2 ms·
"though I'm ready to admit it if real evidence is produced, which I understand is probably not possible" That was settled a long time ago by multiple independe
by lawnchair_larry 10y ago
"though I'm ready to admit it if real evidence is produced, which I understand is probably not possible"
That was settled a long time ago by multiple independent, reputable security companies. It doesn't mean they were the source of the leak though.
- cookiecaper 10y agoYes, I understand multiple security firms have said "It was Russia, trust us." I don't see much corroboration offered up --- they claim it fits an attack profile, which I don't find entirely convincing. That's not evidence, it's testimony. I offered my theory on why they might be motivated to state this absent evidence in the previous comment. It is fine if you want to believe their narrative. It was constructed to be believable and at this point it's just an independent judgment call on which sources are credible and which scenario seems more plausible (hacking DNC mail server by a nation-state's cyberwarfare apparatus v. internal whistleblower copying data). No hard feelings.
- lawnchair_larry 10y agoFalse Dichotomy. Russia hacked the DNC. Russia may or may not have also leaked the emails. They don't have to be the same event.