5 ms·
> it allowed Russians to plant deep roots in many big orgs around the world and it might take years to uproot them all Did it? You know it was the Russians?
by verisimi 3y ago
> it allowed Russians to plant deep roots in many big orgs around the world and it might take years to uproot them all
Did it? You know it was the Russians?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoYes https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/oversight-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation-061021 https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/oversight-of-the-federal-... > We have seen the far-reaching disruptive impact a serious supply-chain compromise can have through the SolarWinds intrusions, conducted by the Russian SVR.
- verisimi 3y agoRight. But you do realise, if there is political capital or some other advantage to be gained by this perception, that the fbi or some other agency, would potentially undertake an operation that would allow the impression to be given that it was Russia that did it? Do you remember when North Korea hacked Sony films?
- jacquesm 3y agoOf course, but there is this thing called Occam's Razor and it applies just fine here, the evidence for Russia doing this is far more convincing than that the FBI (not really the agency that I would task with trying to hack the EU energy supply) did it. That's preposterous at best and lunatic territory at worst. Is your account name a wordplay on 'Pravda'?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoI see the same kind of smug nihilism as the parent comment all over this site. They imply that the FBI is lying (which is possible) without providing a shred of evidence.
- jacquesm 3y agoGiven the brief of the FBI it is beyond incredible.
- verisimi 3y agoBut it's fine to simply believe these agencies are not lying without evidence, is that it?
- jacquesm 3y agoLogic failure. You should probably check up on what the brief of the FBI is before continuing to post in this thread. Hint: it's the very first word of the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
- verisimi 3y agoIt's a logic failure? How? Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them? You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?
- jacquesm 3y agoHaving room enough in your worldview for an FBI that goes so far over their brief that they could start a war is well outside my comfort zone. Note that what you are describing goes directly against anything the FBI stands for and with a flourish you equate that 0.0000001% possibility with the 98% possibility (based on the evidence available) that this is Russia acting to sow dissent in the EU. Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so). Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
- jacquesm 3y agoAbsolutely. Plenty of firms have been targeted for plants. And not just Russian ones.
- EMCymatics 3y agoWhy does it have to be only one nation state? Couldn't it be multiple pooling resources?