No. Within days it was clear the metadata was edited.
-
That's a bit different, wouldn't you argue? I've edited or deleted metadata plenty of times to protect my sources.
Not when several kinds of metadata was edited in a RU name, no. It was clear at the time it was deliberate. And it fed the press the same.
-
-
Ok, well, my point with this tweet is that I was surprised this story sounds surprised at minor edits to content like this all of a sudden
-
I wasn't trying to suggest it didn't happen or that there weren't loads of digital signs it pointed to Russia
-
I took your original point to say "It took 'this' long to find something that was edited?" when in fact it took less than hours.
-
Alright, cool. So we *don't* disagree. I was challenging the inflated headline as if this is a bombshell, given past reporting.
-
Headline was, "Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails" Not inflated.
-
Tweet was, "Boom. AP reports...Russia-linked hacker Guccifer 2.0 edited leaked documents.' Inflated & unaware (as others note) it didn't.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Yes. What would be helpful at this point is to point out 4 known deceptions to doc: 1) FelixD metadata 2) RU metadata 3) Podesta not DNC
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.