Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State-sponsored Hackers Targeting Prominent Journalists, Google Warns (politico.com)

Posted by msmash on from the security-woes dept.

State-sponsored hackers are attempting to steal email passwords of a number of prominent journalists, Google has warned. The hackers are suspected to be Russians, reports POLITICO. Some of the journalists who have received such warnings from Google as recent as two-to-three weeks ago include Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, Julia Ioffe, who recently started at The Atlantic, Ezra Klein of Vox, and CNN's Brian Stelter. From the report: "The fact that all this started right after the election suggests to me that journalists are the next wave to be targeted by state-sponsored hackers in the way that Democrats were during it," said one journalist who got the warning. "I worry that the outcome is going to be the same: Someone, somewhere, is going to get hacked, and then the contents of their Gmail will be weaponized against them -- and by extension all media."

10 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Russian hackers = the best by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just amazing the reach of Russian hackers. First, they managed to get the DNC & Hillary Clinton to write thousands of self-incriminating (and on Hillary's side, remarkably foul-mouthed - or is it foul-keyboarded?) emails. Then they suborned the DNC to steal the nomination from Sanders and give it to Clinton, to give Trump an easier opponent. Next they induced a DNC staffer named Seth Rich to steal the compromising emails and give them to Wikileaks, which dutifully publishes them, showing the DNC to be corrupt and Hillary to be venal. Then they managed to get Rich to set himself up for a mugging in which he is shot twice in the head but nothing is stolen. Then they manipulated the Director of the FBI to announce just before the election that many, many thousands of emails potentially involving Hillary have been found and need to be examined. And finally, they finessed the US intelligence community into believing he hacked those DNC computers to influence the election, thereby concealing - and taking off the discussion table - any examination of the DNC's & Hillary's wrongdoing.

    I heard that they found the cell-phone-smashing sledge hammer in Putin's basement!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Russian hackers = the best by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're apparently a moron or pretending to be one for the purpose of conflating news events... The fact is there are state sponsored crackers in Russia and their methods have been documented. They attack journalists in Russia and opposition figures, Ukraine military, and yes they attacked bot GOP and DNC campaigns. Being stupid is your right as an American I suppose, but no one here should bother entertaining your sarcastic and poorly conceived notions of how intelligence and propaganda campaigns are carried out in 2017.

      No proof, no belief.

      And I don't even doubt much that it could be Russians but show us the fucking proof for Christ's sake!

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:Russian hackers = the best by grcumb · · Score: 2

      So based on your "I grew up in the cold war" anecdotes about SO MANY -(Citation needed) journalists being spies...

      Spies is a strong word to use, but yes, it was more or less assumed that journalists from behind the Iron Curtain were intelligence operatives and were expected to gather information and data about much more than they wrote about. Likewise, there were more than a few writers and reporters who knowingly (and sometimes unknowingly) provided the CIA with intelligence from their areas of expertise.

      This doesn't imply cloak-and-dagger stuff, or breaking into offices late at night (let's leave the Nixon White House out of this, shall we?). For the most part, it would take the form of one or more journalists hanging out after work and trading scuttlebutt—interesting and useful information that was either not newsworthy or not well-enough sourced to report on. There would frequently be a CIA intelligence operative present during the conversation, and they didn't always try very hard to hide it.

      Let it be known that this channel never entirely dried up. I've had several conversations with 'embassy staff' who were clearly trying to pump me for information. And I'm happy to share with them what I'd share with anyone else. If that helps them get a better understanding of a sensitive situation, then I've done my job as a journalist and a responsible citizen.

      To take a slightly more controversial example, consider Gloria Steinem's famous escapades as a 'recruiter' for CIA propaganda operations. She willingly accepted payment for identifying people to speak at international conferences who would tout the government line about freedom and democracy. The CIA considered this a necessary tactic to thwart the flood of communist and socialist messaging that was flowing in from Soviet-funded sources. Ms Steinem had no qualms about taking cash for it, and although I would baulk at accepting payment for something done out of principle, I can't say for certain I wouldn't have done the same thing as she did.

      nobody should believe anything reported about state sponsored hacks, because the reporters themselves might be "in" on it?

      No, all he's saying is that context matters. Attempts to spy on reporters, overtly and covertly, have been ongoing since reporters first existed. And reporters are—or should be—aware of it, too. It really does come with the territory.

      Please continue dancing around while you mention feminism for no reason.

      Yeah, the anti-feminism jab was gratuitous and out of line. You've got a solid point there. But just because he can act like a dick doesn't mean he's entirely wrong.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  2. Bull Pucky by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nonsense. This is just more fake news from a bunch of snowflake libertards seeking to illegitimize our great president, The Honorable William J. Le Petomane.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  3. If your personal emails are released... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and there's nothing unprofessional in them, the more embarrassing some personal stuff may be the more sympathy you'll get from the public and against the hackers.

    On the other hand if the emails reveal unethical behavior, collusion with one party or one particular candidate of the party that goes against the journalistic integrity, then what I can tell you. Be a better professional.

    1. Re:If your personal emails are released... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      On the other hand if the emails reveal unethical behavior, collusion with one party or one particular candidate

      The same could be said for Republicans who are trying to hide their tracks.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:If your personal emails are released... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

      -Cardinal Richelieu

    3. Re:If your personal emails are released... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never made that argument. Privacy should be protected. What I'm saying is *if* you are a journalist, and *if* you get hacked, and *if* those emails reveal unethical journalistic behavior, don't expect any sympathy from the public. And on the contrary, if anything like you listed is revealed, we will be on your side, because we hate the weak being hit, even if you were a little bit unprofessional.

      I'm saying that because this warning appears to preemptively control damage to the reputations of journos who probably know their emails would reveal they have been unethical but they thought it was OK because they were fighting for the "just cause".

    4. Re:If your personal emails are released... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and there's nothing unprofessional in them, the more embarrassing some personal stuff may be the more sympathy you'll get from the public and against the hackers.

      Hardly. The embarrassing personal stuff will be turned into evidence that the journalist is unprofessional - or at least undesirable. ("Scott Mediapersonality is into $kink, how can we trust him!".) The goal here, on the part of the hacker's Masters is weaponize the email - and that's terrifyingly easy.

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

      Dig into my email, and you'll find nothing unethical... But you will find a lot of otaku/anime material. A couple of quotes from those emails, put into an article with plenty of fanservice and hentai screenshots... and there's a lot of people who don't know who'll willingly believe I'm a rapist, a pervert, a pedophile. Hell, if they really wanted to, my SCA emails could be similiary spun - "here's a guy who gives fealty to a King! How can he believe in democracy!".

      Etc... etc...

      People in general won't believe the facts. They aren't even interested in the facts. All they know and think is what their Masters tell them to know and think.

    5. Re:If your personal emails are released... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, this is what I don't get. Why aren't ALL OF US mad at BOTH PARTIES? Instead of always pointing the finger with "see, you guys do it too and or did it first!" I'll never understand why the latter is always the case. We all get fucked in the end, do we not?