4 ms·
> yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data... You're absolutely right,
by imron 9y ago
> yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data...
You're absolutely right, and in fact all the Macron campaign would need to do is point out a handful of them and it would call in to question the veracity of all of them. Did they do that though, or did they just insinuate that there might be fakes (like the DNC did but couldn't actually back up with evidence).
- notahacker 9y agoThe few interesting titbits promoted by Macron's opponents (supposed offshore bank accounts, membership of gay mailing lists and an aide's supposed Bitcoin drug orders) have all been quite thoroughly debunked as crude forgeries and documents in the archive even linked to specific Russian security companies by media, security consultants and even pretty radical pro-leak publications like the Intercept. The Macron campaign even shared the phishing emails they'd received. Wikileaks and their much trumpeted reputation for authenticating stuff's contribution to this was to deny anything they'd looked at was fake (possibly true if they only looked at the banal campaign material) and suggest the Cyrillic headers on attachments might have been evidence that Macron had Slavic employees...