3 ms·

> How do you figure they're not? Can you explain this? Filesystem timestamps are based on local clocks, various command line arguments and tools to package up

> How do you figure they're not? Can you explain this? Filesystem timestamps are based on local clocks, various command line arguments and tools to package up files can manipulate those timestamps, and there are ways to simply _set_ them to whatever one wants. That the alleged transfer speed was 23MB/s is not proof of anything on its own, and it certainly isn't proof that it's impossible that it was a hack. The allegation from Patrick Lawrence's 2017 article in The Nation, since repeated by countless grifters, has consistently been: > “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” This is so laughably false that you should immediately doubt anyone who repeats that as if it were a fact.

nickysielicki 6y ago
> Filesystem timestamps are based on local clocks, various command line arguments and tools to package up files can manipulate those timestamps, and there are ways to simply _set_ them to whatever one wants. Right. I just said that in the comment you're replying to... But that's a pretty wild theory you're presenting, isn't it? Why would they transfer at some speed, then go back and calculate timestamps to make it seem like the modified times line up with a transfer at 23MB/s? Isn't it much more reasonable to just assume that the files, y'know, were actually transferred at 23MB/s? > That the alleged transfer speed was 23MB/s is not proof of anything on its own, and it certainly isn't proof that it's impossible that it was a hack. Agreed. It's not proof. It's just evidence. But when there isn't proof to be had, what else can we go off of except evidence?
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  Because the evidence is nonsense! It's not proof of what the authors, Patrick Lawrence or William Binney, or anyone else, claim! Their central thesis is, and it pains me to repeat this: (This is a false claim.) "The DNC files could not have been transferred over the internet because a speed of 23MB/s is impossible." That is demonstrably, laughably false. The fact that on Hacker News we're disputing whether or not it's possible to transfer files over 23MB/s is absurd! OF COURSE IT IS! As for why the timestamps might reflect that speed, there are many possible reasons: * That was the actual speed of the initial transfer/dump from the DNC - whether over the internet or to a USB2 flash drive * The timestamps were planted to provide plausible deniability or disinformation * The timestamps were the result of a program producing files at a rate of 23MB/s, such as: a secondary transfer to a flash drive after the hack occurred, an archival or unarchival process, a compression or encryption process, copying to a network storage server, or an analysis process step that touched each file and averaged 23MB/s. Since there are many possible ways to get to 23MB/s, it's not proof, or even evidence, of what the authors claim.

nickysielicki 6y ago

> Filesystem timestamps are based on local clocks, various command line arguments and tools to package up files can manipulate those timestamps, and there are ways to simply _set_ them to whatever one wants. Right. I just said that in the comment you're replying to... But that's a pretty wild theory you're presenting, isn't it? Why would they transfer at some speed, then go back and calculate timestamps to make it seem like the modified times line up with a transfer at 23MB/s? Isn't it much more reasonable to just assume that the files, y'know, were actually transferred at 23MB/s? > That the alleged transfer speed was 23MB/s is not proof of anything on its own, and it certainly isn't proof that it's impossible that it was a hack. Agreed. It's not proof. It's just evidence. But when there isn't proof to be had, what else can we go off of except evidence?

AaronFriel 6y ago
Because the evidence is nonsense! It's not proof of what the authors, Patrick Lawrence or William Binney, or anyone else, claim! Their central thesis is, and it pains me to repeat this: (This is a false claim.) "The DNC files could not have been transferred over the internet because a speed of 23MB/s is impossible." That is demonstrably, laughably false. The fact that on Hacker News we're disputing whether or not it's possible to transfer files over 23MB/s is absurd! OF COURSE IT IS! As for why the timestamps might reflect that speed, there are many possible reasons: * That was the actual speed of the initial transfer/dump from the DNC - whether over the internet or to a USB2 flash drive * The timestamps were planted to provide plausible deniability or disinformation * The timestamps were the result of a program producing files at a rate of 23MB/s, such as: a secondary transfer to a flash drive after the hack occurred, an archival or unarchival process, a compression or encryption process, copying to a network storage server, or an analysis process step that touched each file and averaged 23MB/s. Since there are many possible ways to get to 23MB/s, it's not proof, or even evidence, of what the authors claim.