8 ms·

It's from sources vetted by Reuters. Their public-facing anonymity was required for coming forward. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-cyber-treasury-excl

• Consultant32452 6y ago
  Right, so anonymous sources who provided no evidence to the public. It's meaningless.
  • bduerst 6y ago
    The sources are not anonymous to Reuters and they were authoritative enough in the matter to publish. It is not meaningless.
    • Consultant32452 6y ago
      Do you remember when a named source, Colin Powell, showed some photoshops of "weapons lab trucks" to the UN leading to us going to war in multiple countries resulting in millions of dead people? That was a named person with claimed evidence. This is even less credible than Powell. It's hard to get less credible than unnamed sources with no evidence.
• syshum 6y ago
  This may have been a valid assertion in a time where news media could be trusted I, and many others, no longer have any faith or trust in the news media. Time and time again the news media has been caught spreading lies and disinformation so sorry I am no longer going to "take their word" for it, and trust they have properly vetted their sources Also They do not lead themselves to credibility by having a Matrix style photo with "hooded hacker" trope prominent in the article
  • bduerst 6y ago
    Criticizing a stock photo is addressing the tone, not the content. Your distrust is misplaced because it's been confirmed by multiple people in the government now.