You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Catching a hacker... how much does media play upon public ignorance?

in #news8 years ago

I have similar knowledge to yours but the point I make still stands. I recognize the limits to my knowledge and am aware of my own ignorance. I do not have access to the classified information necessary to form an opinion on what happened. It is for lack of a better phrase a case of he said she said.

Maybe if politicians weren't so willing to lie to us it would be easier but the fact is that there could be political motivations behind some of what they say in the media. So we have different hypotheses about what could have happened and you can come up with evidence to support them. My current opinion is that it is likely the hackers were Russian but it's unknown whether or not they were state sponsored or had anything to do with the Russian government.

When I see news articles which say Putin ordered it or which talk about sources with access to classified information leaking to the press it is very hard for me to know what is or isn't true under those circumstances. My own logic would conclude that it is very likely that hackers made a mistake and the IP address or other information such as the tools used could link them to Russia. It doesn't from that information alone mean anything else.

Your hypothesis makes sense. So does the hypothesis of the other side who claim the Russian government authorized it. But unless I personally have access to the classified information or they release a declassified document so I can see with my own eyes there is no basis for me to form a strong opinion. My official stance is I do not form strong opinions with incomplete information.

Sort:  

I can respect that. I more or less agree with you. My doubts mainly form from a few things.

  • The Leaks (not necessarily hacks at all)happened when Bernie and was still in the race to Wikileaks. So months before Trump won.
  • Hillary and others were busy saying the elections could not be rigged, and that people were nuts for suggesting it UNTIL SHE LOST.
  • They did not go for the HACKING angle first, that was like they third push to justify the loss.
  • Wikileaks state 4 months ago (almost 5 now) that they did not get the leak from Russia or a State. That does not mean the leaker that provided them the information did not.
  • After they kept aiming the scapegoat gun at anything they could, and they started finally saying the things they were previously saying were ludicrous (as long as their opponent was saying them). My bullshit radar was already on high alert. This is not as a Trump supporter, as I supported neither Trump or Hillary and fully expected her to win.
  • Without actual sharing of the information that could PROVE the hacking to tech people like you/I that actually deal with this information, classified does not cut it. If it is classified and can't be shared then they shouldn't be feeding news stories about it to the news. It is firing people into activity and decisions on what could very possibly be totally false information. IF they need to keep it classified then they need to keep they mouth shut as they typically would do with classified information, and investigate it, capture people, etc.
  • If you've studied propaganda, World War 2, and any time since then this seems like classic propaganda techniques. It is working on a lot of people. Others it is not working at all, and that may not be because they know tech like we do, but simply because they tend to not believe the government on anything. I can't say.

So is it possible the Russians hacked the DNC server... Sure. I ask you how can the FBI know this with proof though when they have not been given access to the DNC server?