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'm sure the info hasn't been released because it is comprised of

Really. I'm not sure of anything.

It's not like I have any doubts these agencies and the government has lied before.

I can't say the same for Wikileaks. That is where it started when they were clear about their sources not being Russia or a State 4 months ago long before this hacking scapegoat stuff started. Yes, that is partially why I am saying that. I've watched them SAY the election failed because of X. People didn't buy it. Then the election failed because of Y. The people didn't buy it and no proof to support it. And we could pretend hacking is Z.

This seems to have some sticking power. The other topics tended to be things the average citizen can relate to. Hacking is a good topic to pick because most citizens (and most JUDGES in court) are pretty ignorant of how it works.

If we are talking HACKING then that is a technical act. Therefore, if that piece is disproved then why wouldn't it be a SMEAR CAMPAIGN?

We're not exactly talking about baking a cake, getting dressed, brushing our teeth, and doing exercise.

Hacking to most people is only what they see on TV or in Movies. This is not even close to real, partially because the REAL stuff would make for incredibly boring TV and Movies.

So now you have an AUTHORITY who has already made numerous claims that were false, suddenly saying the Russian Hacked the election...

First... HACKING is technical. So that leaves the server for the DNC which the FBI was not given access to, OR the voting machines themselves.

Yet they have stated the voting machines are not compromised.

Leaking the TRUTH is not hacking.

Telling a story is not HACKING.

Sort:  

I can't say the same for Wikileaks. That is where it started when they were clear about their sources not being Russia or a State 4 months ago long before this hacking scapegoat stuff started.

Russia was suspected immediately, long before the person trying to affect the election tried to deflect the accusation by claiming it wasn't Russia.

If we are talking HACKING then that is a technical act. Therefore, if that piece is disproved then why wouldn't it be a SMEAR CAMPAIGN?

Except you didn't disprove it, you claimed it was impossible for that to be enough evidence by itself.

Meanwhile the intelligence community is analyzing intercepted communications: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=3&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Yet they have stated the voting machines are not compromised.

Complete and utter non-sequitor. Voting machines are far more secure than DNC servers.

Leaking the TRUTH is not hacking.

Telling a story is not HACKING.

And you're just confusing the issue even more. The "truth" that was leaked was obtained by hacking. Moreover the "truth" was told only about one side, and then blown way out of proportion with people taking things out of context or making wild logical leaps about the contents. Such as Podesta receiving an email by a UFO enthusiast leading people to believe Hillary was talking to aliens.

Loading...