The Russia DNC hacking indictment introduces some new legal theories (identity theft and money laundering) that nobody seems to be talking about. I break down why those are a big deal here: https://www.renditioninfosec.com/2018/07/russia-dnc-indictment-introduces-new-legal-theories/ …
-
-
That said, it won't create precedent since it won't go to trial, unlike--say--the definition of DRAS and means of using PRTT in the Levashov warranted hack.
-
Fully aware that it doesn't become a legal precedent until it goes to trial. But I think the inclusion of new charges in a high profile case like this is being done to create legal ad-hominem for the next time these charges are used.
-
Yes. But I'm less worried about it than, say, the way the charges against Yu Pingan might serve as precedent to go after
@MalwareTechBlog. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/08/24/a-tale-of-two-malware-researchers-doj-presented-evidence-yu-pingan-knew-his-malware-was-used-as-such/ … -
As I suggested earlier, I'm virtually certain Mueller did this as part of a legal strategy to go after Americans, even ignoring Sessions' emphasis on going after nation-state hackers. But if that weren't the case I'd say we should revisit how to signal nation-state hacking.
-
Mueller's moving towards some conspiracy charges against Americans. he needs to make it clear that Americans were conspiring with Russians. Does that change the calculus on charging nation-state hackers? I don't know. But it should be part of the discussion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Allowing political donations in bitcoin truly terrifies me
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.