse that the Russian troops were only present for exercises and would leave then. And its rumored the "referendum" planned for 3 days from now will settle it.

"Referendum on Belarus’ constitutional amendments set for 27 February" https://president.gov.by/en/events/referendum-po-vneseniyu-i...

I'm not an expert, but sounds to me that Germany halting the nord stream pipeline, influenced Putin to go over the already under russian controlled area. I ask myself if removing Russia from SWIFT wouldn't make Putin just keep rolling over until the German border. In another hand, from the strategic point of view, Europe should have one more economical pressure option in case Russia doesn't stop in Kiew, and the SWIFT is this last option before War.

Putin's speech about a military operation in Ukraine was recorded before Germany halted Nord Stream 2. What happens now has been planned for months.

Not sure what you mean by SWIFT being the last option before war, war is happening right now.

Yes and No. For Putin, the control and Donetsk and Luhansk was already planned. Everyone in the intelligence scene could note some details like: The Russian Tanks with extra fuel tank and the national guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia presence in the region. What came next, IMO, was decided after the Nord Stream 2 halting. Russia will be now in the Polish border and therefore it gets more power in the negotiation table.

> Not sure what you mean by SWIFT being the last option before war, war is happening right now.

The War isn't happening for NATO. NATO as we all know won't do anything regarding the Ukraine invasion. If Russia starts to bulk troops on the Polish border - or any other NATO member, EU will try to solve it diplomatically using the SWIFT option before really going to War.

He means its the last card the west can play short of war. If they unleash all of their cards now they have no chance at dealing with Putin in the next few days. As small as the hope sounds, its possible Ukraine could resist enough and possibly hold some ground, and Putin could be convinced to stop his advance at some point with the threat of swift being revoked.

Our cards won't change in the next few days. If playing them now or a few days ago wouldn't have stopped Putin, why do you think those same cards would work better once Putin has gone even further and owns Kyiv?

I don't. I was just clarifying what the GP meant.

I mean, it's probably legal for you to fill out the application as a US citizen, as the Ukrainians are also asking for defensive help. If you have or want a US security clearance there may be issues in helping a foreign power, but absent that you can probably stay on the right side of the line.

Obviously, you'd want a real legal opinion.

I do wonder at what point the US just declares Russian computer systems beyond the protection of US law. At some point, that happens, right?

Aren't Russian computer systems already beyond the protection of US law?

Why would they be? If you're physically in the US and commit a crime, I think it's still a US crime even if the victim is outside the US.

I doubt the US would prosecute you though for hacking Russia.

I remeber a video from the grugq where he said he has a "friend" who pirated Iran targets directly from US IPs because he knew he had no chance of being extraded.

What does pirated mean in this context? Usually I think of computer-related pirating as copyright infringement, but this sounds more serious.

It depends. If they know they will do nothing, but in future if they find problem with you, who knows?

Defending an ally from an enemy is not something the US government punishes people for. If you want to help the people of Ukraine then #standwithukraine.

This isn't true. You can certainly be prosecuted for committing crimes against enemies of the state. There's a reason we distinguish between law enforcement officials and civilians. Blur that line and things can get nasty.

Attacking systems still remains illegal within US. Making that choice is a bet on the whims of what prosecutors are willing to prosecute.

Russia is a pariah amongst the world for their invasion of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian American veterans flying to Poland to defend Ukraine right now are also breaking US law, but there will not be any legal consequences for their courage and bravery.

For another country to go after US citizens, the country has to first file paperwork in US federal court, and then, have a judge care enough to proceed.

What drugs are you on to think Russia has any standing in US court regarding _anything_ that happens in Ukraine?

Yes, exactly. And some of us have been subject to the whims of prosecutors in the past. It's relatively easy to say that you trust the US to do what is right compared to Russia, it's much harder to put your faith and your future in the hands of any government.

Exactly. Prosecutors goals are to prosecute. Even if they don't see the prosecution through to the end because it becomes politically unfavorable, you might still sit in pre-trial detention for a decade before they drop the charges.

Is Russia an _official_ enemy though? I mean morally, after yesterday, of course. But is there any legal grounds?

ukraine is not an ally of USA though

They are allies. US, Canada, etc has given loans, sent resources and weapons.

Wouldn't that make Russia an ally too?

Can't remember us sending weapons for free to Russia or having a country level loan

But Russia can be an ally against certain enemies like isis because interests align. Similiar to China.

Ukraine is a democracy ally which puts them on another level and talks about them joining nato also put them on a different level.

Note that Biden just worked hard, and, it seems, effectively, to round up Russian hackers targeting US infra after the pipeline hack. I doubt he wants to undo this progress.

The US does not currently have a legal permission to be in Ukraine. Ukraine does not have a defense agreement with the US that could land troops, Ukraine is not a NATO member, so forth. Right now, for the US to cyberattack Russia would be a direct act of war and quite literally cause the Cold War to become the Hot War.

For this reason, just like how our troops are not in Ukraine but in surrounding countries watching, our NSA hackers are most likely standing down as well, as tragic as it may be.

The US and Russia agreed to defend Ukraine after Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. The Russians are violating this agreement today, and the US would be following it to defend Ukraine from Russia’s invasion.

When the Budapest Memorandum was signed, having one of the defenders be the invaders was not expected.

As a result, even if that binding is still in power, is it worth defending Ukraine by going to war against Russia? That would literally start World War III. Letting Ukraine fall is terrible, awful, painful - but it's better than WWIII.

More likely our NSA is only working when they can cover their tracks. Possibly by giving Ukrainian intelligence credit for their actions.

There are plenty of independent clandestine attackers from the US and they interact with the US government through DISA, which might confuse you if you take their name literally. The government is looking the other way and isn't looking or trying to bring their domestic hackers to justice.

Not that anonymity goes a very long way, but I can vouch for USG not giving a shit.

I used to work for an anti-phishing firm that you’ve likely never heard of. We routinely disrupted and dismantled phishing campaigns and bot networks being used by Russian crime networks as well as suspected IRGC (those folks have to get currency somewhere and importing an crack cocaine is apparently not their style)

Our malware research and SOC folks were pretty much all former Feds or Military Intelligence. They would routinely counter-hack servers we couldn’t take-down through legitimate means. While it was most certainly a “let’s not discuss this in an email” it was understand and briefed by our legal department that it was a “grey area” and that the USG would never even bother us as we were hitting adversarial nations anyway.

If you’re gonna play hackerman for UA, just do it smart.

Based in the US, which law prevents you from committing cyber attacks in Russia? Genuinely curious how you would be prosecuted and how this would cause you to risk your entire career.

So in general (i.e. not specific to cyber), and even under the condition that Congress had declared war on Russia, it is illegal for civilians to engage in acts which harm the enemy. Only the military is allowed to attack.

read up on "unlawful combatant" and "irregular combatant"

Now if look more specifically at cyber, then there are laws such as

    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
    The Stored Communications Act (SCA)
    The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
    The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)

which define certain activities as criminal. If a person is on US soil and engaging in activities described in these laws, they may be in violation of criminal law. The location of the victim has little to do with it, it is location of the actor.

By analogy, if A does crime to B, it isn't B who prosecutes, it is the appropriate governmental organization.

Informative, but these seem hazy. What is soil in the cyber world? Or is it the passport "A" is carrying? As many have indicated, unlikely anyone in the west will prosecute?

There's a seemingly endless collection of crimes you could be charged with if you're hacking a foreign country from inside the US. From wire fraud to conspiracy and everything in-between. A federal charge of conspiracy carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in jail.

even if you were to get a US attorney to prosecute you by turning yourself in, they'll highly likely give you probation even with "mandatory minimums"

I assumed it was aimed at Ukraine hackers? They don't have much to lose at this point.

I can say that I know people who are much less skilled than you and also less ethic, that are hacking into any low hanging fruit that they can and selling a shell (access) to those systems to FSB. I imagine that Ukraine would have a similar program to pay for such kind of access on Russia infrastructure or government systems.

Since there is no way to contact you directly. I am interested in learning how to pen test etc. Do you have a recommended path to take? I'm lacking a good starting point.

I wondered this too but didn't have any good ideas (generally speaking, building theory, etc)

Just belatedly noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30471631, perhaps you hadn't seen it

This is actually very useful. Thanks.

I take it you hack into critical infrastructure systems legally, as part of security audits and such? After all if you were doing it illegally, and therefore are clearly fine doing illegal hacking, claiming that you won't risk hacking Russia because it might be illegal would seem like a weird defence to make.

Can you support by training people?

I think it's reasonable to assume that for at least the next few months, you have a strange form of "diplomatic immunity" for attacks in Russia. No jury in the US would convict you, even in the unlikely event someone wanted to prosecute (which would be political suicide here).

So, have at it.

Reminder to other readers: don't take legal advice from hn

Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot and pay an astounding amount of attention to who their friends are. This is sometimes a force for evil, sometimes a force for good, but it is what it is.

Sure, don't take legal advice from me. Use a VPN.

> Reminder to people who didn't grow up in the US: Americans are by and large a bloodthirsty, vindictive lot

I'd take away "by and large" here.

Many of them are also exceedingly generous, open and friendly and cares deeply. This holds true for both sides of the political spectrum.

They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.

> They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.

This is even more true of the Russians, and as an outsider, I'm wondering how much of their politics is informed by those memories.

That is a seriously good point.

It never ceases to amuse me how ignorant I am in my comments despite my attempts at being smart, wise and fair.

Of course you are right.

That said, this invasion is still a crime and I am utterly fed up by Russian actions in neighboring states, their constant lying, especially after MH17 was shot down, getting more or less away with state sponsored cheating in sports, simulating bombing raids against Swedish power plants etc. We should have seen this coming a long time ago.

(In my defense however, note that from the very start of this, even before the protests in Russia were known to me I think I have not said a bad word about the Russian people, barely a bad word about the men in boots and only after they started aggression and mostly - I hope - just about the leadership.)

>> They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.

> This is even more true of the Russians

No, it is not. The First World War was started because Russia backed up Serbia's refusal of Austria's ultimatum after a Serbian operation assassinated Austria's crown prince (and France & the UK backed up Russia, while Germany backed up Austria, and the whole powder keg blew up). The Second World War started because of the German invasion of Poland — and who else invaded Poland sixteen days later? The Soviet Union, which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with its supplementary German-Soviet Frontier Treaty. Moreover, modern-day Poland is really an amalgamation of western Poland and what used to be eastern Germany: the Soviet Union kept about one third of what had been Poland.

I was speaking specifically of the Russian people.

Their politics is overwhelming informed by their memories and they bring it up whenever they can.

In context, I don't think there are actually talking about the American populace, but those "in power" who may seek, or be able, to harm you, aka - agents of the state.

> They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.

They where allied with the Nazis in the second one and invaded 16 days after the start.

Recognize two more things if you do this:

1) you will never be able to travel to Russia or a Russian controlled territory. Ever.

2) you will always be at risk for a hack-back or other issues when the dust settles and they seek revenge.

Not that I would ever apply my considerable talents to this purpose, but seriously, who from the west would ever go to Russia in the next few years without family ties causing one to do so. I don’t think that is a tangible consequence for most of us capable of waging a cyber security attack in a nation state.

This is extremely terrible advice.

You should delete your comment before you cause someone to go to jail.

A sort of side comment, but I absolutely despise this type of thinking.

"before you cause someone to go to jail"

If you take legal advice from pseudo anonymous users on aggregate websites you deserve to go to jail. Even in writing that, the users did not "cause" anyone to go to jail; the moron reading and acting on that comment did. Have some respect for individuality mate.

I looked at your recent comments - in almost every one of them (!) you are insulting, mocking, being a total jerk to people on here. Please stop doing that. You will be banned very soon if you keep that up. Read the guidelines - most of your comments break more than a few. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Oh come on man. If being a dumbarse and engaging in dangerous behaviour was a jailable offence, then we'd need to arrest every single male under the age of 21.

(To any dumbarses reading this comment, launching cyberattacks against adversarial nation states will land you in prison if you're lucky, a body bag if you're not)

That's a huge gamble most people aren't willing to accept.

I guarantee you there are American veterans who are flying right now to Europe with the intention of making their way to Ukraine to help on the ground -- there were crazy fucks doing this in Syria a few years ago.

That's a huge gamble.

What you're talking about is not.

Allies are dying today. Someone could help save them and you are talking them out of it?

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I'm just explaining how many people in my industry see this request. It's noble if some want to risk their livelihoods and supporting their families to help support the effort. Not all of us can make that sacrifice.

I wish there was another option. I wish people in Ukraine weren't suffering.

Bur remember that by treaty US and UK (and Russia of course) promised to defend Ukraine in exchange of their nukes. At least if they try to go after you, you can still argue that you were trying to comply to a treaty that both countries have decided to ignore.

Upon orders from the government, sure. Taking the law into your own hands based on vague interpretation is different.

Yeah: my city signing an MOU saying they will enforce parking restrictions doesn't mean I have the OK to camp out on the street and write my own tickets.

Treaties are between governments. Individual citizens are not a member of the treaty. You don't get any authority to pursue individual action.

Treaties get broken, and your argument will fall on deaf ears.

they promised not to attack, not defend

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

-- from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

Contact information is in my profile. Come get me.

Here's the more relevant wikipedia link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism

Am not from the US but this seems very risky. Is there someone at the government who can clarify such guarantees. Am also curious what are the high level logistics to carry out something like this. Do you seek an untraceable route to Ukarine from US ? Do you unleash a worm like Stuxnet that will eventually cripple all Russian cyber attack infra ?

Jury nullification.

The idea is that a jury is allowed to make its decision without any outside interference. A jury can acquit a person even it they think the person is guilty. Thus a jury could give you a fee pass on hacking Russian systems, but you'd be relying on them to realise that and then think the moral reasons for acquittal out weigh the legal reasons for conviction.

Obviously courts don't like jury nullification try to prevent it, without harming a juries independence.

So possibly not a good idea to rely on jury nullification as your get out of jail free card.

It’s also not necessarily a legal strategy even as a Hail Mary.

California’s state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that jury nullification is not a valid decision… and my understanding is if the outcome case can be attributed to “jury nullification” (i.e. could be as obvious as the defense suggesting it as an avenue to the jury, which ironically itself is legal, or as technical as the jury refusing to consider or explicitly refusing a piece of evidence that is entered in the record— think a moral objection to the law, or “evidence undeniably shows the defendant left the scene at 7pm, but we the jury contend it was 6pm”) it legally would be considered a mistrial and allowed to be re-litigated— and the sole person who has the power to attribute something to jury nullification and/or declare mistrial? The judge.

https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/jury-nullification/

There is no guarantee. There is really no one that could even make such a guarantee. Opinions of DOJ change with administrations. The president could issue a pardon after the fact. Congress could make a law. Perhaps the executive could find some loophole to deputize people into US Cybercom but that would likely make them a lawful combatants which has other entanglements.

It is not reasonable to assume this. You might get lucky, or you might spend decades in prison.

Maybe he could find you a job afterwards? @DAlperovitch

Reply on news.ycombinator.com