3 ms·
> The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any difference if it were an unknown US hacker? I think it makes a huge difference. T
by bradford 10y ago
> The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any difference if it were an unknown US hacker?
I think it makes a huge difference. The specific parties involved and their intent matters.
Suppose this were a shooting instead of hack. If an unknown US citizen shoots up a mall, it's a headline. If a member of a Foreign military shoots up a US mall, it's an international incident.
- kodablah 10y agoInaccurate analogy. There are several analogies one can come up with to emphasize the "who" over the "what" and there are several analogies that can do the opposite. In this case, even if the "who" matters in some other context, it shouldn't matter with regards to the "what" which is the same regardless. So while the who does matter, that's a different question and a different discussion and arguably shifts the discussion away from the what.
- bradford 10y agoThe analogy is the least important part of my statement. I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying. Just to be clarify, suppose that the hack was done either by a script kiddy, or a nation state. Are you saying it doesn't make a difference?
- kodablah 10y agoTo the original question of "Would it had made any difference if it were an unknown US hacker?", I believe it would not have made any difference in the election which is what I believe is implied by the question. As to whether it makes a difference at all, sure it does in other contexts (e.g. foreign diplomacy), but the email writers and the contents are what helped make the difference in the election. Blaming the releasers is like blaming SMTP or computers, it shifts responsibility.