Compare the Russian Hacking Story to the Iranian Hacking Story

Nearly ten months ago, in March of last year, the Obama administration filed indictments against the hacking activities of seven Iranian individuals working for the Iranian government. As this Bloomberg story describes:

Iranians Hacked From Wall Street to New York Dam, U.S. Says

Hackers linked to the Iranian government launched cyber-attacks on some four dozen U.S. financial institutions and a flood-control dam north of New York City in forays meant to undermine U.S. markets and national security, according to federal prosecutors.

]Beginning in 2011, Iran-based hackers targeted the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and AT&T Inc., among others, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. One of them gained unauthorized remote access to a computer controlling the Bowman Avenue Dam in Rye, New York, for about three weeks beginning in 2013, according to the indictment.

The hackers were working on behalf of the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a hard-line force in Iran, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told reporters in Washington. The hacking of the small dam could have posed a danger if the facility hadn’t been shut down for maintenance, she said.

“This indictment is the first of its kind because it calls out a foreign nation-state for supporting hackers who directly attacked U.S. critical infrastructure and financial markets,” said Thomas Brown, a cybersecurity specialist at Berkeley Research Group and a former federal prosecutor.

Those massive attacks took place in 2013.

Unsurprisingly, serious incidences of aggressive and continued Iranian backed hacking continue today.

But during this entire period, what was the Obama administration doing with regard to Iran? You guessed it, leading the negotiations and signing an Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal, which included airdropping $400 million in cash to the Iranian government.

Here's what Obama had to say about Iran and the deal in January of last year:



Here are his opening remarks in print:

THE PRESIDENT: This is a good day, because, once again, we’re seeing what’s possible with strong American diplomacy.

As I said in my State of the Union address, ensuring the security of the United States and the safety of our people demands a smart, patient and disciplined approach to the world. That includes our diplomacy with the Islamic Republic of Iran. For decades, our differences with Iran meant that our governments almost never spoke to each other. Ultimately, that did not advance America’s interests. Over the years, Iran moved closer and closer to having the ability to build a nuclear weapon. But from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, the United States has never been afraid to pursue diplomacy with our adversaries. And as President, I decided that a strong, confident America could advance our national security by engaging directly with the Iranian government.

Even in a MotherJones article, they describe:

Hackers directly backed by the Iranian government have demonstrated the capability to destroy critical information and an interest in causing damage to US computer systems, not simply hacking them to collect information. According to the Wall Street Journal, in their most recent campaign, Iranian-linked hackers broke into computer systems to gain information on how US energy companies run their operations, acquiring the means to "disrupt or destroy them in the future." Iranian hackers were also blamed by US officials for erasing thousands of hard drives owned by Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest oil company, in August 2012.

Link

Some will say, well at least they indicted those seven Iranian's last year, right?

Well, here's the interesting thing about that. As this piece describes in Wired Magazine:

Feds Set a Risky Precedent by Indicting 7 Iranian Hackers

This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) created a potentially dangerous precedent when it indicted seven Iranian hackers involved in attacks on the US financial sector...

However, focusing on the people that conducted the attacks instead of just the Iranian government introduces the potential for a serious backlash against US military and intelligence professionals who conduct cyber operations on behalf of the US government. As a former US military cyber warfare operations officer, this is troubling to me. Such indictments should focus on stemming the actions of governments—not on highlighting the operators themselves.

The DOJ’s indictment of these Iranian hackers continues this troubling trend. In this week’s indictment, the DOJ identified the Iranian individuals, their ages, and the companies they worked for during the attacks. Interestingly, the indictment identified which individuals took part in different portions of the attacks. For example, it highlighted just one individual for the Bowman dam case.

Attribution for cyber attacks has been evolving for years, but seeing the US government attribute down to specific people for specific portions of a case involving a foreign nation-state could be more of a show of force than it is useful. It sends a message that the US government cannot only attribute the government and any companies it is using, but also individuals conducting operations at specific times. Attribution to that level is an impressive feat, but is also costly.

It shapes the story to be about the individuals themselves and not the actions of the Iranian government. This narrative allows governments to have an out when they hack foreign nations—rather than bearing the responsibility for their cyber attacks, they can sacrifice individual hackers as rogue agents, especially when they work at civilian companies, which is the case in the Iranian indictment.

So while the Iranian government perpetrates serious and grave attacks on the global financial system and important US infrastructure assets of the United States, they get a deal and $400m in cash.

Russia gets threats of war and the expulsion of 35 diplomats for using RT as 'propaganda' and allegedly hacking a US political party and exposing their unedited and truthful emails.

Am I the only one who sees a parity issue here?

Probably not.

But when you compare the difference in Obama's reactions to these two state actors, is there any doubt today's 'Russia" problem is really just conveniently being used as a proxy to de-legitimize Trump?

As usual, it's all just about the politics.

Each case is different when it comes to cyber attacks.

You could easily have highlighted China instead of Iran.


Must be because Obama is a Muslim.

a reply to: loam

How do you expect to make any kind of point when your post is peppered with lies?

The money belonged to Iran.

It wasn't a payment. It was returning their own property.

I dint expect any positive responses of course.
Lol

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Each case is different when it comes to cyber attacks.

Check. The one that threatens our very way of life gets a pass, while the one that exposes political secrets gets all of the attention and consequences.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
You could easily have highlighted China instead of Iran.

Yes. I could have. But as you said, 'Each case is different when it comes to cyber attacks.'

As the MotherJones article I cited above makes the point:

"The Chinese are engaged in cyberespionage, which is more or less understood," says Richard Bejtlich, the chief security officer at Mandiant, a company that offers cybersecurity services for Fortune 100 companies. "We know what lines they will and will not cross. But a country like Iran is much more willing to be destructive...."

China and Iran have different goals when it comes to meddling with US computer systems....

"China's hacking is a long-term competitive issue," says Bejtlich. "It's not tolerable. We want them to reign their activity in, but they're not going to suddenly take down a power grid." Lewis notes that "China is a responsible power" and adds that "the risk of them launching a true cyberattack"—meaning a malicious takedown of US government computers—"is probably zero outside of an armed conflict."

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Must be because Obama is a Muslim.

So you're real point is that I wrote this thread because you think I'm racist and believe Obama is a Muslim?

This is why people abandon the left in droves. Your baseless accusations expose you for the unhinged threat you actually represent. God help us if people like you ever actually gain any real power.

One word….! STUXNET, the American started it all. How come when American doing it is all OK, others doing it are all terrorist attack..?

a reply to: loam

So you're real point is that I wrote this thread because you think I'm racist and believe Obama is a Muslim?

Actually no.

That was a prediction of some of the responses you're going to undoubtably get in this case.

Your baseless accusations expose you for the unhinged threat you actually represent.

You're triggered by sarcasm and talking about "unhinged"???

God help us if people like you ever actually gain any real power

If you could be less melodramatic that'd be great.



As to MotherJones, they couldn't be more wrong.
And nor could you when you say this...

The one that threatens our very way of life gets a pass

How did it get a pass exactly?


The "Iran Deal", which is separate from the cyber attacks, was between many nations and would have been done with or without the cooperation of the Obama Administration.


Russia, The U.K. et al would have seen the diplomacy through without your input.
So Obama, being smart decided he'd rather have a say in that matter.

The money was Iran's, so that's a moot point.


Finally you should read my source, MotherJones is full of it when they say China is only doing so for competitive reasons...

"Chinese intelligence has repeatedly infiltrated US national security entities and extracted information with serious consequences for US national security, including information on the plans and operations of US military forces and the designs of US weapons and weapons systems"

Yeah, way to stay competitive.

The President is all speeches about "Diplomacy this and that", when it comes to Iran, a third of the 'evil empire' triad, (remember) the Stuxnet attack on their enrichment centrifuges, how diplomatic was that?

Balderdash...

America the hypocrite applying its dual standard myopia for the masses to feel superior on. Thanks main stream liars, you aren't impressing me. Iran will be (is being) targeted like the rest of the ME for its oil. If these crude cretins that run things have their way a whole nother round of mass murder and death will occur in that country, like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and all the rest before it.

Edit:

global research



Shout out to Syphone, pegged it before me...

a reply to: loam

In many cases, the hacking was done to infiltrate and compromise in infrastructure of the US.

In the case of Russia?

It was done to expose the corruption and lies of the government.

The response to Russia is larger because it exposed the corruption of government.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

When you post 'You could have easily written something else...Must be because Obama is a Muslim,' it's not being triggered to address it. So you either are back-peddling or (giving you the benefit of the doubt) admitting you poorly communicated your point.

With regard to Iran or even China for that matter, you've missed the entire point of this thread.

I am not one of those who thinks they or Russia are our friends. As I have repeatedly posted here and elsewhere, the Russians have consistently been our adversary since the end of WWII. They have ALWAYS been spying, hacking and spewing propaganda against us. But no one was largely hyperventilating about that until it became potentially useful to slime and de-legitimize Trump.

It's all about the politics. That is the point.

Obviously the left picks and chooses the losers not out of concern for American security, but out of concern for... leftist political security.

Plain and simple.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Each case is different when it comes to cyber attacks.

You could easily have highlighted China instead of Iran.


Must be because Obama is a Muslim.

Oh Chuck, playing a stupid martyr is a bit beneath you. man up sparky, forget all about your fragile feelings and debate the real issue, not the made up # in your tiny head.

a reply to: loam & NetworkDude

I don't use sarc tags but I'm definitely not back-peddling either.

You mistake me for someone who cares what others think.

It was an off the cuff remark. If I was attacking you personally you'd have known about it.
I tend not to do that outside the mudpit anyways.


Now we've cleared up that misunderstanding, on topic...

You're assuming if someone else (e.g. Canada) had done this they wouldn't still be trying to delegitimise Trump.

Whether it was believed to be Russia or Martians that hacked the DNC, it would have been addressed simply because of the timing.
To deny that is folly.

Every other day we had a "this release is going to bury Clinton this time" and people of a certain leaning expect people to believe it wasn't to affect the election.
Sorry, but I'm smarter than that.
I wasn't born yesterday.


On the other foot, I also believe the Trump Tape release and the tax release was to affect the election...
How many of you would deny that?

Not many I'd assume.


Of course it's about politics.

Hypocrisy is shining through though.
On both whiny sides.

a reply to: loam

You may have to factor in to the rhetoric /propaganda the somewhat covert operations to destabilize/destroy/subdue states friendly to Russia . I do believe that Iran was part of the 7 countries set up to be taken out but the main prize was always Russia .With Russia out of the picture /contained ,the pipe lines and the flow of oil goes where the new regimes (Washington puppets) are told to go . Did Iran in fact hack the US ? maybe but maybe not because its not like the MSM just got on board as to how they wanted to produce their fake news .

There may be a lot more to this story but to find the truth of the matter is nearly impossible . I do agree that the hypocrisy is blatant and it should matter but you have to understand that tptb are willing to throw any and all things at the issue until they get something to stick . Their problem has been that enough of us are just not buying it and pointing it out to others that is making the difference . In the old days we would already be at war in hot ways but thanks to the internet and people like OP we can see their tactics and try and defuse them .

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Speaking of China.... why didn't the Democrats want to go to war with China when they bought Bill Clinton in 1992?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Speaking of China.... why didn't the Democrats want to go to war with China when they bought Bill Clinton in 1992?

You'd have to ask them about their inconsistencies.

I was only 5 years old and in no place to be voicing an opinion on geopolitics.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Speaking of China.... why didn't the Democrats want to go to war with China when they bought Bill Clinton in 1992?

You'd have to ask them about their inconsistencies.
I was only 5 years old and in no place to be voicing an opinion on geopolitics.

You are old enough to read now, so check out how the Clinton's worked in 1992.
New York Times... Charlie Trie and John Huang.

We hack all countries and any country that has the ability hacks us. The difference this year with the Russian hacks is they put the information gain out in the open.