Russian hackers accidentally post two different versions of same stolen docs.

[Machismo]

I'm not sure if your links or broken, or if you're making a "404 evidence not found" joke.

They did work, I shall fix it.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-...ssia-dnc-hack/

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/al...d-the-dnc-hack

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bea...nal-committee/

[caervek]

They did work, I shall fix it.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-...ssia-dnc-hack/

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/al...d-the-dnc-hack

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bea...nal-committee/

Yeah, like I said there's zero evidence just scary reporters opinions and Chinese whispers.

The first one says:

An anonymous source alleges that the Russian government is behind the breach. The New York Times reports that another anonymous source shares that opinion. According to a number of anonymous sources, they’re probably right.

The second two are basically the same but using more convincing language because they are less important so have less to use by overstating/hyping a story.

This is the problem with sites citing each others anonymous sources as a sources and expecting it to carry weight because of the name of the cited site. You end up with an article with loads of worthless sources and a story which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion piece.

[Deleted]

When hackers do "mistakes" it's rarely unplanned.

[Machismo]

Yeah, like I said there's zero evidence just scary reporters opinions and Chinese whispers.

The first one says:

The second two are basically the same but using more convincing language because they are less important so have less to use by overstating/hyping a story.

This is the problem with sites citing each others anonymous sources as a sources and expecting it to carry weight because of the name of the cited site. You end up with an article with loads of worthless sources and a story which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion piece.

It was comments from the people who actually did the investigating. They found the code, and traced it. You may not think that it's evidence, but they backed up what they said.

Your willful ignorance is not my problem.

[Ulmita]

But there is evidence of Russian involvement, it has been provided in the thread.

There are NO evidence what so ever, there are only speculations.

If you have evidence, feel free to provide.

[Machismo]

There are NO evidence what so ever, there are only speculations.

If you have evidence, feel free to provide.

I did provide it, you ignored it. End. Of. Story.

[Lumineus]

You copypasta'd your links from somewhere that abbreviates them with ellipses; none of them work.

[Ulmita]

I did provide it, you ignored it. End. Of. Story.

The links you provided say: There are "speculations"

Speculation ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Did i miss something else?

[Machismo]

The links you provided say: There are "speculations"

Speculation ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Did i miss something else?

The links provide the results of the investigation... from the actual people who did it. Yes, you are missing something.

[Ulmita]

The links provide the results of the investigation... from the actual people who did it. Yes, you are missing something.

Nah the links you provided said "it is thought to have ties". it is speculated, it is believed etc. Aka nothing.

And from what i see they have took down the articles too aka the three links you provided aint working any more.

[Ottius]

The links provide the results of the investigation... from the actual people who did it. Yes, you are missing something.

There are no evidences provided in said "investigation". Just as in the anti-Putin film by BBC: only interviews of some criminals who fled the country who say that they saw something or heard something or someone else said to them. Just like all of accusation USA made against Russia for the past 2 years when asked to provide evidence, the State Dept spokesperson always says: "based on publications in social media". Give me a break.

I understand you guys are being paid to make such posts on popular forums, so I'm not even trying to change your mind on the subject. I just hope other people will stop believing everything a random warmongering guy writes on the internet.

[Machismo]

Nah the links you provided said "it is thought to have ties". it is speculated, it is believed etc. Aka nothing.

And from what i see they have took down the articles too aka the three links you provided aint working any more.

I jst pasted them improperly. The links still work just fine. They did the investigation, they found the evidence, and they based their conclusions on that evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no evidences provided in said "investigation". Just as in the anti-Putin film by BBC: only interviews of some criminals who fled the country who say that they saw something or heard something or someone else said to them. Just like all of accusation USA made against Russia for the past 2 years when asked to provide evidence, the State Dept spokesperson always says: "based on publications in social media". Give me a break.

Firsthand accounts are evidence. Calling someone a criminal doesn't mean they cannot provide evidence. It's like the doping scandal all over again.

[zmp]

I jst pasted them improperly. The links still work just fine. They did the investigation, they found the evidence, and they based their conclusions on that evidence.

Strange, all i see is this. Don't get me wrong, i'd like to see the opinions.. i mean.. speculatations.. ehh evidence as well.

[May90]

He-he, good old double standards... American computer security experts report that they have good reasons to believe that these attacks were committed by Russian hackers - "There is no proof, muh!". Some rando from RT says something bad about the US, or something good about Russia - "I told you!!!"

[Machismo]

Strange, all i see is this. Don't get me wrong, i'd like to see the opinions.. i mean.. speculatations.. ehh evidence as well.

I re-pasted the links, the new ones work.

[caervek]

It was comments from the people who actually did the investigating.

No it was alleged comments from anonymous sources.

You may not think that it's evidence

I don't because it's not evidence, it's barely opinion. I.E if I posted on twitter that Justin Beiber was the king of the lizard men that would not be evidence.

There are NO evidence what so ever, there are only speculations.

If you have evidence, feel free to provide.

Indeed.

He-he, good old double standards... American computer security experts report that they have good reasons to believe that these attacks were committed by Russian hackers

If they said that they why hasn't anyone linked to the statement? All we have had is links to news sites claiming anonymous sources and/or citing each other as sources.

[Barnabas]

Nice attempt to respin the leaked documents by reporters. Kinda who cares at this point because the damage has been done.

[waitwutt]

[QUOTE=Kaleredar;42062240]
What network are we talking about again? Because that sounds like Fox right there.
QUOTE]
msnbc is worse and you know it

[Machismo]

No it was alleged comments from anonymous sources.




I don't because it's not evidence, it's barely opinion. I.E if I posted on twitter that Justin Beiber was the king of the lizard men that would not be evidence.




Indeed.




If they said that they why hasn't anyone linked to the statement? All we have had is links to news sites claiming anonymous sources and/or citing each other as sources.

It was also an analysis of the actual code used, as well as the methodology... or did you not notice that part?

[waitwutt]

My laugh has awakened my neighbors, I'm afraid... Damn you!

are you extreme leftist? you seem to laugh at things you don't know how to respond to.