3 ms·
That's a fundamental problem with leaks like this, particularly from brazenly partisan sources. There's no realistic way to verify that the hacker did not fabr
by tomku 10y ago
That's a fundamental problem with leaks like this, particularly from brazenly partisan sources. There's no realistic way to verify that the hacker did not fabricate documents to insert before they released the "leak". The "Pay to play" folder and the TARP spreadsheet strike me as a little too convenient to be real.
- adamiscool8 10y agoIt's a fair point, but "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".
- tomku 10y agoThat saying really does not work when the you're talking about one party potentially being malicious and a completely different party being stupid. It's also worth pointing out that malice and stupidity aren't necessarily an either-or.
- micaksica 10y agoHanlon's Razor definitely does not apply when you are talking about intelligence, information warfare, and diplomacy. To believe that aphorism holds true as a "razor" in high-stakes political games puts one firmly in the stupid camp.
- jwtadvice 10y agoThis 100%. However most people who hold this view seem to apply it only for adversaries of their nation, and not the intelligence activities of their own nation. For example the selective leaks known as the Panama Papers was criticized for being screened before being leaked of implicating US officials - and for being selectively published to implicate other world leaders. Ask an American about this an Hanlon's Razor suddenly seems relevant. Really, whether to take the mental effort to understand the realpolitik implications, incentives and to pry into leaks and their sources to understand what's true, what's false, what's mischaracterized and what's missing - that decision to be careful and skeptical is immediately under the bias that nationalistic individuals hold dear: cognitive dissonance, etc.
- mafribe 10y agoIt should be easy to verify/falsify the corporate donations listed under TARP.
- tomku 10y agoIt's easy to verify that they received TARP money and donated to Democratic PACs because both of those things are public information and completely legal to do. What Guccifer 2.0 claims goes far beyond that - that there's an explicit kickback donation scheme that funnels a percentage of TARP funds back to the lawmakers who authorized it. Proving that would require proving that the spreadsheet was actually created by a Clinton Foundation staffer and not fabricated by the hacker. That's very difficult to do, much more difficult than simply verifying the donation amounts. Edit: With recent information that this appears to be recycled info from the DCCC hack rather than from the Clinton Foundation, any credibility Guccifer 2.0 may have had should go out the window. The blog post is flat-out lying about the source of the data and contents.