Isn't the Stuxnet story actually a good example of the tech community maybe taking their scepticism too far? I'm also really sceptical of what, if anything, th

Isn't the Stuxnet story actually a good example of the tech community maybe taking their scepticism too far? I'm also really sceptical of what, if anything, the government could provide as evidence that people would accept. If the evidence is technical, that doesn't only prevent non-technical people from evaluating it. It also means it's susceptible to being called "fake" when it isn't. Say, for example, the NSA has log data from a bunch of switches across the world, and maybe the Russians also tapped into a few honeypots. All the NSA then has is IP addresses and other system logs–all of which could easily be faked. Concerning your last point: Yes, we would treat the reverse different. And there's nothing wrong with judging some information by their record: If I read something on a website that open 6 pop-ups for porn, and that I have never seen before, I'm going to trust it less than the New York Times, which has, contrary to popular myth, an excellent track record of trying their best and making it public when they fail.