3 ms·

Here's something you might want to consider. Bruce Schneier has said that North Korea probably isn't behind the hack (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/201

Here's something you might want to consider. Bruce Schneier has said that North Korea probably isn't behind the hack (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/comments_on_the.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/comments_on_t...), but follow his link. He thought North Korea wasn't behind it, because the FBI said so. His latest post simply points out that the FBI has said North Korea is responsible, without elaboration or contradiction. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/lessons_from_th_4.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/lessons_from_... So while it does not appear that Schneier has reviewed any evidence (what evidence could he review?) and reached his own conclusion, he seems perfectly content to credit the FBI's conclusions.

sroerick 12y ago
While not the strongest argument (The absence of an argument is not an argument), I do appreciate you bringing up this nuance which I think is a valid one. The FBI's assumption is absolutely newsworthy, and I'm glad Schneier reported it, even though he abdicated any judgement either way. You're correct in saying that he does not elaborate or contridict the FBI statement, but it should also be noted that neither does he endorse it. So I am moving Schneier from the "Having doubts" column over to the "ambivalent" column in my mental list. Thanks for taking the time to provide more information.
sroerick 12y ago
Schneier is going back in the "Skeptic" category. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/did_north_korea.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/did_north_kor...