2 ms·

So we could conclude that, on the basis of the non-faked information out of Guccifer 2.0 that likely this information hasn't been forged either. But we should

• micaksica 10y ago
  > So we could conclude that, on the basis of the non-faked information out of Guccifer 2.0 that likely this information hasn't been forged either. Sure, you could make that argument based upon your own web of trust. Crowdstrike and others that have given this Russian intelligence attribution are higher in my web of trust than an anonymous Russian-appearing hacktivist, largely because they are people are in my own social circle and personal network. Believing that attribution and having an understanding of the history of Russian tradecraft and its current political leadership, I'll verify before trusting in this case. I'll assume something in here is likely faked, forged, or set up to deceive in some way. Not believing it is Russian intelligence but likely highly partisan, I will maintain my skepticism given the timing of this release and the fact that this hacktivist has only been anti-Clinton late in an election cycle.
  • jwtadvice 10y ago
    In my mind, Russian intelligence is to be trusted the same amount as Qatari, Saudi Arabian, Chinese, American, Canadian, German, etc intelligence.