3 ms·

>Using threadbare evidence, or none at all, the group suggested that a small American election software company, Konnech, had secret ties to the Chinese Communi

>Using threadbare evidence, or none at all, the group suggested that a small American election software company, Konnech, had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States, according to online accounts from several people at the conference. Unreal that they published this.

tootie 4y ago
> In the ensuing weeks, the conspiracy theory grew as it shot around the internet. To believers, the claims showed how China had gained near complete control of America’s elections. That part is still valid. And really we don't actually know what evidence the DA has or if the scope of the arrest warrant matches the theory. All they've said is that some data was stored in China.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > All they've said is that some data was stored in China. To be clear, "having data stored in China" is exactly equivalent to "had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data" - and that's not some "conspiracy", that's the stated law of China. Furthermore, the reason that's so important is because "having some data stored in China", if true, means that this quote from the article, "Konnech said none of the accusations were true. It said that all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government." would be a complete lie.
  - tarakat 4y ago
    Reading that statement by Konnech, I am struck how brazen the NYT was. Given two opposing statements, they simply decided which one debunks the other, and passed it off as fact. I wonder how many other instances of this there are in their other reporting, where reasonable accusations or suspicions are "debunked" simply by the accused stating "nu-uh".
    - tootie 4y ago
      The article says there's no evidence and at the time there wasn't. In fact, we still don't have any evidence available to the press. An arrest isn't proof of guilt. It's unclear if whoever started the rumor online had insider information that lead the arrest.

tootie 4y ago

> In the ensuing weeks, the conspiracy theory grew as it shot around the internet. To believers, the claims showed how China had gained near complete control of America’s elections. That part is still valid. And really we don't actually know what evidence the DA has or if the scope of the arrest warrant matches the theory. All they've said is that some data was stored in China.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> All they've said is that some data was stored in China. To be clear, "having data stored in China" is exactly equivalent to "had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data" - and that's not some "conspiracy", that's the stated law of China. Furthermore, the reason that's so important is because "having some data stored in China", if true, means that this quote from the article, "Konnech said none of the accusations were true. It said that all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government." would be a complete lie.
- tarakat 4y ago
  Reading that statement by Konnech, I am struck how brazen the NYT was. Given two opposing statements, they simply decided which one debunks the other, and passed it off as fact. I wonder how many other instances of this there are in their other reporting, where reasonable accusations or suspicions are "debunked" simply by the accused stating "nu-uh".
  - tootie 4y ago
    The article says there's no evidence and at the time there wasn't. In fact, we still don't have any evidence available to the press. An arrest isn't proof of guilt. It's unclear if whoever started the rumor online had insider information that lead the arrest.