Reply to Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.  [/quote]

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear. [/quote]

I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97.  I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms.  It's clearly the work of russian government hackers.  There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says.  And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.[/quote]

Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece. [/quote]

Uh, he is neither technical nor a technical writer.  He is a political and financial journalist who spent some time in Russia.

he would be more qualified to read a CT scan than to [b]interpret the technical evidence of russian hacking[b].

[/quote]

Either you didn't read his piece or you didn't understand it. Because it's not primarily about "interpreting technical evidence."[/quote]

He wrote "But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump."

I have seen publicly available evidence that is extremely compelling to refute point (a).  i keep sharing it here, but no one understands what they are reading so it gets ignored.  [/quote]

You have seen it in the joint FBI-Homeland Security report? Because that's what Taibbi is talking about. If this smoking gun evidence you claim to have isn't in there, then someone screwed up because that would have been a good place to put it.

Also, the statement you quote is obviously not an attempt to "interpret technical evidence." It's merely summarizing what's in the report. That takes reading comprehension skills on Taibbi's part, not technical expertise. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics