Not only is this hyperbole ("most humiliating in ages"? hardly!), but it gets the circumstances of what got provided wrong (WikiLeaks didn't publish these files).https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/939514422422319106 …
-
Why was that attribution curious? G2 dropped the files and WL asked me to put them into a torrent, which they then tweeted.
-
-
One reason I'm so interested is bc the file is at the core of the skeptics' rebuttals but they've never thought through how it got posted or why it wasn't posted to the WP site.
-
"G2" used a variety of drop sites and a couple of fronts for variety. The WP site had previously had stuff removed because of content that was dropped there.
-
Yes. I'm aware of that. But there's no evidence that happened with this particular file/link.
-
It didn't, but it still provides a reason: a larger dump would be vulnerable at the WP site and could endanger the rest of the content, plus the publicity of dropping it there and the mystery surrounding it. Plus IIRC the content and provenance of it was questionable. /1
-
So putting it on the WP site would have carried several risks with it, including tainting the rest of the contents there (some of which was modified). 2/2
-
Is this your speculation or was that explained to you, if you're willing to say?
-
The conclusion? Informed speculation.
-
Thanks. Better informed speculation than anyone else, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It was dropped during G2's "appearance" at The Future of Cyber Security Europe 2016.
-
Yes, I know. BUt he still didn't post it later.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
G2 did employ a bit of theater with that release -- posting the key in London on 9/13:https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/09/13/hacker-guccifer-2-0-dnc-hacker-london-slags-tech-companies/#5784d55b6549 …
- 1 more reply
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.