It seems like state-sponsored hackers were used by a democratic government to plant digital evidence on the devices of people critical of high-ranking politicians. I think that’s interesting because we know state-sponsored hacking is increasing but this is one of the first cases I’ve read about where the targets/victims are individuals within the sponsoring country’s borders as opposed to entities outside of their borders.

The whole process of discovery reeks of conflict of interest.

The audit was done by a firm at the behest of defense lawyer.

Is the security firm going to get paid if they claim their is no evidence of a plant ?

Also, its not proven its a state sponsored plant.

> Is the security firm going to get paid if they claim their is no evidence of a plant ?

No, they won’t. The article says the security group has worked on the case pro bono so the consultants don’t get paid either way.

still does not resolve the conflict of interest.

the defendant lawyer hired a firm which found evidence the defendant is not guilty.

The pro bono part raises more suspicions. One of the accused activist died of old age in a top tier hospital, not exactly a poor client requiring pro bono work.

So it was suspicious when you thought they were getting paid and now it’s even more suspicious when you learn they aren’t getting paid?

Your logic is... suspicious.

That is how the system works, conflicts of interest are presumed on both sides. The prosection wants people to say they're guilty, the defense wants people who say they aren't guilty.

The balance of evidence is against the prosecution now, and they can find their own expert witness if they disagree.

That being said, blatantly lying here would be a deathknell for the firm. Every case where they get involved will mean someone brings it up as a way to dismiss their testimony. It would take a staggering payment for most firms to even debate doing something like this intentionally. If it were my firm and I gave up all my morals, I would charge more than I could sell the firm for. I'm giving up basically all future revenue and tarnishing my own name; it wouldn't be something I casually did.

Are you talking about Stan Swamy who died in prison and who was refused a straw to drink, which he needed to cope with Parkinson's?

I didn’t see any mention of state-sponsored hackers in the article apart from some hand wavy associations. Care to elaborate?

Let me get this straight. A story about state sponsored hackers is out of place on hacker news?

The How : The Hacker in Hacker News (HN) means a computer hacker and this story is about hacking. The Why: Because a community of hackers and non hackers alike who use HN found it interesting and upvoted it enough to make it to the frontpage. Hope that helps answering the how and why.

Today's Yahoo Combinator be like

500 votes for my fave movie flicks

40 votes for process heap data carving

¯\_(ツ)_/¯