4 ms·

>Wrong about what exactly? Unfounded reactionary conspiracies, at least that's the context to this thread. I don't think anyone is appealing to a universal mo

by bduerst 10y ago

>Wrong about what exactly? Unfounded reactionary conspiracies, at least that's the context to this thread. I don't think anyone is appealing to a universal morality of "right" or "wrong". Just yesterday someone implied that the FBI was colluding with the Clintons to falsely blame the Podesta hacks on Russia, and I was downvoted for saying that without proof it's absurd.

dmichulke 10y ago
Maybe the downvotes were because the burden of proof still lies with the FBI or Clintons to show it was indeed Russia. Conversely, how can you prove that a state did not participate in a cyber attack?
- bduerst 10y ago
  Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons? Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
  - dmichulke 10y ago
    > Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons? I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons". > Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies Many of them refer to [1], a post that I wasn't aware of (seriously, I just read claims from politicians whereever I went) [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
    - bduerst 10y ago
      And by saying "or" you're limiting it to either of those two parties, even though numerous other people have already weighed in on the situation.
      - dmichulke 10y ago
        OK, so I think this was a misunderstanding. I just "Clinton or the FBI" because those two were mentioned earlier but by no means it was meant to be an exclusive list. Since they are the "plaintiffs" I was (and am) assuming it's their duty to come up with evidence but this doesn't at all exclude evidence from third parties. Honestly, I would like to see a thorough discussion about what is probably true and what not. In the media I only hear "It's them", "No, it wasn't us", "Yes, it was!", ... Apart from that there is always a grain of doubt when it comes to enemies of the state (Putin, Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, ...) because more often than not "Our sources confirm that ..." don't come with any evidence at all.
TheGirondin 10y ago
Yet you are taking Clinton's conspiracy theories at face value?
- bduerst 10y ago
  No, I'm taking the FBI's suspicion at face value, because they're in charge of protecting the U.S. from foreign intelligence threats. And I'm also taking CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica at face value as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 This prevalence of your reactionary conspiracy witch-hunt is precisely what this thread is about.
  - TheGirondin 10y ago
    Please link to where the FBI said the Russians are conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      The FBI said the Podesta Email hack was related to Russia: http://bfy.tw/8Fq5 http://bfy.tw/8Fq5
      - TheGirondin 10y ago
        Just to confirm though, nothing about the Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump. Well, that's your straw man. The evidence shows that Russian intelligence is meddling in the 2016 U.S. Election, and it's focused solely on attacking Trump's competition. There's no publicly available evidence that shows collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, other than Trump publicly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's email accounts.

by bduerst 10y ago

dmichulke 10y ago

Maybe the downvotes were because the burden of proof still lies with the FBI or Clintons to show it was indeed Russia. Conversely, how can you prove that a state did not participate in a cyber attack?

bduerst 10y ago
Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons? Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
- dmichulke 10y ago
  > Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons? I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons". > Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies Many of them refer to [1], a post that I wasn't aware of (seriously, I just read claims from politicians whereever I went) [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
  - bduerst 10y ago
    And by saying "or" you're limiting it to either of those two parties, even though numerous other people have already weighed in on the situation.
    - dmichulke 10y ago
      OK, so I think this was a misunderstanding. I just "Clinton or the FBI" because those two were mentioned earlier but by no means it was meant to be an exclusive list. Since they are the "plaintiffs" I was (and am) assuming it's their duty to come up with evidence but this doesn't at all exclude evidence from third parties. Honestly, I would like to see a thorough discussion about what is probably true and what not. In the media I only hear "It's them", "No, it wasn't us", "Yes, it was!", ... Apart from that there is always a grain of doubt when it comes to enemies of the state (Putin, Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, ...) because more often than not "Our sources confirm that ..." don't come with any evidence at all.

TheGirondin 10y ago

Yet you are taking Clinton's conspiracy theories at face value?

bduerst 10y ago
No, I'm taking the FBI's suspicion at face value, because they're in charge of protecting the U.S. from foreign intelligence threats. And I'm also taking CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica at face value as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 This prevalence of your reactionary conspiracy witch-hunt is precisely what this thread is about.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  Please link to where the FBI said the Russians are conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    The FBI said the Podesta Email hack was related to Russia: http://bfy.tw/8Fq5 http://bfy.tw/8Fq5
    - TheGirondin 10y ago
      Just to confirm though, nothing about the Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        >Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump. Well, that's your straw man. The evidence shows that Russian intelligence is meddling in the 2016 U.S. Election, and it's focused solely on attacking Trump's competition. There's no publicly available evidence that shows collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, other than Trump publicly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's email accounts.