3 ms·

I mean... That is what someone who's setting up a patsy would do if they could. Home networks are not exactly Fort Knox, are they? I had a bunch of rogue connec

I mean... That is what someone who's setting up a patsy would do if they could. Home networks are not exactly Fort Knox, are they? I had a bunch of rogue connections banging around trying to brute-force database logins within my home LAN earlier this year. I imagine they could have made a connection to a server look like it originated from within my LAN, and if I wasn't watching a live feed of my database connection logs at the time I never would have noticed.

Thorrez 5y ago
Why, after he realized his own PayPal account had been hacked and used to hack his own company, would he then become a whistleblower and accuse his company of not investigating the hack? He should have been spending his time finding out how his PayPal account and home network got hacked, not talking to journalists accusing the company of not handling the hack correctly.
542354234235 5y ago
This seems like a series of unfalsifiable claims. Taking evidence linking him to the crime and saying “That is what someone who's setting up a patsy would do” pretty much means anything and everything becomes “proof” of the conspiracy.
- trhway 5y ago
  > evidence linking him to the crime keyword is "evidence". Whenever a sympathetic person/cause becomes a target of IP-address based evidence HN is overflowing with posts that IP-address isn't an evidence :)
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    It wasn’t IP-address based evidence. It was a chain of evidence. His Paypal account being used to purchase a VPN. That same VPN being used to access the servers with close-hold, high level credentials. His home IP being associated with the VPN after a power outage at his house. So, we have electric grid evidence that matches up with IP evidence, that matches up with Paypal account evidence. I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent, but lets not misrepresent what is being discussed. I’m saying that responding to chains of evidence by claiming that is what someone setting up a patsy would do, is a unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Or the perpetrator could have been one person, no need for it to be a conspiracy. I'm not saying it's probable, and the evidence sounds convincing. But I'm sure there are lots of unfalsifiable things that have actually happened, and frame jobs have happened. Not leaning on the luxury of throwing out uncertainties (or even just offhand devil's advocate like my original comment) doesn't make someone a nutjob. My point was that it coming from his home IP isn't the strongest of evidence. I only mentioned being a "patsy" because there's pretty much no other explanation (besides him lying) for his PayPal buying the VPN and the IP from his home address. If someone got into his home network and he works from home, it's not outside the realm of possibility, or even particularly farfetched, that someone got work and PayPal credentials and acted maliciously towards the company within his network. So please tone it down with the "conspiracy theory" rhetoric.

Thorrez 5y ago

Why, after he realized his own PayPal account had been hacked and used to hack his own company, would he then become a whistleblower and accuse his company of not investigating the hack? He should have been spending his time finding out how his PayPal account and home network got hacked, not talking to journalists accusing the company of not handling the hack correctly.

542354234235 5y ago

This seems like a series of unfalsifiable claims. Taking evidence linking him to the crime and saying “That is what someone who's setting up a patsy would do” pretty much means anything and everything becomes “proof” of the conspiracy.

trhway 5y ago
> evidence linking him to the crime keyword is "evidence". Whenever a sympathetic person/cause becomes a target of IP-address based evidence HN is overflowing with posts that IP-address isn't an evidence :)
- 542354234235 5y ago
  It wasn’t IP-address based evidence. It was a chain of evidence. His Paypal account being used to purchase a VPN. That same VPN being used to access the servers with close-hold, high level credentials. His home IP being associated with the VPN after a power outage at his house. So, we have electric grid evidence that matches up with IP evidence, that matches up with Paypal account evidence. I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent, but lets not misrepresent what is being discussed. I’m saying that responding to chains of evidence by claiming that is what someone setting up a patsy would do, is a unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Or the perpetrator could have been one person, no need for it to be a conspiracy. I'm not saying it's probable, and the evidence sounds convincing. But I'm sure there are lots of unfalsifiable things that have actually happened, and frame jobs have happened. Not leaning on the luxury of throwing out uncertainties (or even just offhand devil's advocate like my original comment) doesn't make someone a nutjob. My point was that it coming from his home IP isn't the strongest of evidence. I only mentioned being a "patsy" because there's pretty much no other explanation (besides him lying) for his PayPal buying the VPN and the IP from his home address. If someone got into his home network and he works from home, it's not outside the realm of possibility, or even particularly farfetched, that someone got work and PayPal credentials and acted maliciously towards the company within his network. So please tone it down with the "conspiracy theory" rhetoric.