4 ms·

Whats wrong with proving a negative? There is no fallacy in that first comment you quoted. datapat isn't claiming that what he's saying is true, he's asking for

by menzoic 11y ago

Whats wrong with proving a negative? There is no fallacy in that first comment you quoted. datapat isn't claiming that what he's saying is true, he's asking for a proof.

eli 11y ago
The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out?
- datapat 11y ago
  >The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. >For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out? If only there was an organization whose remit was to investigate and establish the facts behind fraud, robbery, hacking and other crimes.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Well, at a minimum they should file a complaint with the authorities, hand over evidence that they did find, and so on. Too many times these 'hacks' have a weird smell and the companies for some reason do not want to get the authorities involved. Imagine how strange it would be if you had a breach at your home, a very large amount of value would be stolen and you'd not make any effort to alert the authorities and if the only thing that would prove that it was an outsider was your say-so. Of course, you could make it look like a burglary when it really was you but the various agencies would most likely be able to tell the difference, or in fact may be able to conclusively prove that you were the one doing it in the first place. Lots of real-life fraudsters get caught this way, I don't see why on-line fraudsters should get a free pass on having to at least meet the same level of proof before they are believed.
  - eli 11y ago
    I agree, but I don't think failing to do so necessarily means there's more to the story. The simple explanation of greed and incompetence seems pretty plausible.

by menzoic 11y ago

Whats wrong with proving a negative? There is no fallacy in that first comment you quoted. datapat isn't claiming that what he's saying is true, he's asking for a proof.

eli 11y ago

The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out?

datapat 11y ago
>The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. >For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out? If only there was an organization whose remit was to investigate and establish the facts behind fraud, robbery, hacking and other crimes.
jacquesm 11y ago
Well, at a minimum they should file a complaint with the authorities, hand over evidence that they did find, and so on. Too many times these 'hacks' have a weird smell and the companies for some reason do not want to get the authorities involved. Imagine how strange it would be if you had a breach at your home, a very large amount of value would be stolen and you'd not make any effort to alert the authorities and if the only thing that would prove that it was an outsider was your say-so. Of course, you could make it look like a burglary when it really was you but the various agencies would most likely be able to tell the difference, or in fact may be able to conclusively prove that you were the one doing it in the first place. Lots of real-life fraudsters get caught this way, I don't see why on-line fraudsters should get a free pass on having to at least meet the same level of proof before they are believed.
- eli 11y ago
  I agree, but I don't think failing to do so necessarily means there's more to the story. The simple explanation of greed and incompetence seems pretty plausible.