He actually has a point, sadly. Visiting a "Jihadist" website, based on some arbitrary definition and interpretation from some cyber freedom fighter in DC, VA, or MD, is enough to get your "metadata" added to their graphs. You think Iranian sites with posts about hacking the US aren't on that list? I don't.
It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets.
Is this really the point we've reached? Where people with no intention of being a terrorist are bothered about visiting a site because they know everything they do is being observed?
If we've reached the point of self censoring behaviour, then we're definitely in the Panopticon.
The harder it becomes to break out of our filter bubbles, the more foreigners will look alien, strange and scary :(
Very interesting idea. So NSA's spying was exposed, everyone noticed, talked about it, and it seems like a good thing. But spying didn't stop. Operations didn't change. Neither NSA, White House, Google, or Facebook said they'll stop participating. No apologies.
So all that changed so far is that everyone starts behaving or acting keeping in mind that they are watched. Self censoring is very powerful. It would be interesting to see the rate in filter hits NSA gets on "terrorist-y" keywords before vs after the leaks. That would indicate the amount of self-censoring. We'll never see those statistics anytime soon, but someone is seeing it. Wonder what they are thinking or how they are interpreting this.
Yes, but to be Orwellian the self-censorship must be borne out of government intimidation. In this case the government hasn't intimidated anyone, we were just leaked information.
Unless you want to argue that Snowden intentionally leaked the PRISM slides so that society would be intimidated by the governments reach, thus giving way to society censoring itself without them having to publicly punish people that were guilty of thought crimes. But that's getting into Alex Jones territory.
>In this case the government hasn't intimidated anyone...
I disagree, with the government having the 'you're with us or against us' polarizing attitude since 9/11 along with Gitmo and an official kill list I think the U.S. gov't is pretty intimidating for anyone who doesn't fall into line.
Just look at what happened in Boston. A whole city shut down, house to house searches, an unprecedented reaction in the west for a bombing. No where else has that kind of reaction been seen, even in the UK when the IRA was blowing shit up, at no time was a curfew imposed and houses illegally searched by a militarised police.
The US is an incredibly intimidating place at times.
Sorry, instead of anyone, I should have said "average citizens".
Yes after 9/11 the government has a "your with us or your against us" attitude, promoted by Bush. However, your examples of Gitmo and kill lists are not evidence that this has continued. Those two examples only pertain to the ongoing war effort, not an intimidation campaign aimed at the average citizen, and the Americans that were involved were in the current warzone, not shipped off to Gitmo from the US.
I would address the Boston situation, but I don't think it is relevant. Sure shutting down the city is intimidating, but so is any other active shooter situation like a school shooting. You might feel intimidated by the police presence but ultimately the police are not focused on you.
But more to the point, of course the US is an intimidating place at times, everywhere is, but the key is that the intimidation is not focused on citizen self-censorship, which I think is the key to saying that we live in an Orwellian society.
Whether or not the US is an intimidating place, or debates about the validity of the Boston searches and curfew is a different discussion. They are not forms of intimidation aimed at self-censorship, and thus not valid reasons that we should assume that we live in an Orwellian surveillance state.
If you would like to have a debate about the role, or non-role of self-censorship in an Orwellian society, and you believe that some other form of intimidation is a valid criteria then I am all ears, but the discussion isn't about intimidation in general, only intimidation whose ultimate goal is self-censorship.
> not an intimidation campaign aimed at the average citizen...
> but ultimately the police are not focused on you.
This is exactly what is wrong. As long as these massive injustices don't affect the 'average' middle class unit it's all ok. As long as the military police thrashing through your house on their latest manhunt aren't actually after you, that's ok. It all seems pretty Orwellian to me, right down to the citizens actually justifying it all.
This seems pretty intimidating to me. It would certainly make me think twice about attending even the most peaceful of protests. Pepper spray and tazing is a common response to people objecting to the status quo. Hell, if you want to protest a political rally you have to actually go to a 'free speech zone', if that isn't Orwellian enough for you I don't know what is. Than again, the 'average' citizen probably is ok with a two party 'choice' and so doesn't need free speech.
And then you have Obama's HR347 'anti protest' bill which could potentially be used to lock people up for many years for protesting in an area which the Secret Service/DHS etc. has secretly declared a heightened area of security.
It's really frightening how much potential leeway there currently is for arbitrarily locking U.S. citizens up. All these loosely defined laws are sitting around just waiting for someone to come in and abuse them. While things are quiet and everyone is behaving it all seems ok, but as soon as there is a bit of trouble, another Occupy protest for example it will be a different story.
Watch how you see your right to due process being eroded away next, it's already not needed when hunting down suspects on foreign soil. You watch as language is changed, terms subtly augmented to make it ok to execute US citizens with a drone - you know, for your protection. Maybe you, the average citizen, aren't intimidated yet, but perhaps tomorrow you might be.
Ok, here's a real life example then. My parents were on Skype to me today, and my Dad was talking about some controversial topic or another - a couple of times my mum said "you can't say that over the internet, people are listening".
Furthermore I actually disagree that self censorship is the key component of an Orwellian society. I think surveillance itself is the key component. Reading the interpretation below I challenge you to deny that the US and many other governments aren't well on their way to the dystopia described by Orwell.
Police charging through your house without permission whist you sit back and say 'they are just doing their job' is the epitome of an Orwellian society.
I'm not quite sure about that, people feel quite intimidated when they see how this government treats people like Snowden and Manning. I would argue that the self-censorship is one way to avoid being treated like them.
While I agree that the government is trying to intimidate people with their treatment of Snowden and Manning, I think the goals of the intimidating are very different. In these cases the people they are trying to intimidate are potential leakers, not average citizens. The goal is not to promote self-censorship, but keep existing government employees from leaking classified information.
My political ideals happen to align closely with the Founding Fathers, and I've been vocal enough about that to assume that if the feds care, they already know. So I just don't really care what they know about me anymore. If it comes to the point that it looks like they might start rounding up people like me, I'll flee the country, like a German Jew ideally would have in 1930s Germany. If it doesn't come to that point, it doesn't really matter what they know about me.
If you ideals aligned closely with the Founding Fathers then the very fact your government is spying on the citizens would be something to care about, it would matter.
The 'it doesn't really matter what they know about me' attitude misses the whole point. The point is, it really matters that they are collecting data on citizens. The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to know that apathy was the downfall of their vision.
And where will you flee to? What kind of life do you think you'll have in a world where America sets the standard and all other governments follow suit? Citizens around the world shrugging and finding ways to tollerate the new paradigm whilst still living as comfortably as possible, because being monitored doesn't affect them.
My point wasn't that I don't care, my point was to give an alternative to self-censorship in terms of what you say and what websites you visit.
I've repeatedly asked for advice on HN in terms of what I can actually _do_ to improve the situation. I also recently posted a long rant asking for personal advice on leaving the country so as to not provide indirect support to what's going on [1]. If you have any suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.
I was really puzzled about what to do, because the Founding Fathers would NOT put up with this shit. Then I realized the key difference. The Founding Fathers started the American Revolution _because they could win_. They didn't worship freedom like some kind of religion. They were not self-sacrificial. They were trying to make their lives better. They were egoists.
What can I do, that has any remote chance of success? I can't think of anything. A revolution today would be a huge disaster, not that I'm even capable of starting one. All I can do is keep advocating a bit, and wait it out, and hope it gets better. To cease producing and go on strike at this point would not make any difference, except to be self-sacrificial.
If you have any suggestions, please let me know. However, I don't think suggestions like "Call your Congressman" are viable, and that's what I often get.
If we could get all the productive people in the country to refuse to put up with this shit and go on strike, we could do something. If everyone in the NSA and the military had the scruples and moral principles of Snowden, we could end this shit overnight. But there is too little agreement. Such a strike will not happen, and if it did, whatever these people came up with next would probably be much worse than what we have now.
So a bunch of us boring old HN types clicking on it are just going to make the haystack bigger. Let them add all of us, it'll just make more work for them.
It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets.
It makes me wonder, if one were to inject an 0x0 iframe with this site on a decently trafficked page (a couple hundred visitors per day) that tends to attract a niche, one could potentially create more noise?
So link to it from your Facebook and Twitter, encourage its spread, it'll get thousands of visits, and if the government is adding its readers to a list then there will be far more people who end up complaining.
You know what's really sad? People whining about the NSA every single day on Hacker News. It's really unbearable. I'm quite sure that the NSA has a filter for people who bad mouth America on hacker sites. I really wouldn't worry too much. You're classified as impotent. Unlikely to do anything more than whine.
Which is really, really sad. It's come to this, where we have to be afraid of drivebys on websites just because they may be honeypots for the US government, or because they might get all of us on some surveillance list.
People like Snowden didnt ruin their lifes so you can avoid clicking links. For fucks sake, the least you can do is grow a pair of balls and exercise your god damn given freedom to do as you wish, stand up.
...why? Because it's arabic? Ooohhh, scary arabic. Or they're talking about spies and bombs? Don't we talk about those things on hacker news too?
I can't read it, I'm working my way through the google translation and just starting, so maybe it's all "bad" stuff, but to be honest, I hope iranians can shed some light on what our government is doing - the US government itself certainly isn't going to help with that.
I guess it would really blow your mind if we told you that this language is also in the same language family as English, German, and French (Indo-European).
Actually the challenge is drive-by injection not the site per-se. Chrome didn't flag it as such but if you spend time crawling the web you will notice that it is a not-unusual weapon in the arsenal to put up a <attractive to people we're looking for> web site, and have it inject visitors with a tracking cookie/script/trojan. Sort of a variation on honeypots.
Thus it helps to be alert when popping into such sites.
If you know enough to be scared of drive-by injections, it's better to use NoScript than rely on other people always giving warnings. What if the poster (with an account 4 days old) was actively trying to be malicious, and nobody had noticed it yet?
Or display any compressed image, or even download compressed javascript that you aren't going to run. A number of exploits that malwaredomains.com finds are objects that are either normally or optionally compressed, and constructed in such a way to exploit an issue with the decompression software used.
If I'm both curious and suspicious (so in my most tin-hatish of moods) I fire up a virtualbox instance with a clean image, look at the site, and then delete that virtual machine image. That seems to also have an unintended prophylactic effect since virus investigators like to run viruses in VMs so malicious payloads don't fire if they detect they are running in a VM (at least according to the F-secure blog).
But either way, my point was that just visiting a site that wants to get you is a risk, whether or not you think you are protected.
I googled "site:malwaredomains.com compression" and nothing turned up. Can you recall any instances? Do you know where they get the data from? I must be missing something obvious but I don't see where the describe the how the list is created.
NB: I am not disagreeing with you I am just curious to look at some of the recent compression vulnerabilities.
Note there have been various fixes, and you can often tell when you see one because you get a 'broken image' icon rather than a picture and an new friend. The compressed Javascript exploits were primarily tied to pdfs apparently (you can search for 'compressed js exploit') and then look for "gif decoder exploit" and of course the whole cross site scripting thing which when you're building a web site to compromise people its not a 'bug' that it has a cross site exploit vulnerability per se :-)
Basically anything that 'decompresses' is effectively a data driven computation engine where the bad guys can feed an arbitrary stream of data into that engine to make it do unexpected things. Whether it was the font exploits in Stuxnet and elsewhere or pdf exploits or jpeg exploits. Sadly it has been a target rich environment in the past.
You know, I feel the same way. They may be our enemies and want to destroy us, but being able to see their side of things is refreshing. We can't continue to act like we're the perfect country and everyone else is 100% evil. It's not that simple.
The Iranian government has no point of view worth its salt. It's a repressive regime and the more we buy into their crap the more we're actually harming the people of that country.
This thread seems to be pretty chock full of some tinfoil hats.
1) You're not going to be added to "a list" because you clicked a link on hacker news. Remember that the NSA employs some of the smartest people in the world. Would it be meaningful to add a bunch of curious silicon valleyists to a list of "possible terrorists"? Probably not.
2) If you think that an aircraft that is anything bigger than a small pigeon could get anywhere near a major airport without getting itself a nice escort, then you're nuts.
This is all "Class b" or "bravo" airspace. It's all heavily controlled, heavily monitored with radar, and you have to ask permission to enter it.
It's incredibly unlikely that there was a "drone" in bravo airspace. Possibly a UAV, definitely not the boogey man Iranians.
3) This website doesn't even say anything. It's some pictures that could have easily been photoshopped together. Google translate isn't giving me anything interesting, and unless HN is a LOT more diverse than I realized, you're all going nuts over a couple of grainy photos.
It isn't a toy. It's huge. There is no way that is getting anywhere near a RADAR without everybody knowing about it. Yes, it is [possibly...meant to be, rumored to be] stealth. That doesn't mean it's going to go undetected into a major airport like that.
2. Based on commentary from native Persian speakers on this thread, it would appear that no one is claiming that the drone was remotely piloted by Iranians into US Airspace, but rather the one that was shot down in Iran several months ago (confirmed by the US Government) had these photos on it.
3. See above, there are at least 2 Persian speakers on this thread. HN is a LOT more diverse than you realize.
"2. Based on commentary from native Persian speakers on this thread, it would appear that no one is claiming that the drone was remotely piloted by Iranians into US Airspace, but rather the one that was shot down in Iran several months ago (confirmed by the US Government) had these photos on it."
If this is true it means the Iranians compromised the encryption on the UAV's drive, which would be seriously not good.
The Iranians outsmarting NSA encryption? Not likely. Possible in theory and a huge deal, but not likely. If they decrpyted something from a military aircraft, it's much more likely that shoddy engineering work was done on that aspect of said aircraft because it was decided that security wasn't a top concern. (And, indeed, having pictures of JFK _isn't_ a big deal.)
What exactly is "milspec"? I was under the impression that military security standards in the US _are_ produced by the NSA.
> highly likely the Russians would help the Iranians in such an endeavor in exchange for intelligence sharing.
I must be missing something... yes, but what do Russians have to do with it? I thought this was a US drone captured by Iranians. Genuine question here.
MIL-SPEC means encryption built to military specifications. It includes, but does not equate to, NSA Suite B cryptography. As you can imagine, using crypto designed by a paranoid spook agency would not be appropriate for all military applications, for example a near-real-time flight application. As a result, there are a variety of encryption standards used by the military, some of which would be approved by the NSA, others which wouldn't.
It's a good question about the Russians. The ties between Russia and Iran are much tighter than most in the US realize, especially when it comes to national security, and particularly with regard to US-related issues. If we used industrial grade crypto on a system, it would be in line with past behaviors for the Russians to help the Iranians with it.
Regarding the Russians: Oh, I see, now. Yes, you're right that if country X cracks our encryption, we can't assume that they didn't get help from <insert China or Russia here>.
> for example a near-real-time flight application.
Wait, why do you say such a system wouldn't use NSA-grade encryption?
> for example a near-real-time flight application.
Primarily latency. Now, ideally you'd like the entire subsystem moved off disk into volatile memory, but for some things you're going to have to read from disk. I can imagine cases where that wouldn't be easily feasible if the drive had NSA crypto.
"Regarding the Russians: Oh, I see, now. Yes, you're right that if country X cracks our encryption, we can't assume that they didn't get help from <insert China or Russia here>."
Right, but its more than that in the case of the Iranians. The Russians have a long and documented history of assistance to the Iranians and the Syrians.
> for some things you're going to have to read from disk.
I'm not sure I follow. For some things you're going to have to _write_ to disk... like captured video. (I wouldn't consider that to be the "real-time" part of the software, though.) And you might have to read from disk occasionally... maybe you have map information stored there... but that probably doesn't need to be real-time. Can you tell me an example where you would need to read from disk in real-time? (Which I think should anyway be impossible, regardless of whether or not heavy crypto is being used.)
> The Russians have a long and documented history of assistance to the Iranians and the Syrians.
Sure! Man I love when people on hn ask genuine questions rather than trying to one up one another. It's one of the reasons I was so reluctant to stop lurking for so long.
Much like the Mars rovers, the navigation system is loaded in a modular fashion, with complex algorithms for each scenario loaded on the fly. So for example, imagine a UAV goes into a stall. Likely the aircraft needs a whole new set of algorithms to recover. It's very likely I this case you'd need low latency disk reads. Now again, this is just a guess based upon my experience with similar systems. I've never developed a UAV system.
> Man I love when people on hn ask genuine questions rather than trying to one up one another. It's one of the reasons I was so reluctant to stop lurking for so long.
Well then, you're exactly the kind of person we need to stop lurking and start participating, so welcome aboard. But yeah, I totally understand you.
> this is just a guess based upon my experience with similar systems
You mean planetary rovers? If not, can you be more specific? I realize it's not necessarily wise to divulge too much industrial information. I actually have worked on UAVs... not to the point that I can say the scenario you're presenting is incorrect (I wasn't involved in that kind of stuff), but I don't think it's very plausible. I could see that strategy being more reasonable on a super memory-constrained device where the system is radiation hardened, like space equipment. I would think for a normal UAV, you'd just keep all the code (algorithms) you might need in memory.
Its possible I'm wrong. I've never designed a UAV flight system, so I was speculating as to reasons why a lower level of encryption might be needed. Its possible that's not a realistic constraint for atmospheric craft.
If this is anything, it's probably a redux of the Taliban accessing the unencrypted video feed of Predator drones. For a long time, most video (not control) feeds were sent in the open. The Taliban realized this and were able to grab those feeds using a $30 antenna and a laptop. A compromise in operational security? Sure. A method of "hijacking" UAVs? No way.
Agree with OP. Very little here. Keep calm and carry on.
EDIT: Turns out they're claiming these were pulled off the RQ-170 Sentinel that crash landed in Iran. If that's true, it would mean the drive was salvaged and decrypted, which is a potentially big deal.
"If you think that an aircraft that is anything bigger than a small pigeon could get anywhere near a major airport without getting itself a nice escort, then you're nuts."
I'm reasonably sure I've got several "aircraft" in my shed which I could easily use to overfly "a major airport" if I chose to do so.
This one, for example, is at least medium or large pidgeon sized (610mm wingspan): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigiain/5228554566/ - the flight in that video was around 2.5km from the intersection of the runways at Sydney Airport. That plane (with the camera on board) can fly for ~23 minutes doing 20m/s. That'd give me a comfortable 10mins loiter time over the airport while still being comfortably able to retrieve the camera and it's SD card.
Note - that's barely more that $100 worth of stuff, it's less than 150g all up flying weight, and it's got so little metal in it that I'd be astounded if the regular airport radar could distinguish it under ideal conditions, never mind while it's only a few tens of meters up and buried in the ground clutter.
Note2 - that plane would require retrieval to get the images back, someone actually interested in getting airport pictures without getting caught could use a slightly larger plane carrying a video transmitter sending pictures, never intending to get the plane back (ideally, I guess, ditching the plane at sea to avoid anyone seeing it - a hollow balsa/film construction that'd sink easily might be better than a foam "floating" construction.)
Note3 - that plane as it's configured now isn't flyable at 2.5km range, but there's lots of hobbyists who've worked around the problems there.
My take on this is that someone is claiming that the UAV that crashed in Iran (supposedly hacked) had images on its hard drive of the JFK airport.
That person is basically claiming that the UAV was at one point flown over JFK airport at some previous time before the US moved the UAV to the middle east.
I said "my take" because i, like other hn readers have no idea what I am looking at so I made a guess. You are the poster, you can explain what is going on here.
All I see are two images of nondescript buildings and cars labeled "FLIR Systems". Would an actual drone image used for reconnaissance over hostile territory waste a bunch of screen area on the manufacturer name of the camera?
Also, there's some censored text in the upper left. I suspect that's the date and time.
My guess is these pictures were lifted from promotional material like the "MicroSTAR" sheet just below it.
I'm surprised no one else in this thread has said anything. Maybe there's some more context?
The only context provided so far is that LA Times article talking about a sighting of an "unmanned aircraft or drone" near JFK in March, with (AFAICT) no connection with this forum post at all, except one or more of the posts in that thread also seem to mention JFK.
Is anyone actually taking this seriously? Do people not know that forums are full of bullshit the world over?
Edit: in fact, this person seems to be pushing these "Parastoo" self-published press releases rather hard, which themselves seem to be bullshit aimed at pressing members of the IAEA to publicly denounce Israel (while trumpeting their own hacker cred, of course). The only way anyone is ever going to see the threats in those releases is if they get eyes on them. There may be a story in chaining together these seemingly grandiose claims, but it's not in this random forum post of non-descript screenshots, and until I see evidence otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume this person is here to try and get "grassroots" attention on their self promotion.
Are you saying the US uses drones on their own territory?
If yes, what for? Spying their own people comes to my mind, but maybe I read to much spy stories lately and there are legitimate reasons.
The US does use drones over its own territory, but whether it's for "legitimate reasons" is still a controversial matter. One planned use for them, if not already, is to patrol the US-Mexican border.
The FBI has very recently admitted to using them for domestic surveillance, but I don't think specifics were mentioned.
I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I mean, all this Internet and telecommunication surveillance is one thing - and a bad thing for sure, but spying drones is in another ballpark.
I'll just leave this here from Orwell's 1984:
In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs,
hovered for an instant like a bluebottle,
and darted away again with a curving flight.
It was the police patrol, snooping in people's windows.
Border Patrol has 10 Predators in operation along the U.S. border. They're supposed to only be used within 30 miles of the border, but they loan them out to other agencies for more internal purposes all the time, including detecting fishing violations.
> According to the documents, CBP already appears to be flying drones well within the Southern and Northern US borders, and for a wide variety of non-border patrol reasons. What’s more — the agency is planning to increase its Predator drone fleet to 24 and its drone surveillance to 24 hours per day / 7 days per week by 2016.
There appear to be no privacy controls for citizens currently, but they may add them… eventually.
The Attorney General also stated that drone strikes against Americans within U.S. borders would be legal and that while they haven't yet been done they would consider them if the circumstances were right.
That page is so incredibly foreign to me - right justified, stuff from right appears on left, things from top on bottom etc. I'm surprised how striking I found it.
Which site are you meaning? Thinks like Google? Its made me realise how much I depend on so-called normal layouts for things like next page buttons etc. something I had never thought about really.
Obviously I don't frequent many sites that are primarily in another language, Der Speigel is the only one I think. That site is left to right reading so it can follow the same formatting styles as English. I haven't noticed any German language related layout quirks there.
Yeah, Google (http://www.google.com/?hl=fa) Facebook. Basically any international website. If you ask UI developers of those companies they will tell you pains of making a UI that works both RTL and LTR
I felt the same way the first time I saw an Arabic-English restaurant menu. The symmetry of the juxtaposition of the two typesetting schemes is quite elegant and striking.
Translating this forum is hard. They uses a specific language that has tons of reference to the way Iranian government sees the world. For example they never say "Israel", they would say instead "Usurper Regime". Because they never recognize Israel as a country.
What we have here is a forum by Iranian semi-military force "Basij". They bluff all the time and you never know what is truth. They have no shame in photoshoping and manipulating the truth.
If you recall the Iranian uprising a few years ago, the Basij were the jack-booted thugs who were beating the shit out of innocent civilians. It was a member of the Basij who killed Neda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan
> Translating this forum is hard. They uses a specific language...
I'm always fascinated by the way these people's minds seem to work! Reading his posts, this "DarkPassenger" fellow seems even crazier than our good HN friend losethos: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=losethos
I'm not sure about authors, but I can try to translate.
To give you a context, these poems are written by gnostic who believed they saw the real truth and they had no fear of dying because you can not never kill their souls. I assume any culture has this sort of things"
First poem:
We are stuck in a deep well of the bad thinking one
Our message would not reach to you (God?) easily
Second (red)
I have experienced a lot of pain during my life
No pain is comparable to pain of Hijran( being far from God, "the one", etc)
Third (red)
This is Arabic. I don't know Arabic. I can say it's part of Quran and it's referring to " thos who belive will be able to discove" or something like that.
My Arabic is pretty terrible, so the third part didn't make much sense at all, but I copied it as:
بكم فتح الله و بكم يختم و بكم ينزل الغيث و بكم يمسك السماء ان تقع على الارض الا باذنه و بكم ينفس الهم و يكشف الضر
Maybe someone else who speaks the language or someone who wants to try with Google Translate could help out.
None of them actually believe that crap. They want us to believe that they actually believe that crap. Get it? It's a scare tactic sorta similar to what the police in the US uses and should not be unfamiliar to anyone living here.
I call bullshit. There are numerous "funny bits" in this thread, number one, they display the info page for a "UAV Imager system" which in no way offers control of a drone. Second, the very generalized schematic for a nuclear power station, most likely a mid-60's design BWR, means nothing to anyone.
Because I can't read moon runes, what is this this about? Its bad enough when people drop technical posts without context, but seriously what is this saying? Perhaps we should actively encourage posts in English so that anybody from Bangkok, Baghdad, Beijing and Boston and could understand these posts.
I made a brief timeline of Parastoo hacks when submitting the Cryptome.org article on this topic. The hacker(s) referenced VSATs and drone hijacking after hacking IHS Janes, pre-JFK drone incident. They then started to reference the JFK incident in further releases about hijacking US drones over US skies/assets:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6038657
I looked at his submission history. I see four items.
The first, dated four days ago (and the only I see one preceeding this), is a title making some sort of claim about Booz Hamilton based on a whois lookup. Not exactly a quality submission, but it has nothing to do with Iran or hacking.
The other three submissions are all about what seems to be some news he's stumbled on about hacking/reverse engineering claims from Iran.
Considering this is 'Hacker' news, you can understand why he might think we'd be interested in this. Of course, it would be better form for him to write up an article explaining the separation or link between these items rather than posting lots of direct evidence.
None of that means he should expect to have his privacy breached by a US intelligence agency, and frankly your support for that on the basis of such a flimsy characterisation is blood-chilling.
A lot of people seem to have become alarmed because they've seen persian text and heard that it's about hacking. That's equally chilling.
