6 ms·
With absolutely no evidence to support it. On the other hand, we do have concrete evidence that the intelligence community can make their own attacks look like
by lj3 9y ago
With absolutely no evidence to support it. On the other hand, we do have concrete evidence that the intelligence community can make their own attacks look like they came from Russia...
- plugger 9y agoOh, so you're privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter? Just because the evidence isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- lj3 9y agoEverybody is privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter thanks to the many, many security leaks they've had in the past year. Nice attempt at the 'disqualify', though.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoSecret evidence is worthless. Without public evidence it's just an argument from authority, and the authorities in question have been quite obviously lying about other matters for years. Trusting people who have repeatedly broken your trust tends to be a poor idea. They might not be lying, but without evidence to the contrary it's best to ignore everything they say.
- justinschuh 9y agoThis argument is false on its face. There's overwhelming evidence in the Crowdstrike releases prior to the election[1]. And there's far more from them and at least half a dozen respected infosec firms. Literally any competent infosec practitioner who has looked at the evidence understands that Russian hacking activity was massively elevated in the run up to the election and explicitly targeted candidates and electoral functions. So, what are your motivations in disputing well established facts? Are you just choosing to be intentionally contrarian and happen to have stumbled into on a subject you know nothing about? Or do you have some stake in willfully misinforming people on this subject? [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-hunting-history-and-attribution-of-russian-intelligence-operations/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-huntin...