4 ms·
Of course, a refusal to confirm or deny the US's involvement in the Stuxnet worm isn't an admission. After all, it's possible that Lynn simply doesn't know if t
by Flenser 15y ago
Of course, a refusal to confirm or deny the US's involvement in the Stuxnet worm isn't an admission. After all, it's possible that Lynn simply doesn't know if the USA was involved - and doesn't want to be caught on film denying something which later turns out to be true.
Or it's possible that he's not authorised to deny the US's involvement for reasons best known to the higher echelons of US politics.
Or maybe even the USA, were involved in Stuxnet but Lynn realises what a monumental sh-t-storm that would create on the international stage so he thought better than to confirm it on a CNBC documentary.
Or maybe Lynn knows the US had nothing to do with it, but admitting that would make it easy to tell when they do have something to hide.
- tokenadult 15y agoOr maybe Lynn knows the US had nothing to do with it, but admitting that would make it easy to tell when they do have something to hide. This is indeed a reason that a standard response about national intelligence issues when questions come from journalists is "We neither confirm nor deny that . . . " That does a little, at least, to reduce the signal given to foreign intelligence agencies about the underlying facts by responses to journalists.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]