5 ms·

> we do not know for certain that is true. We have considered the possibility that information we have received could have come from a state actor hostile to Am

by zepto 5y ago

> we do not know for certain that is true. We have considered the possibility that information we have received could have come from a state actor hostile to American interests If they have no way to verify or at least assure themselves that it isn’t this, then they have no business publishing it. Also, many of their statements are just lies in that context: E.g. We are disclosing the tax details of the richest Americans … Is a lie. “We are disclosing what an unknown source who could be a hostile foreign agent has told us are the tax details of the richest Americans.” Is true. It will be interesting to see whose secrets are included and whose are not. For example if they have Bloomberg’s details, do they have Trumps?

dougmwne 5y ago
They also state: "We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources."
- zepto 5y ago
  Sure, but it’s likely that a state actor had this information too. Any credible attempt at deception would use as much corroboratable data as possible.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    I find it unlikely that even a state actor would have access to literally all the same private data that ProPublica has acquired over the years, and that they'd know what data ProPublica has and what can be safely manipulated.
    - dougmwne 5y ago
      Yes, state actors have a lot of resources and capabilities, but omniscience is not one of them.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Why would they need omniscience?
        dougmwne 5y ago
        Probability. Let's say a state actor had access to a whole pile of tax returns and wanted to manipulate them to change the conclusions ProPublica would draw. The state actor changes half the data points. Let's say ProPublica was able to check an average of 3 data points on those 50 individuals they reviewed. The data point could have either been manipulates or untouched. I'd model this like a coin flip and say that if ProPublica didn't find the manipulation after checking 150 data points, it's like flipping 150 heads in a row or 2^150 or basically impossible.
        zepto 5y ago
        This is a straw man. Firstly we have no idea how many of the 50 individuals data were public or not. All public data can be discounted since the state actor can just copy it. Secondly, for the private data, the definition of ‘private’ is unspecified. It really just means not part of a published record. If propublica has access to it, then why couldn’t someone else? I agree that if there were 150 separate sources with data not disclosed anywhere else, it would be impossible to guess. But that’s just a made up scenario. There could be many correct records that are public, and one or two that are private but available to (or even provided through another channel of) the state actor. As long as the fake records are not part of the public or private data propublica already has, there would be no way to verify them. This of course assumes that propublica’s list of records itself is kept securely.
        Wowfunhappy 5y ago
myWindoonn 5y ago
From the article: > Provenance is not essential; accuracy is. We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources. They did assure themselves by verifying any detail that they could corroborate, it seems.

by zepto 5y ago

dougmwne 5y ago

They also state: "We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources."

zepto 5y ago
Sure, but it’s likely that a state actor had this information too. Any credible attempt at deception would use as much corroboratable data as possible.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  I find it unlikely that even a state actor would have access to literally all the same private data that ProPublica has acquired over the years, and that they'd know what data ProPublica has and what can be safely manipulated.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    Yes, state actors have a lot of resources and capabilities, but omniscience is not one of them.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Why would they need omniscience?
      - dougmwne 5y ago
        Probability. Let's say a state actor had access to a whole pile of tax returns and wanted to manipulate them to change the conclusions ProPublica would draw. The state actor changes half the data points. Let's say ProPublica was able to check an average of 3 data points on those 50 individuals they reviewed. The data point could have either been manipulates or untouched. I'd model this like a coin flip and say that if ProPublica didn't find the manipulation after checking 150 data points, it's like flipping 150 heads in a row or 2^150 or basically impossible.
        zepto 5y ago
        This is a straw man. Firstly we have no idea how many of the 50 individuals data were public or not. All public data can be discounted since the state actor can just copy it. Secondly, for the private data, the definition of ‘private’ is unspecified. It really just means not part of a published record. If propublica has access to it, then why couldn’t someone else? I agree that if there were 150 separate sources with data not disclosed anywhere else, it would be impossible to guess. But that’s just a made up scenario. There could be many correct records that are public, and one or two that are private but available to (or even provided through another channel of) the state actor. As long as the fake records are not part of the public or private data propublica already has, there would be no way to verify them. This of course assumes that propublica’s list of records itself is kept securely.
        Wowfunhappy 5y ago

myWindoonn 5y ago

From the article: > Provenance is not essential; accuracy is. We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources. They did assure themselves by verifying any detail that they could corroborate, it seems.