2 ms·

With the present level of trust in the U.S. government, especially with respect to "cyber" behaviors, it seems ill-advised to publicly announce an intention to

by mokus 12y ago

With the present level of trust in the U.S. government, especially with respect to "cyber" behaviors, it seems ill-advised to publicly announce an intention to retaliate based on "trust us, we have proof it's them but we won't tell you what it is". It's right up there with "we have proof Iraq's got WMD's but we wont tell you what it is". Whether it's true or not, the point is they don't have the brownie points right now to be able to say that and be believed.

EpicEng 12y ago
Agreed, but I'm not sure they have much of a choice. Let's assume that the Fed is telling the truth and that they do in fact have hard evidence. As they have not presented this evidence, we have to conclude that it is classified. So, they cannot present the raw intel, but they also cannot step back and do nothing as this is a hot, national issue which is now about more than a security breach at a movie company. So, they come forward with the accusation and assure the public that a "proportional and appropriate" response will be dealt. Of course, this scenario paints the best possible picture of the Fed. It may or may not be the case. However, short of evidence which in no way compromises a classified source, it would be their only option. I just don't see the motive behind framing NK for this. Given, I/we don't typically have a clue about what actually goes on at this level of international relations, but there is no obvious motive at present time.
- mokus 12y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I don't think I really have any significant difference of opinion on the matter as a whole either. I'm just pointing out what seems to be an unfortunate hole they've dug for themselves by undermining their own trustworthiness - or perhaps a hole some agencies have dug and others are now falling into. And to be clear, I don't think they've sunk so low that "the FBI is framing NK" is anything but a garden variety conspiracy theory at this point, but "the FBI is rushing a very complex analysis under heavy political pressure" is plausible to me, as is "the FBI has strong evidence that they are not willing to show us". Ultimately, assuming they do have classified evidence, there's also a cost-benefit consideration to be made - it doesn't have to be a given that they can't release it. I don't think this describes the present situation, but depending on the scale of the response a situation calls for, compromising one or two classified methods or sources in order to get public support for the appropriate action may be the lesser of two evils.

by mokus 12y ago

EpicEng 12y ago

Agreed, but I'm not sure they have much of a choice. Let's assume that the Fed is telling the truth and that they do in fact have hard evidence. As they have not presented this evidence, we have to conclude that it is classified. So, they cannot present the raw intel, but they also cannot step back and do nothing as this is a hot, national issue which is now about more than a security breach at a movie company. So, they come forward with the accusation and assure the public that a "proportional and appropriate" response will be dealt. Of course, this scenario paints the best possible picture of the Fed. It may or may not be the case. However, short of evidence which in no way compromises a classified source, it would be their only option. I just don't see the motive behind framing NK for this. Given, I/we don't typically have a clue about what actually goes on at this level of international relations, but there is no obvious motive at present time.

mokus 12y ago
I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I don't think I really have any significant difference of opinion on the matter as a whole either. I'm just pointing out what seems to be an unfortunate hole they've dug for themselves by undermining their own trustworthiness - or perhaps a hole some agencies have dug and others are now falling into. And to be clear, I don't think they've sunk so low that "the FBI is framing NK" is anything but a garden variety conspiracy theory at this point, but "the FBI is rushing a very complex analysis under heavy political pressure" is plausible to me, as is "the FBI has strong evidence that they are not willing to show us". Ultimately, assuming they do have classified evidence, there's also a cost-benefit consideration to be made - it doesn't have to be a given that they can't release it. I don't think this describes the present situation, but depending on the scale of the response a situation calls for, compromising one or two classified methods or sources in order to get public support for the appropriate action may be the lesser of two evils.