They are facts. Just not all the facts. And to a person reporting them (without the full picture) they might appear complete.
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
This is the problem we have. You either trust that CIA has some info they can't reveal (see Russia crackdown for reasons)...
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
... or you basically admit that we cannot defend ourselves from foreign cyber threats. Which is scary as hell.
3 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
Maybe the answer is #2, and maybe it's the IC's fault for being untrustworthy. Doesn't make me feel more secure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
I don't think those are close to the only two choices. CIA does have stuff they can't tell, for good reason. But, did they?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
It seems clear they had stuff. It's not clear when they had all the details.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
Having a source tell you "there's an operation going on" doesn't mean you get blow-by-blows of every hack as it happens.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
It seems clear that they sought and gained some human intelligence confirmation at some point. Maybe after.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
That is one confirmation bias possibility. Note crackdown happened before CIA started leaking wildly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Much later, yes. CIA's wild leaks followed closely on disappearance of several people > month after first arrest.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.