3 ms·
This is probably going to get super downvoted, possibly flagged, but what evidence does anyone have that they could not have stopped it? I think it's PLAUSIBLE
by rnovak 11y ago
This is probably going to get super downvoted, possibly flagged, but what evidence does anyone have that they could not have stopped it?
I think it's PLAUSIBLE that the intelligence community knew and identified this attack ahead of time, and chose to ignore it.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't surprise me (let's be clear here: I'm not saying they caused it, I'm saying they knew and chose to do nothing).
That move 'The Imitation Game' raised a good point: If you have the ability to read 100% of your enemies comms...what's the best approach for defeating them?
The second you stop 100% of every attack you know about, the jig would be up, they'd know that their comms had been compromised, they'd switch to a different technology, and you'd be on the defensive (instead of offensive).
It's not like we'd even know how many they stopped, I'm sure that material is so classified not even analysts have access to it, let alone would it be open to FOIA requests.
Anyway, just a thought.
- x1798DE 11y agoI think the major problem is that it's easy to fill yourself into thinking that you could have stopped it in hindsight because you already know what happened. If you took this one report more seriously you would have stopped it, sure, but how does that help you going forward? It's the same kind of thinking that makes you feel like you could have made a killing buying Microsoft stock or Google or something. Easy to make a post hoc rationalisation that explains the observed facts, likely impossible to do ex ante.