Trump marketing campaign hack-and-leak seems like a rerun of 2016. This time, media retailers are responding in another way

This weekend, Politico dropped a information bombshell: An individual who solely goes by “Robert” had shared with the information group paperwork allegedly stolen from the Donald Trump presidential marketing campaign. 

Since then, we’ve got discovered that The New York Occasions and The Washington Put up have additionally heard from the identical particular person and obtained some stolen paperwork. The doc dump has the hallmarks of a hack-and-leak operation, which generally entails malicious hackers stealing delicate data and strategically leaking it with the purpose of injuring the goal of the hack. The FBI has stated it’s investigating the hack. Trump himself has accused the Iranian authorities of the breach. Longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone stated his e-mail account was compromised, which is probably going the place the entire operation started, in line with nameless individuals who spoke to the Washington Put up.

If this all sounds acquainted to you it’s as a result of a near-identical hack and leak operation forward of a U.S. election occurred earlier than and can inevitably occur once more. It’s price going again in time to a earlier hack and leak operation to spotlight what we discovered then, and the way these classes apply now. 

In the summertime of 2016, a hacker who recognized themselves by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 and described themselves as a Romanian “hacker, supervisor, thinker [and] ladies lover,” claimed to be behind the hack of the Democratic Nationwide Committee. This got here as a shock as a result of cybersecurity agency CrowdStrike had accused a Russian intelligence company of being behind the hack. In what’s now an ironic twist, Roger Stone on the time publicly revealed he was in contact with Guccifer 2.0 and piggybacked on the hacker’s claims to assault the Democrats. 

However because it turned out, as soon as I began asking Guccifer 2.0 some pointed questions again in 2016, their masks rapidly began to fall off. Two years later, the FBI confirmed that Guccifer 2.0 was certainly no lone Romanian hacker, however a persona managed by two brokers working for Russia’s navy intelligence unit, the Predominant Intelligence Directorate or GRU. Whereas I pat myself on the again, I additionally need to be clear that, in a manner, it was simple for me to concentrate on Guccifer 2.0 and their identification and motivations fairly than the paperwork they had been leaking, just because I used to be (and nonetheless am) a cybersecurity reporter, not a political reporter. 

At this level and on this current case, it’s unclear who “Robert” actually is. However early indicators level to a repeat of the Guccifer 2.0 scenario.

Only a day earlier than Politico’s report on the Trump hack, Microsoft revealed that an Iranian government-backed hacking group “despatched a spear phishing e-mail in June to a high-ranking official on a presidential marketing campaign from the compromised e-mail account of a former senior advisor.” Microsoft didn’t say which marketing campaign it was, nor did it identify the “former senior advisor” who was focused, however sources have since instructed The Washington Put up and Politico that the FBI has been investigating the Trump marketing campaign hack since June. 

In a brand new report out Wednesday, Google’s Risk Evaluation Group, which investigates government-backed hackers and threats, concurred with a lot of Microsoft’s evaluation. Google stated it has proof that Iran-backed hackers had been behind the concentrating on of non-public e-mail accounts of a couple of dozen people affiliated with President Biden and former President Trump as early as Might.

To recap: It seems to be like Iranian authorities hackers might have compromised Stone, used his e-mail account to then goal and infiltrate the Trump marketing campaign, stolen some paperwork (for now we solely know of recordsdata associated to the vetting technique of Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance), and at last used a persona — Robert — to contact journalists, hoping they might cowl the leaked paperwork. 

What’s totally different from what occurred in 2016 is how the media is masking this entire story. 

On the time, numerous media retailers took the Guccifer 2.0 paperwork — and later these stolen from Hillary Clinton’s then-campaign chairman John Podesta — and ran tales that basically amplified the message that the Russian authorities wished the American public to concentrate on, specifically claims of corruption and malfeasance. Kathleen Corridor Jamieson, a College of Pennsylvania professor who wrote a ebook in regards to the 2016 hacking campaigns, instructed the Related Press this week that in 2016 the media misrepresented a few of the leaked materials in a manner that was extra damaging to Clinton than it ought to have been. 

This time, the early protection of the Trump marketing campaign hack-and-leak has centered on the hack-and-leak operation itself, and never a lot on what was leaked, one thing that disinformation specialists have praised.

“Politico and [its journalist] Alex Isenstadt deserve vital credit score for turning this story right into a story a couple of (poor, it seems) international disinformation try, as a substitute of masking the leaked Trump marketing campaign paperwork as such,” stated Thomas Rid, a professor at Johns Hopkins and somebody who intently adopted the 2016 Russian hacking and disinformation marketing campaign. 

It’s essential to notice that this all would possibly change, maybe if or when “Robert” decides to leak one thing that the media considers extra newsworthy. It’s additionally essential to do not forget that, as my former colleague Joseph Cox wrote just a few years in the past, there have been many instances of hackers leaking data that was within the public curiosity. The information in these hacks and leaks deserved to be lined and reported on. That will nonetheless show to be the case this time, too. 

Regardless, it’s essential that journalists give the entire context behind hack and leak operations, irrespective of if they’re launched by hackers working for governments attempting to undermine elections or sure presidential candidates, or hacktivists with good intentions.  

When Politico requested the hacker about how they acquired the paperwork, Robert reportedly stated: “I counsel you don’t be inquisitive about the place I acquired them from. Any reply to this query, will compromise me and likewise legally restricts you from publishing them.”

Maybe Robert himself is aware of that, this time, journalists have discovered the teachings.