Connect with us

Technology

The Trump campaign hacking scandal and leak resembles a repeat of 2016. This time, the media is reacting differently

Published

on

Trump campaign hack-and-leak appears like a rerun of 2016. This time, media outlets are responding differently

This weekend Politico dropped an information bomb:An individual using only the name “Robert” provided the editorial staff with documents allegedly stolen from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Since then now we have learned that New York Times AND The Washington Post I also heard from the same person and received several stolen documents. The document dump has the characteristics of a hack and leak operation, which usually involves malicious hackers stealing confidential information and strategically revealing it to harm the goal of the hack. The FBI said it was investigating the hack. Trump himself he accused Iran’s government about the breach. Longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone said his email account was breached, which likely began the whole operation, based on anonymous people who spoke to The Washington Post.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s because a nearly similar hack-and-leak operation before the US election happened before and will inevitably occur again. It’s value going back in time to the previous hack-and-leak operation to spotlight what we learned then and how those lessons apply now.

Advertisement

In the summer of 2016, a hacker who introduced himself as Guccifer 2.0 and described himself as a Romanian “hacker, manager, philosopher (and) woman lover” claimed to be behind the Democratic National Committee break-in. This got here as a surprise, as cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike he accused Russian intelligence agency behind the hack. In an ironic twist, Roger Stone, meanwhile, publicly disclosed was involved with Guccifer 2.0 and joined the hacker’s claims that he was attacking Democrats.

But because it turned out, after I began asking Guccifer 2.0 some specific questions in 2016, their mask quickly began to fallTwo years later, the FBI confirmed that Guccifer 2.0 was not the only Romanian hacker, but a person controlled by two agents working for the Russian military intelligence unit, the Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU. While I I pat myself on the backI also wish to be clear that in some ways it was easier for me to deal with Guccifer 2.0, his identity, and his motivations, than on the leaked documents, just because I used to be (and still am) a reporter covering cybersecurity moderately than politics.

At this point, and on this latest case, it’s unclear who “Robert” really is. However, early signs point to a repeat of the Guccifer 2.0 situation.

The day before the Politico report on the attack on Trump was published, Microsoft it was revealed that a hacking group supported by the Iranian government “sent a spear-phishing email in June to a high-ranking presidential campaign official from the compromised email account of a former senior adviser.” Microsoft didn’t say what the campaign was or name the “former senior adviser” who was targeted, but sources later said, The Washington Post AND Political that the FBI has been investigating the hacking of the Trump campaign since June.

Advertisement

IN latest report on wednesdayGoogle’s Threat Analysis Group, which studies hackers and government-backed threats, agreed with most of Microsoft’s assessment. Google said it had evidence that Iran-backed hackers were behind attacks on the personal email accounts of about a dozen people related to President Biden and former President Trump back in May.

To summarize: It appears that Iranian government hackers could have hacked Stone, used his email address to then goal and infiltrate the Trump campaign, stolen certain documents (to this point, we only learn about files related to the vetting process for Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance), and finally used someone named Robert to contact reporters in the hopes that they’d look into the leaked documents.

Contact us

Do you may have more details about the Trump campaign hack? Or other politically motivated hacks? From a non-work device, you’ll be able to safely contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai on Signal at +1 917 257 1382 or on Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb or email. You can even contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

The difference from what happened in 2016 is how the media is presenting the whole story.

Advertisement

During this time, countless media outlets acquired Guccifer 2.0’s documents, and later also the stolen ones. from Hillary Clinton’s then campaign manager, John Podesta — and published stories that essentially reinforced the message the Russian government wanted the American public to deal with, namely allegations of corruption and abuse. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote a 2016 book about the hacking campaigns, he told the Associated Press this week it was found that the media had distorted some of the leaks in 2016 in a way that hurt Clinton greater than it must have.

This time, initial coverage of the Trump campaign hack and leak focused on the hack and leak itself, moderately than what was leaked, a undeniable fact that disinformation experts have praised.

“Politico and (its reporter) Alex Isenstadt deserve a lot of credit for turning this story into a story about a (weak, it seems) foreign disinformation effort, rather than reporting on leaked Trump campaign documents themselves.” Thomas Rid saidprofessor at Johns Hopkins and someone who closely monitored 2016 Russian hacking and disinformation campaign

It is essential to notice that this might all change, perhaps if or when “Robert” decides to disclose something that the media deems more newsworthy. It is also essential to keep in mind that as my former colleague Joseph Cox said written a few years agowere many matters hackers leaky information that was in the public interest. The data from these hacks and leaks deserved to be discussed and reported. That could also be true this time, too.

Advertisement

Regardless, it is essential for journalists to offer the full context of hacking and leak operations, whether or not they are carried out by hackers working for governments attempting to undermine elections or specific presidential candidates, or by hacktivists with well-intentioned intentions.

When Politico asked the hacker how he obtained the documents, Robert supposedly said: “I suggest you do not inquire where I got them from. Any answer to that question will compromise me and also legally prevent you from publishing them.”

Perhaps Robert himself knows that this time the journalists have drawn conclusions.

Advertisement
This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com

Technology

Anysphere, which makes the cursor supposedly collect USD 900 million with a valuation of USD 9 billion

Published

on

By

AI robot face and programming code on a black background.

Anysphere, producer of coding cursor with AI drive, attracted $ 900 million in the recent financing round by Thrive Capital, Financial Times He informed, citing anonymous sources familiar with the contract.

The report said that Andreessen Horowitz (A16Z) and ACCEL also participate in the round, which values ​​about $ 9 billion.

The cursor collected $ 105 million from Thrive, and A16Z with a valuation of $ 2.5 billion, as TechCrunch said in December. Capital Thrive also led this round and in addition participated in A16Z. According to Crunchbase data, the startup has collected over $ 173 million thus far.

Advertisement

It is alleged that investors, including index ventures and a reference point, attempt to support the company, but plainly existing investors don’t want to miss the opportunity to support it.

Other coding start-ups powered by artificial intelligence also attract the interest of investors. Techcrunch announced in February that Windsurf, a rival for Aklesphere, talked about collecting funds at a valuation of $ 3 billion. Openai, an investor in Anysphere, was supposedly I’m attempting to get windsurf for about the same value.

(Tagstransate) A16Z

(*9*)This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com

Continue Reading

Technology

This is the shipping of products from China to the USA

Published

on

By

Shein and Temu icons are seen displayed on a phone screen in this illustration photo

The Chinese retailer has modified the strategy in the face of American tariffs.

Thanks to the executive ordinance, President Donald Trump ended the so -called de minimis principle, which allowed goods value 800 USD or less entering the country without tariffs. It also increases tariffs to Chinese goods by over 100%, forcing each Chinese firms and Shein, in addition to American giants, similar to Amazon to adapt plans and price increases.

CNBC reports that this was also affected, and American buyers see “import fees” from 130% to 150% added to their accounts. Now, nevertheless, the company is not sending the goods directly from China to the United States. Instead, it only displays the offers of products available in American warehouses, while goods sent from China are listed as outside the warehouse.

Advertisement

“He actively recruits American sellers to join the platform,” said the spokesman ago. “The transfer is to help local sellers reach more customers and develop their companies.”

(tagstotransate) tariffs

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

One of the last AI Google models is worse in terms of safety

Published

on

By

The Google Gemini generative AI logo on a smartphone.

The recently released Google AI model is worse in some security tests than its predecessor, in line with the company’s internal comparative test.

IN Technical report Google, published this week, reveals that his Flash Gemini 2.5 model is more likely that he generates a text that violates its security guidelines than Gemini 2.0 Flash. In two indicators “text security for text” and “image security to the text”, Flash Gemini 2.5 will withdraw 4.1% and 9.6% respectively.

Text safety for the text measures how often the model violates Google guidelines, making an allowance for the prompt, while image security to the text assesses how close the model adheres to those boundaries after displaying the monitors using the image. Both tests are automated, not supervised by man.

Advertisement

In an e-mail, Google spokesman confirmed that Gemini 2.5 Flash “performs worse in terms of text safety for text and image.”

These surprising comparative results appear when AI is passing in order that their models are more acceptable – in other words, less often refuse to answer controversial or sensitive. In the case of the latest Llam Meta models, he said that he fought models in order to not support “some views on others” and answers to more “debated” political hints. Opeli said at the starting of this yr that he would improve future models, in order to not adopt an editorial attitude and offers many prospects on controversial topics.

Sometimes these efforts were refundable. TechCrunch announced on Monday that the default CHATGPT OPENAI power supply model allowed juvenile to generate erotic conversations. Opeli blamed his behavior for a “mistake”.

According to Google Technical Report, Gemini 2.5 Flash, which is still in view, follows instructions more faithfully than Gemini 2.0 Flash, including instructions exceeding problematic lines. The company claims that regression might be partially attributed to false positives, but in addition admits that Gemini 2.5 Flash sometimes generates “content of violation” when it is clearly asked.

Advertisement

TechCrunch event

Berkeley, California
|.
June 5

Book now

Advertisement

“Of course, there is a tension between (after instructions) on sensitive topics and violations of security policy, which is reflected in our assessment,” we read in the report.

The results from Meepmap, reference, which can examine how models react to sensitive and controversial hints, also suggest that Flash Gemini 2.5 is much less willing to refuse to reply controversial questions than Flash Gemini 2.0. Testing the TechCrunch model through the AI ​​OpenRoutter platform has shown that he unsuccessfully writes essays to support human artificial intelligence judges, weakening the protection of due protection in the US and the implementation of universal government supervisory programs.

Thomas Woodside, co -founder of the Secure AI Project, said that the limited details given by Google in their technical report show the need for greater transparency in testing models.

“There is a compromise between the instruction support and the observation of politics, because some users may ask for content that would violate the rules,” said Woodside Techcrunch. “In this case, the latest Flash model Google warns the instructions more, while breaking more. Google does not present many details about specific cases in which the rules have been violated, although they claim that they are not serious. Not knowing more, independent analysts are difficult to know if there is a problem.”

Advertisement

Google was already under fire for his models of security reporting practices.

The company took weeks to publish a technical report for the most talented model, Gemini 2.5 Pro. When the report was finally published, it initially omitted the key details of the security tests.

On Monday, Google published a more detailed report with additional security information.

(Tagstotransate) Gemini

Advertisement
This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending